Ophelia was a young girl who unfortunately passed long before her time was due. It is not easy to deal with the loss of family, especially an important member like a father. It is not surprising to see that Ophelia spiraled into a madness that ended with her death. It seems almost unreal that Ophelia died while in a such a serene state of mind.
A mad Hamlet, in my opinion, was the lead contributor to her demise. Not only did he treat her roughly after their breakup, he killed her father! He destroyed the mindset of a once innocent girl, and took from her her happiness. Contrary to popular belief, she died from drowning. She did not take her own life, for that would be a sin in our religion. Ophelia was no the type of girl who would resort to taking her own life. She would fight for every last breath she could muster.
However, the death may not have been completely unintentional. Yes, the fall was an accident and the weight of her water-logged clothes was probably too much to bear, but she did seem rampant in the moments before her death. Maybe her picking the flowers brought a sense of resolve and contentment? Maybe after she was underwater, she decided not to fight against fate any longer? Maybe she decided to let life take it's course and take her away from the sorrow she was experiencing? It is irrelevant as to what the truth behind the incident was, because now she is gone and all we can do is think of the good to honor her memories.
Ophelia was stricken by many unfortunate events. It is amazing that she stood tall as long as she did. Any normal person would have buckled under the sorrow long before she did. Having your ex-boyfriend go crazy and then kill your father is something unfathomable. All we can do now is pity her and hope that is in a better place. When Gertrude found her, she had a peaceful expression on her face while holding a bouquet of flowers. This would not be the representation of someone caught in an act of sin. This is the face of someone who has made amends in their life, and embraces the end with confidence. If only we all could go in such a manner as Ophelia...God bless her soul and may she rest in peace.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Hamlets Dilemma
Personally I feel as though Hamlets decision to not kill Claudius while he was praying was foolish. The sins Claudius committed would not be erased even if he asked for forgiveness. It's not even like he's willing to part with what he obtained for killing King Hamlet; the power, the fame, the queen. No attempt at repenting would be able to save him. Hamlet gave up a perfectly good opportunity to kill Claudius without raising suspicion that he was the culprit. Now if he were to make another attempt later in the play, he might be put in more danger.
Although the decision seemed irrational to me, in Hamlets mind it was well thought out. During that time period, religion is more important than anything else. Perhaps the mindset of the time was that repenting and asking for forgiveness wiped your slate clean, regardless of the crime committed. This murder is mainly for Hamlets revenge for his father. I can see why he would want to catch Claudius in a sinful act. Hamlet would feel much more satisfied if he felt like he gave Claudius no chance at getting on even terms again.
For some reason, this scene made me sympathize with Claudius a little. I feel like he was truly remorseful for what he did the his brother. If he had the chance to change things to how they before, he would do it. This shows that Claudius isn't a tyrannical man who was only in it for the power and lust. Hamlet may also be more calm and collected than i originally thought. After having his goal so close in sight, Hamlet was able to see a potential fault in the murder and see how he could fix it. Hamlet shows a level of self-control that not many people have.
Although the decision seemed irrational to me, in Hamlets mind it was well thought out. During that time period, religion is more important than anything else. Perhaps the mindset of the time was that repenting and asking for forgiveness wiped your slate clean, regardless of the crime committed. This murder is mainly for Hamlets revenge for his father. I can see why he would want to catch Claudius in a sinful act. Hamlet would feel much more satisfied if he felt like he gave Claudius no chance at getting on even terms again.
For some reason, this scene made me sympathize with Claudius a little. I feel like he was truly remorseful for what he did the his brother. If he had the chance to change things to how they before, he would do it. This shows that Claudius isn't a tyrannical man who was only in it for the power and lust. Hamlet may also be more calm and collected than i originally thought. After having his goal so close in sight, Hamlet was able to see a potential fault in the murder and see how he could fix it. Hamlet shows a level of self-control that not many people have.
Monday, May 4, 2015
To Be Or Not To Be
In the Olivier version of the scene, it takes place on a cliff with torrents of water crashing against it below. It helps with the setting because it adds to dilemma that Hamlet is going through. Jumping off the cliff would've lead to his death, something that Hamlet went on about for his entire soliloquy. The absence of music throughout the scene helps keep the viewers attention on Hamlet. It shows that the words give enough substance to the scene to the point where music is not needed to compliment it. You can see the hesitation Hamlet makes as he takes out the dagger and threatens to stab himself. Even his resignation when he realizes that he doesn't have the willpower to take his own life and walks off the into the fog.
As for the Zeffrelli version, although the lighting is to be expected since its a more updated version of the play, i think the gradual descent into darkness is a translation of how hamlet was feeling at the time. As he went down the stairs, the light slowly died out, replaced by splotches of light on the bodies of his relatives. Besides the fact that his soliloquy is taking place in a catacomb, it's interesting that Hamlet's contemplating life and death in front of the remains of his ancestors. His soft spoken voice adds to the sadness and misery that Hamlet would've been feeling. As in the previous version, after he resolute's not to take his own life, Hamlet goes back up the stairs, "into the light"
In Branaugh's version of Hamlet, I interpreted the soliloquy interestingly. The speech is about how hard it is to endure life but also how it's hard to take that life away. I feel as though when Hamlet was walking towards the mirror, he was trying to look inside himself to see that little piece that was preventing him from taking his own life. As we all do when we look in a mirror, Branaugh was examining his character, seeing the flaws in himself and even pulling out a knife.
In the more modern remake of the play, Almeryda starts it off with Hamlet walking up and down the aisles of a Blockbuster. Although at first glance there isn't much to interperet about the play, more can be seen upon further inspection. Hamlet walks through the action aisle multiple times, which is ironic because his whole speech is about the inability of humans to take action and end their own lives. He's also dressed in clothing that would considered "emo" for this day and age. I suppose his clothing would represent the emotions felt during an existential crisis like this.
As for why there are so many versions of the play? I think thats because the text itself leaves much to be wondered about the emotion being displayed. Different directors may have different takes on how the scene should be played out. Despite these scenes coming from the same sections of text, they are each unique with their own styles of lighting and acting. I think the Zeffrelli version did the best job at rein-acting the soliloquy. The tone of Hamlet's voice makes the speech somber and the setting of it really helps you feel the despair that Hamelt feels.
As for the Zeffrelli version, although the lighting is to be expected since its a more updated version of the play, i think the gradual descent into darkness is a translation of how hamlet was feeling at the time. As he went down the stairs, the light slowly died out, replaced by splotches of light on the bodies of his relatives. Besides the fact that his soliloquy is taking place in a catacomb, it's interesting that Hamlet's contemplating life and death in front of the remains of his ancestors. His soft spoken voice adds to the sadness and misery that Hamlet would've been feeling. As in the previous version, after he resolute's not to take his own life, Hamlet goes back up the stairs, "into the light"
In Branaugh's version of Hamlet, I interpreted the soliloquy interestingly. The speech is about how hard it is to endure life but also how it's hard to take that life away. I feel as though when Hamlet was walking towards the mirror, he was trying to look inside himself to see that little piece that was preventing him from taking his own life. As we all do when we look in a mirror, Branaugh was examining his character, seeing the flaws in himself and even pulling out a knife.
In the more modern remake of the play, Almeryda starts it off with Hamlet walking up and down the aisles of a Blockbuster. Although at first glance there isn't much to interperet about the play, more can be seen upon further inspection. Hamlet walks through the action aisle multiple times, which is ironic because his whole speech is about the inability of humans to take action and end their own lives. He's also dressed in clothing that would considered "emo" for this day and age. I suppose his clothing would represent the emotions felt during an existential crisis like this.
As for why there are so many versions of the play? I think thats because the text itself leaves much to be wondered about the emotion being displayed. Different directors may have different takes on how the scene should be played out. Despite these scenes coming from the same sections of text, they are each unique with their own styles of lighting and acting. I think the Zeffrelli version did the best job at rein-acting the soliloquy. The tone of Hamlet's voice makes the speech somber and the setting of it really helps you feel the despair that Hamelt feels.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Period4-Ghost Scene
In the first version of the film, there was eerie music in the beginning of the scene. This sort of sets the atmosphere as we go into the conversation between Hamlet and the ghost of his father. Gibson almost looked scared when he first saw the ghost. Even though its a movie, Gibson's reaction is an accurate representation of how most people would act if they saw a loved one. The ghost appeared to be almost completely obscured by darkness. It compliments the mysteriousness and ominousness of the scene as Hamlets father explains how he really died. There was almost no lighting in the scene. Considering the subject of conversation is about murder and spite, it makes sense that Zeffirelli would have it take place in a dark environment.
As for the second version of the film, Branagh makes much more of an effort to have the watcher create their own picture on the matter at hand. From the rapid cuts to images depicting destruction, to the "raspiness" in the voice of Hamlets father, more effort is made to tell the story. Its also interesting how in Zeffirelli's version, hamlet is shown in full body while his father is obscured, whereas in Branagh's version, the father's body is shown more while Hamlet's body seems to be covered in darkness. One other difference is that after the ghost of Hamlet's father disappears, Gibson goes into a rage, clashing his sword against the stone when swearing to take vengeance for his father, while Branagh had a whole speech with inspirational music in the background. Its just weird to see two interpretations of the same scene.
In the third version of the play, Almereyda uses more "modern" methods to portray the ghost scene. The ghost was given much more human attributes, such as carrying a coat or making physical contact with Hawke. Despite the setting of the play, there are still hidden messages that relate to the story. Hamlet's father is repeatedly seen dabbing his ear with a handkerchief, the same ear where the poison was administered by Claudius. Also, a television can be seen in the background depicting scences of destruction and mayhem, maybe symbolizing events that will happen later in the play?
As for the second version of the film, Branagh makes much more of an effort to have the watcher create their own picture on the matter at hand. From the rapid cuts to images depicting destruction, to the "raspiness" in the voice of Hamlets father, more effort is made to tell the story. Its also interesting how in Zeffirelli's version, hamlet is shown in full body while his father is obscured, whereas in Branagh's version, the father's body is shown more while Hamlet's body seems to be covered in darkness. One other difference is that after the ghost of Hamlet's father disappears, Gibson goes into a rage, clashing his sword against the stone when swearing to take vengeance for his father, while Branagh had a whole speech with inspirational music in the background. Its just weird to see two interpretations of the same scene.
In the third version of the play, Almereyda uses more "modern" methods to portray the ghost scene. The ghost was given much more human attributes, such as carrying a coat or making physical contact with Hawke. Despite the setting of the play, there are still hidden messages that relate to the story. Hamlet's father is repeatedly seen dabbing his ear with a handkerchief, the same ear where the poison was administered by Claudius. Also, a television can be seen in the background depicting scences of destruction and mayhem, maybe symbolizing events that will happen later in the play?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)