A Beautiful Villain

After watching Branagh’s Discovering Hamlet I felt intrigued at the analysis that was conducted towards Claudius. The actor that was chosen to represent him describes him a s the “antagonist”, which is the obvious, and common interpretation. He then goes on o mention that Hamlet describes Claudius as a fat, and despicable man. Interpretation varies between each production and this one decided that Claudius was a “charming, sexy, easy man”. It proves that Hamlets real beauty lies in the different interpretations. The play gave the world a great starting point from whereto build on. All of these interpretations are very interesting, and most importantly, very different.

Originality: Typical

Having been educated since I was very young, never have a heard such a believable source criticize Hamlet. It is ironic to see how authors criticize each other, when they know how hard it is to write. When I look closely I noticed that the criticism is not towards the author but towards the play: “So far from being Shakespeare's masterpiece, the play is most certainly an artistic failure. In several ways the play is puzzling, and disquieting as is none of the others.” Everybody has the right to express his or her opinion but it is curious to see how nothing about Hamlet seems appealing to T.S. Elliot.

He also mentions the Ur-Hamlet. It is impossible to be completely original and you can always find a predecessor to a work of art. If it is not a previous invention it is something that inspired the author. What becomes important is not being original but interesting. You can have a typical story that motivates the reader. He is intrigued and enjoys the reading. What happened to me with Hamlet is association. If I am able to associate with the characters I will look forward to their reactions and interpretations. If you are able to place yourself in Hamlets shoes and think about what you would do in his situation, the play will become enjoyable, and at the least, bearable. I find it obvious that “We should have to understand things which Shakespeare did not understand himself.” The time periods are different and we have perspective.

A Kings Dream

Romping:
Antithesis:
Concomitant:
Scanty:
Predilection:

A World of Possibilities

When I read about the assignment this week I immediately thought of “To be, or not to be, that is the question” as the most intellectually admired piece in Hamlet. Not only have I heard this famous saying since I was very young but I have made reference to it in several occasions. These moments range from a silly mocking of the phrase to a feeling of knowledge. Shakespeare has always been considered hard to read and I believe a close reading of this part will make a lot of doubts clear.

In order for me to understand what Hamlet means in this soliloquy I have to look beyond the play. It is necessary to look at the context in order to understand the meaning but what I am getting at is about the generalization that was made. It is almost impossible for a phrase to become so famous if it had no relevance outside the play. Hamlets tone is one of sadness. He does not appear angry but he is lost. Despair has driven him to question existence and whether or not he should act or not. If you know what he is referring to when saying, “to be” then the rest is a little easier. Shakespeare has made it possible for a great number of people to draw conclusions on his question. The greatest thing about the sentence is the mystery. It makes me question things that might seem obvious to someone else.

Explicit Treason

After watching the King’s reaction to the play Hamlet has a discussion with Guildenstern in act 3 scene 2. He expresses a feeling of treason publicly that was not seen before.

“Why, look you know, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?” (Act 3, Scene 2)

The comparison between hamlet and a pipe leads the audience to believe and understand what hamlet is going through. His supposed friends are trying to play him, and it is obvious. What separates this discussion with the others in the play is the anger in Hamlets voice. He can’t understand why his friends would treat him in such a way made treason obvious. The rage is somewhat controlled when speaking about the pipe but he explodes when asking, “do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?” It is as if he was insulted in the face. It is hard to determine what angered him more, the fact that he was betrayed, or the lack of decency his comrades use when talking to him.

The Beginning Of The End

Act 3 scene 4 is of vital importance to the play. Not only are the main characters intentions revealed but also, the death of Polonius marks the beginning of the end. Hamlet is enraged about the treason he believes deserves revenge and the ghost is constantly reminding him that something must be done. This leads me to believe that he is merely a figment of his imagination. Hamlets mother, is talking to Polonius when hamlet enters the room. In a very quick act of violence hamlet kills Polonius who exclaims, “O, I am slain” (Act 3, scene 4). The need to inform the audience of his own death intrigued me. Is it not obvious that Hamlet has killed him? These small pieces of text, which might not seem necessary, are what give the play a sense of action and violence.

Doing Good Time

It is very interesting to see how Shakespeare is helpful to everyone. Murder inmates are not usually considered people with a high level of education. One could assume that they do not care for Hamlet or any other type of old play. What the directors of the prison are trying to do is make the prisoners reflect on their actions and sort of correct themselves. It is part of the discussion of whether jails should be correctional institutes or only places where you hold the people that have done harm to others. By acting out Hamlet they are, hopefully, led to reflection, forgetting the differences between each other. The inmates will have a chance to forget about their troublesome past and play as someone they can laugh at.

Interpretation

The two, very different, interpretations of Hamlet prove that the way you look at a certain situation determines its outcome. Both directors and the different sets of actors read Hamlet and felt as if the best way to represent it was theirs.

In the second image we can see how the director made hamlet appear as if he was in a future time period. His clothes are those that you would find while walking in the street. The background, however, is similar to what I imagine an old English castle looks like. The camera at the beginning proves that he is in the 21^st century.

The first image represents a much older Hamlet. Not only is the actor an older man but the clothes and background is that of old England. He appears calm and sad. The other interpretation is much more aggressive. Not only do the clothes change the time period but the furniture is very different. Colors are brighter and ceilings are higher. The interpretation suggests that Hamlet is ashamed and sad at what is going on.

Fire, Tapes, Regret

Samuel Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape is the story of a man who looks back at his life as if he can’t remember. There would be no point in retelling a story that the audience already knows. What the play does is show the viewer what the reaction of the character is to his own memories. The way one reacts towards the past can tell you a lot about your current situation. If the reaction is nostalgic you can deduce that things were better in the past, if it is anger someone might have hurt you, and so on. The tape torments Krapp, as if he denies the past. There is no real explanation of what Krapp’s life used to be and what it is now. The audience must reach a unique and different conclusion after watching the play. Each person is left on their own, and they must create a life for the character. What this does is capture the audience in a way that no other play can.

When the tape states, “Perhaps my best years are gone. When there was a chance of happiness. But I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now. No, I wouldn't want them back.” You can assume that the life Krapp has now is worst than the one he had before. Fire appears to be a recurring symbol in different forms of art. The Road uses the fire to describe the power of hope. Krapp uses the fire to describe rage. Because his life was better before and he now carries the fire you could assume that it is not something good. Krapp repeats that he does not want his previous years back, this could symbolize uncertainty. Because he is not sure about wanting his years back he has to repeat it, as if convincing himself.

Krapp: Retrospect

Samuel Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape is one of the most unique plays I have ever experienced. Not only is it very short but it appears to be a monologue. It is one’s reaction to your own recording. After the introductory scene with the banana I noticed that most of the play is filmed with close-up shots. Even though the tape is of a younger Krapp it appears to be another character. The reactions that the older version has to the newer one represent his feelings towards the other character or himself. I sometimes criticize my previous self, claiming to have improved. The reactions to the tape range from anger to laughter: “Hard to believe I was ever that young whelp. The voice! Jesus! And the aspirations! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.) And the resolutions! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.)” I cannot understand why Krapp laughs at what he said in the tape. There is a feeling as if, when he talks about “the voice”, he laughs at the voice he is hearing. In that case the tape could be considered another character and Krapp could have recorded it knowing he would criticize his previous self.