Hamlet on the Metro

Where one reads Hamlet has a large impact on how they absorb the text, and weigh its importance/relevance to the present day. Attempting to read Shakespeare on a train, I found myself lethargic to continue reading after only a few lines. To me, the play seemed irrelevant when I was in an environment of busy, anxious commuters whose focus was on modern woes [like the economy affecting their business]. I did some eavesdropping (hard not to on a train) to see if any conversations reflected the themes of the play – they didn’t. When I read the play alone in a peaceful environment however, I am able to absorb the text with great imagination – acting out the scenes in my head.

(Photo shopped by myself)

Hamlet Meets Dr. Phil

The Dr. Phil Show: Hamlet Edition [which had students act as though they were their assigned Hamlet characters on the Dr. Phil Show], was a very creative and effective exercise for analyzing the characters of the play – both for the participants and the audience. Since the exercise was unrehearsed, it required the participants (at least myself) to reflect back to the autobiographies [that addressed their character’s actions/motives], in order to quickly mold into character themselves; I was surprised at the immediacy of some of the responses to Dr. Phil’s questions. It was also interesting to see some of the interpretations of the characters, and how participants transformed into them (Aris did a good job). At some points during the exercise I actually started to believe some of the things that were said, as though I had recently experienced them. I think that one of the goals of this exercise was to connect the plot and motives to the present day – it really seemed like the sort of thing that would end up on Dr. Phil or Jerry Springer. By seeing a modern connection, I think it also helped students to overcome the language barrier (more so grammar/syntax) they may have encountered while reading the play itself. In addition, the exercise allowed students to ask the characters in person, anything they were uncertain of in the play, as though they were an actual audience on the set of Dr. Phil.

(Photo shopped by myself)

Gertrude Autobiography

For the Well-Being of Denmark

There is no uncertainty over the grief I feel for the death of my beloved husband – the cherished guardian of Denmark – great King Hamlet. I doubt that there exists on this earth, a soul resistant to the pain of losing a loved one, especially after four decades of devotion and interdependence. In the weeks following his death, I have wept more than I have in the entirety of my life. I do so however, in secrecy; each day I withdraw to the confines of my dark chamber, in an attempt to find peace within myself – if only for an hour. I must appear resilient on the exterior, as I do not want my actions to affect the fragile soul of my son. He appears to be in much greater pain than I, over his father’s passing. My recollection of the days of my husband’s courtship has grown stronger as a result of this mysterious tragedy; I suppose one searches their past to find answers for the unexplainable events they encounter in the present.

My father, being duke of the northern territory [which borders our enemies], and my mother, being the daughter of a wealthy nobleman and patron to the royal family, yielded me exclusive access to Elsinore. My parents were often called upon by the king to discuss issues of diplomacy and finance, and usually brought me along to interact with the king’s two sons. My first visit of this sort was at the age of fourteen – Hamlet was nineteen, and Claudius was sixteen. I admit without shame that I was initially drawn toward Claudius, who I found to be the more attractive of the two princes. Alas, I was oblivious to the fact that my parents were discussing more than just politics with the King. Two short years after my first visit to Elsinore, I married Hamlet as part of an arrangement intended to uphold the traditions of the kingdom. I was hurled into the public’s eye after an elaborate wedding ceremony, which drew a crowd numbered in the thousands, from all over Europe. Adapting to the publicity was no where near as daunting a task as having to confront my insecurities over the durability of my marriage. Nonetheless, I sought to become the most supportive wife I could be. In the early years of my marriage to Hamlet, I closely observed his habits in search of ways to appease him. He was always by his father’s side, offering his advice on primarily domestic issues. It became apparent to me that Hamlet was devoted to one cause: the well-being of his people. From that realization, my love for him emerged. He was ready when it inevitably came time for him to rule, and the noble people of Denmark embraced their new king and queen.

From what I have revealed thus far, it may have become apparent as to why I have remarried so soon after my husband’s death, and of all people, to his brother. As much as it pains me to be under my son’s contempt – which I highly suspect I am – a kingdom needs a king, and a son needs the love of a father. In Claudius, I see many favorable attributes that Hamlet possessed, and therefor he is a suitable role model for young Hamlet. Being so close in kin to King Hamlet as well, I am confident that the people’s morale will be restored as they renew their faith into the ever capable King Claudius. It would be dishonest of me to say that I have no personal needs that my new marriage attends to; I have longed for the experience of finding love on my own. Though I deeply bestowed my affection to King Hamlet, there exists within me, resentment toward my parents for arranging any aspect of my life. However, I am hesitant to move toward an intimate relationship with Claudius, for it would result in the attention I shed onto my son to be displaced. In doing so, I fear I would forever crush his spirit – I am not capable of living with such guilt. I hope for Ophelia to marry my son, so that she may look after him, and give him the love that I struggle to provide – the love that he deserves. She reminds me very much of me at her age. Long after Claudius and I are gone from this earth, hopefully reunited with our adorned King Hamlet, I want there to remain a stable Denmark whose people embrace their king and queen. When that day comes, my son will be ready to lead as earnestly as his father and uncle. Truly, the well-being of those around us is what matters most.

Animaniacs Language Satire

In analyzing Shakespeare, the biggest obstacle for me has always been the language. I guess many people can agree, or at least children and adolescence, since a satire on Shakespearean dialogue was included in an episode of Animaniacs - a cartoon show I watched as I kid. It’s funny how I never [consciously] picked up on the cleverness of the show, but looking back I can fully understand it.


(the Yorick speech)

Cat Head Theatre (most odd)

A video I find amusing, because it shows how far some people 'stretch' Hamlet/Shakespeare.

Mordernizing Hamlet

After watching clips from Hamlet (2000) in class, my attitude toward modernizing works of Shakespeare turned unfavorable (at least for the way this film adapted the play). The combination of original Shakespearean dialogue and modern visuals slammed together two distant eras, and I found my self distracted by the juxtaposition. However, it also got me to think about the film, to the point at which I rented it . . . turns out it was just a matter of getting used to absorbing somewhat clashing visual and audio information. In fact, I think I now have a better understanding of the text, because I have seen it applied to a plausible modern scenario (makes the case that Shakespeare’s themes/plots are still relevant). There were many creative adaptions in the film that I picked up on, but to name a few that really stuck out:

- Ophelia is an amateur photographer who takes many pictures of flowers, rather than actually carrying them (you can see her darkroom in a montage video below).
- Fortinbras has an army of lawyers to aid him in his corporate takeovers (funny), rather than an army to conquest land.
- Guns are the cause of Laertes and Hamlets death (shoot each other), rather than poison tipped swords; there are also photographers watching the fight, when in the play, Horatio was the only remaining witness (2nd video below).

Watching this movie has also brought to my attention the underlying mystery of Gertrude (the character I’m doing my analysis on): whether or not she was involved in on the murder of King Hamlet. This film’s interpretation seems to suggest not, as the director has hers drink the poison wine herself when she finds out Claudius’ intentions (2nd video below).

I See . . . Structure.

Having completed Hamlet, I have now read six of Shakespeare’s plays in their entirety: [Hamlet,] Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, King Lear, Titus Andronicus, and Othello. While the endings of these Shakespearean tragedies are by all means serious in nature, and intended to shock their audience, I could not help feeling a bit satirical as I read over the familiar, melancholy text of Shakespeare’s signature ‘murdering-poisoning-suicide-pacting’ closing act. By no means is this a bad thing. I can compare it to watching the Die Hard quadrilogy; for each sequel, you walk into the theater, find a place to sit, watch Bruce Willis beat up a few bad guys and maybe “kill” a helicopter or two, and then walk out thoroughly entertained (no disrespect to Shakespeare, who embeds much deeper meaning into his work than any of the Die Hard directors). Perhaps the audiences of the Elizabethan Era felt this way too, as they grew accustomed to Shakespeare’s writing style.
Just like modern cinema closely follows the mythic structure, so does Shakespeare follow the dramatic structure (which he impart has shaped). In the beginning there is information provided about the protagonist, his environment, and the basis of his conflict – Hamlet who resides at Elsinore castle in Denmark, is the son of the recently deceased King Hamlet, and is troubled by the sudden marriage between his uncle and mother. Then there is a rising action that further intensifies the conflict, ultimately leading to a climax – Romeo and Juliet discover that they are from feuding families, and thus marry in secrecy; Romeo is exiled from Verona, and remains unaware that Juliet has faked her death in hopes of reuniting with him. Finally, the climax falls into the conclusion, where the audience is left with the aftermath of a catastrophe to dwell on – Titus feeds to Tamora a pie which has her sons baked in it, kills her, is then himself killed by Saturninus, who is then killed by Lucius. As the only survivor, Lucius share’s his story to the public – a duel lesson in revenge for the audience of the play.
Whatever the reason may be, Shakespeare’s structure is successful in captivating audiences across many eras. But why is it that not all who attempt the dramatic structure succeed at it? Furthermore, why would one prefer one of Shakespeare’s plays over another (Titus Andronicus is my favorite), if they all share the same structure? What I have concluded, is that a proven plot structure cannot compensate for poor detail. In other words, a book/play needs to in some way (usually character development, or their environment) invoke one’s imagination and connect with their daily life. Shakespeare clearly possess the talent to do so; by assigning Hamlet a subconscious mind he not only make’s Hamlet three-dimensional (visible/imaginable), but also generates insight for readers/audience members who note similarities in their own philosophical pondering.

A few photos from an 11th grade project, where my group reenacts the [Shakespearean] ending of Titus Andronicus.

Ophelia in Art

Ophelia’s natural innocence, and compliance to her father and brother (male figures) have made her a popular symbolic subject for artists of the 19th century to portray. In Hamlet, she is often associated with flowers (sings about them when she becomes insane; a sign that her always innocence remains intact), and therefor not a single painting of her exists them. In general, artists have either focused on alluding to her psyche – such as in Henrietta Rae’s Ophelia (below), where the canvas is “split in half between light and dark [to symbolize the chasm in her mind]” – or portraying her as a victim – such as in Arthur Hugh’s Ophelia (below), where “spikes [around her head] stick out like a crown of thorns, [associating her to martyrdom].” I find it interesting that out of all the major characters in the play, Ophelia seems to be the one most commonly interpreted. Does this make her a weak or strong character?

Ophelia - by John Everett Millais (1829-1896)(most known)

Ophelia - by Arthur Hughes (1831-1915)

Ophelia - by Henrietta Rae (1859-1928)

sources:
http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/art_of_hamlet.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophelia_(album)

First Impression

Though this is my first time reading the story of Hamlet, I am no stranger to its plot. Shakespeare immediately makes it apparent that the afterlife (particularly questioning what one would experience) will be a central theme in the play, with the appearance of an apparition in the first scene. Later on in act one, the ghost’s identity is confirmed as that of the former king [and Hamlet’s father], as it claims Claudius (his brother) murdered him as a means of inheriting the throne. At this point I am reminded of a Disney film I watched as a kid -- The Lion King. I’m sure most are familiar with the story, but to recap: in beginning of The Lion King, Simba’s father (Mufasa, the current king), is murdered by his own brother (Simba’s uncle, Scar). Mufasa’s death raises many questions for Simba, who blames the ‘accident’ on himself. Over the course of the movie, Simba develops deep criticism for his uncle’s rule, and seeks to over through him (much like Hamlet’s relationship with Claudius). As an adult, Simba is visited by the spirit of his father, who explains to him that death yields way to new life. Though the murder of a father and king, and the suspicion/criticism of a usurping uncle can be found in the plot of both The Lion King and Hamlet, I'm certain that the message of death spawning new life was a Disney adaption. Unlike Simba, it is clear that Hamlet seeks to kill his uncle for the sole purpose of revenge, rather than to better his lands -- which are exposed to an external threat as well (Fortinbras’ army; a hyena army in The Lion King). So instead of death spawning life, Shakespeare suggests that death only yields to more death. What this says, is that with a few tweaks (human role changed to animals), the plot of Hamlet has become suitable enough to be shared even with children.



Aladdin is yet another Disney film that draws from Halmet, in that both plots address the issue of love over social barriers. In Aladdin, the Sultan forbids his daughter from marrying outside of royalty, while similarly in Hamlet, Ophelia is discouraged by her father and brother from seeing Hamlet, because of his higher social standing. Overall, I can say that there is much deception in the early acts of Hamlet, that create for me a heavy anticipation to find out what will happen next. So far in the first two acts, a nephew suspects his uncle of murdering his father, a mother sends her son’s friends to spy on him, a father sends a servant to monitor his son’s behavior, and a young woman is forbidden by her father and brother from seeing her suitor -- that's a lot of plot.