Directing Hamlet

I guess directing and performing Hamlet looked pretty fun, but really hard. I think it is cool to see how many different interpretations of one play there are. I am sure the Jacobi and Brannagh's Hamlet will be very different than that of the inmates of the Missouri East Correctional Institution, but the neat thing is that no one can tell whose interpretation is right or better. The acting might be better performed by professional actors, but the inmates' interpretation could potentially be closer to the way Shakespeare intended. All of these video clips and trying to memorize my three pages of Hamlet has helped me appreciate how difficult it must be to perform the whole play. T.S. Eliot might disagree, but with so many people trying to recreate Hamlet, it seems to me that the play really is a work of art.

T.S. Eliot

"Few critics have even admitted that Hamlet the play is the primary problem, and Hamlet the character only secondary." Eliot agrees that Hamlet has problems, but he thinks that Hamlet the play has more problems than the character. Eliot points out that sometimes creative people, "through some weakness in creative power [exercise their creativity]in criticism instead." I did not understand why Eliot says this when he goes on to criticize Hamlet. Eliot is still being a critic, he is just not criticizing the character. Eliot thinks that Shakespeare copied the play, and that the play is flawed because there is no "objective correlative" to give reason to Hamlet's emotions. As a teenage idiot, I think I have zero credibility to say that Shakespeare's play is not a work of art. I have not heard of the plays Eliot says Shakespeare copied, and to me, Hamlet's emotions seem perfectly legitimate. His father just died and his mother married the man who murdered his father, so Hamlet is so mad that he is going crazy. It does, however, make sense that Hamlet is experiencing "a feeling which he cannot understand" or "objectify." Hamlet cannot understand his feeling, so he cannot act on it, which is a main theme of the play.
Eliot's discussion of Gertrude is interesting. "Her character is so negative and insignificant that she arouses in Hamlet the feeling which she is incapable of representing." Hamlet has created an emotion out of Gertrude which is to large for her "insignificant role" to justify. This is completely contradictory to Freud's analysis, in which Gertrude is the key to Hamlet's emotions because Hamlet's incestuos childhood desires make him understand Claudius' actions, and stop him from killing Claudius.
Here are words I did not know:
Vicarious: performed, exercised, received, or suffered in place of another
Aberrations: the act of departing from the right, normal, or usual course
Stratification: putting in layers
Irrefragable: not to be disputed or contested
Superfluous: being more than is sufficient or required; excessive
Feigned: pretended
Ruse: being more than is sufficient or required; excessive

Freud is a Freak

According to Freud, Hamlet is scared of avenging his father because Claudius "shows him in realization the repressed desires of his own childhood." Supposedly, Hamlet has incestuous feelings for his mother, so he sympathizes with Claudius for killing Hamlet's dad because Hamlet also has an unconsciuos desire to do so. Hamlet believes he "is no better than the murderer whom he is required to punish." (Freud uses a lot of passive voice in this text) Freud says that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet soon after his father died, "when he was still mourning his loss, and during a revival, as we may fairly assume, of his own childish feelings in respect of his father." So is Shakespeare subconsciously glad that is father died because now his dad no longer stands in the way of his incestuous childhood desires? I find that idea not only disgusting but also ridiculous. I do not believe that Shakespeare was psychoanalyzing his thoughts after the death of his father and chose to write Hamlet because of that. I think the more likely scenario is that Shakespeare wrote a tragedy involving a main character's loss of a father because Shakespeare still felt sad about the loss of his father, and it had nothing to do with Shakespeare's inner incestuous feelings.
My computer will not let me put in pictures, but here are some vocabulary words that I did not know:
Chemise: a woman's loose-fitting, shirtlike undergarment
Latent: existing in unconscious or dormant form but potentially able to achieve expression
Piquant: agreeably stimulating, interesting, or attractive
Bereaved: greatly saddened at being deprived by death of a loved one
Strata: one of a number of portions or divisions likened to layers or levels
Filial: noting or having the relation of a child to a parent
Piety: dutiful respect or regard for parents, homeland, etc.: filial piety.
Polyglot: containing, composed of, or written in several languages
Antiquity: the quality of being ancient
Neurasthenia: nervous debility and exhaustion occurring in the absence of objective causes or lesions; nervous exhaustion
Concomitant: existing or occurring with something else, often in a lesser way; accompanying; concurrent
Freud definitely has some interesting ideas that I had not thought about before, some of which I hope never to think about ever again.

Act 3 Scene 3/4

Hamlet has finally committed his first at of violence by killing Polonius. At the beginning of Scene 3, Hamlet does not kill Claudius, but only so that his sword can "know...a more horrid hent" (93). Hamlet is now ready to use violence to avenge his father's murder. Hamlet does not hesitate to kill the man he hears behind the curtains during his conversation with his mother, which turns out to be Polonius. The language in Hamlet has not been positive since Claudius ran out on the play which made Hamlet happy. Gertrude asks Hamlet, "Thou wilt not murder me," (3.4.26) and Hamlet bets that the man behind the curtain will be "dead for a ducat" (3.4.29). Hamlet cares so little about killing this man that he is willing to bet that he will kill him. Hamlet and his mother seem unusually calm considering Hamlet has just killed Polonius and a ghost just visited them. "I'll lug the guts into the neighbor room. Mother, good night indeed" (3.4.235-236). My typical "good night" does not include anything about lugging guts anywhere, but Hamlet says this nonchalantly as if it were normal. Since Hamlet does not even seem phased by his action, he will probably have no problem killing Claudius or anyone else who makes him mad later in the book.

There is a shift in the good guy/bad guy in my opinion. Claudius is beginning to feel remorse for killing his brother, and while "words without thoughts never to heaven go," at least Claudius tried to send his words and thoughts to God (3.3.102-103). Hamlet, meanwhile, was the victim at the beginning of the play, but has become so heartless through the course of events that I consider him to now be the "bad guy." He is being mean to everyone he talks to, except his good friend Horatio. Horatio is a logical person and also the only person towards whom Hamlet is now friendly. I think this shows that one should rely on logic over emotions, because Hamlet's emotions have made him go crazy.

The Blood is Beginning to Boil - Act 3 Scene 2

Claudius is now going to know that Hamlet knows what Claudius murdered King Hamlet. He is probably going to try and convince people that Hamlet is crazy, or try to kill him. A part of this play that surprised me is that Hamlet seemed happy when Claudius stopped the play, confirming Hamlet's suspicion. "Ah ha! Come, some music!" (317). Why is Hamlet celebrating because he now knows for sure that his uncle killed his father? I guess since his father is dead either way, and his mother seems to have already gotten over the loss that Hamlet is still mourning, Hamlet wants someone to blame. If Claudius would not have killed his father, then he might just feel like the world is out to get him, but this way he can feel that Claudius is out to get him. If he can now prove what Claudius did, his mother might go back to mourning King Hamlet, and he could feel good again.

I think Hamlet's soliloquy at the close of Scene 2 sets the stage for violence, which will only become worse as the play progresses. He can "now...drink hot blood" (422-423). That is straight up weird. The man is getting crazier and crazier. At this point, he wants to "be cruel, not unnatural," (428). Although so far he only wants to "speak daggers...but use none," I think eventually he will stop holding back at all (429). Hamlet is beginning to become okay with violence, and although he wants to hold back from violently confronting his mother right now, I think later on we will see Hamlet's emotions consume him. He will not be able to refrain from using violence to cope with his emotional troubles.

King Cover Up

Hamlet may be going crazy, but he has reason to be. The King says to himself that "his deed [compared to his] most painted word" is hideous. The King admits to having committed a bad deed, so Hamlet's apparent madness clearly has reason. Is it "nobler in the mind to suffer...or to take arms against a sea of troubles?" Hamlet should not be faced with this dilemma. I do not think the King has a drop of compassionate blood in him. Not only has he killed Hamlet's dad, he is trying to make Hamlet seem crazy so that Hamlet cannot expose his action.

I think Polonius's idea at the end of Act 3 Scene 1 is going to get Hamlet in even more trouble. Since Hamlet is going to speak honestly with his mother, he might confess his suspicion about Claudius to her. I do not know if she knows Claudius killed King Hamlet or not, but she will probably tell Claudius either way. When this happens, Claudius will probably try to kill Hamlet or continue trying to make Hamlet seem crazy.

I do not understand why Hamlet got all angry with Ophelia. She greets Hamlet with a kind, "How does your Honor for this many a day?" He somehow talks himself into becoming angry with her, telling her she "[nicknames] God's creatures and [makes] [her] wantonness [her] ignorance." The way Hamlet treats Ophelia, who he supposedly used to love, makes me think that he really is going crazy. Maybe he is still just mad about the murder of his father, but it should not make him lash out at someone who is being nice to him.

Prisoners of our actions

I cannot relate as deeply to Hamlet as these prisoners. They clearly experienced a lot of emotion by playing the part of someone who had committed a crime similiar to one they might have committed. I have never murdered anyone or anything like that, but I guess I can relate to Hamlet's situation in that I have been faced with a difficult dilemna, like whether or not I should watch House or do my English homework tonight. I went with English. I think the part of the radio program that interested me the most was the question of are we forever prisoners of our actions? Should people who committed a very serious crime like murder be able to rejoin society if they show they have changed? Just like the actor, I cannot answer that. Everyone inmate who talked on the program seemed like a person I would be glad to know outside of prison, and if I only heard the actors comments that did not talk about prison, I might never have known they were locked up. The inmate who was going to play the ghost could feel remorse because of the character of the ghost and the words he used. Even inmates who might not have been very educated could tell that Shakespeare is "good." Hamlet has had a profound effect on the inmates. When they see in literature that certain crimes have tremendous effects on people, they can relate to the guilt they feel and see how it is wrong. It is hard for me to "relate [my] experience with Hamlet to that of the Missouri East Correctional Institution." I have not really had an experience with Hamlet. After listening to these prisoners, I can see how I really never have been in a rough situation, and I can see how lucky I have been throughout my life. While Hutch thinks Hamlet does not even have a decision to make, he should just kill Claudius, I would not kill Claudius because I would become a prisoner of my action. I do not feel lucky because of Hamlet, I feel lucky because of what the inmates have to go through. Ultimately, I hope I can be a blue whale and not a minnow.

Beating back bluntly into the books

These are the endings of The Road and The Great Gatsby written by the opposite author.
Gatsby by McCarthy:
We will keep trying. We will keep failing.

The Road by Fitzgerald:
In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and hummed of a mystery that was lost forever in the passing of time.

I think McCarthy would cut a lot out of Fitzgerald's last sentence. I do not hink Fitzgerald would change much of McCarthy's last sentence, which did not represent McCarthy's main style throughout the majority of the book. Since McCarthy's last sentence is not blunt and is actually rather vague, I think Fitzgerald would keep it more or less the same. McCarthy's ending uses the trout and imagery of nature to divulge the cause of the world crisis as environmental. Fitzgerald would like the descriptive language McCarthy uses to describe the trout that used to exist, and would not change much about the ending to The Road.

Hamlet v Hamlet

It was a little difficult to compare the different interpretations since the soliloquy that each clip showed was different, so I also watched the Act 2 Scene 2 clip of the 1996 version to get a more extensive view of that Hamlet's interpretation. I thought the two interpretations Hamlet were very similiar and only had subtle differences.
As far as similarities, each clip used close-up camera angles because that angle helps focus less on the surroundings and more on Hamlet's actions. Hamlet was grief-stricken in each clip, but the way he handles his grief is where the interpretations differ. Each clip showed Hamlet being sad and angry, but they came in different orders in the clips.
The two plays differed in their interpretations of Hamlet's inner character. The first clip shows Hamlet angry from at the beginning, trashing the video camera and acting very violent. His anger turns into an exhausted sadness as he continues through the soliloquy. In the first clip, Hamlet's thoughts of revenge on Claudius seem more like impulses that were created out of his anger and desperation. In the second clip, Hamlet seems to be more rational because he starts out sad and comes to a realization that he has reason to be angry. His suspicion that Claudius murdered his father appears to be more justified, and instead of acting on impulse, he has little doubt that Claudius murdered King Hamlet. The 1996 version leans more toward a logical Hamlet who has reason to be angry while the first clip interprets Hamlet as a victim of his emotions. Either way Hamlet has plenty of reason to be suspicious and angry at Claudius.

The Ghost of Krapp

I think Samuel Beckett describes Krapp eating bananas in the beginning of the play to show a similarity between the old Krapp speaking on the tape, who ate "three bananas and only with difficulty restrained a fourth." There are definitely similarities between the two Krapps, like the fact that they are lonely, sitting by themselves in the darkness. Neither will ever sing.
Despite the similarities, the current Krapp is more morose, the burnt ashes of what used to be somebody.

"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."

The 39 year-old Krapp still had a "fire" in him, and although he recognized, as the current Krapp also would, that the best might be behind him, Krapp at 39 was not a lost cause. He still had hope, because he did not regret the way things had turned out to be, and he did not want the "best years" back. I think the current Krapp would "want them back," because the "fire" that burnt inside Krapp 39 years ago burnt out long ago. As Krapp listens to himself 30 years ago, I think he is trying to start the fire back up, but he fails. Although Krapp used to be lonely, he was still somewhat optimistic on what could come later in his life. The old Krapp lived in the present, but the current Krapp has given up hope, and is literally living in the past, listening to old tapes of his life.

Repetition

Beckett utilizes repetition "Krapp's Last Tape." From the beginning, Krapp repeats "Box three, spool five. Spool. Spooool!" Krapp appears to have gone crazy. I have this impression because partly because he does eccentric things like strokes his banana before peeling it, gets mad at the boxes on the table ans sweeps them onto the floor, and talks to himself. While talking to himself, he continually repeats certain aspects that he either enjoys or does not understand. He enjoys the word "spool." He does not understand the significance of "memorable equinox." Repetition signifies importance. The importance of "moments" is made clear by the words repetition after the tape retells Krapp's experience with his mother dying and the "black ball." "Moments. Her moments, my moments. The dog's moments." Krapp is retelling his past year as a series of memories of the most important moments he has had. When his mother passed away, it was so important to him that he can still recall the feeling of the little, black, rubber ball that was in his hand when it occurred. He remembers everything about that moment, how when the blind went down, he just stood there with the dog pawing at the ball.

Another critical moment for the Krapp on tape as well as the current Krapp was his "farewell to love." Whatever "vision" the 39 year-old Krapp had was unimportant to the current Krapp, because he skipped over that part of the tape. The important part was the moment he had with this girl. Even though everything was "hopeless and no good going on," Krapp still remembers, thirty years later, that "under [them] all moved, and moved [them], gently, up and down, and from side to side."