Friday, November 15, 2013

Hamlet Act Two

Hamlet’s second soliloquy (2.2)
Now I am alone. O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I! (555)
Is it not monstrous that this player here,
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit
That from her working all his visage wann'd,
Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect, (560)
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? and all for nothing!
For Hecuba!
What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
That he should weep for her?
What would he do, (565)
Had he the motive and the cue for passion
That I have? He would drown the stage with tears
And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,
Make mad the guilty and appall the free,
Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed (570)
The very faculties of eyes and ears. Yet I,
A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak,
Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause,
And can say nothing; no, not for a king,
Upon whose property and most dear life (575)
A damn'd defeat was made. Am I a coward?
Who calls me villain? breaks my pate across?
Plucks off my beard, and blows it in my face?
Tweaks me by the nose? gives me the lie i' the throat,
As deep as to the lungs? who does me this? (580)
Ha!
'Swounds, I should take it: for it cannot be
But I am pigeon-liver'd and lack gall
To make oppression bitter, or ere this
I should have fatted all the region kites (585)
With this slave's offal: bloody, bawdy villain!
Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain!
O, vengeance!
Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave,
That I, the son of a dear father murder'd, (590)
Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,
Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words,
And fall a-cursing, like a very drab,
A scullion!
Fie upon't! foh! About, my brain! I have heard (595)
That guilty creatures sitting at a play
Have by the very cunning of the scene
Been struck so to the soul that presently
They have proclaim'd their malefactions;
For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak (600)
With most miraculous organ. I'll have these players
Play something like the murder of my father
Before mine uncle: I'll observe his looks;
I'll tent him to the quick: if he but blench,
I know my course. The spirit that I have seen (605)
May be the devil: and the devil hath power
To assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps
Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me: I'll have grounds (610)
More relative than this: the play 's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.
rogue ] Useless vagrant.
peasant ] A person of little integrity (see The Taming of the Shrew 4.1.113).
player...Hecuba ] This passage is often very difficult for students, and standard annotations leave them wanting. So it is best paraphrased:
Is it not horribly unfair that this actor, pretending to feel great passion, could, based on what he has conceived in his own mind, force his own soul to believe the part that he is playing, so much so that all the powers of his body adapt themselves to suit his acting needs, so that he grows agitated ("distraction in's aspect"), weeps, and turns pale ("wann'd")? And why does he carry on so? Why does he pretend until he truly makes himself weep? For Hecuba! But why? What are they to each other?
Hamlet wishes he could arouse his passions so.
Hecuba ] Trojan queen and heroine of classical mythology. Earlier in 2.2 Hamlet asks the First Player to recite a monologue retelling Hecuba's response to the death of her husband, King Priam. The Player tells us that Hecuba's grief was profound and "Would have made milch the burning eyes of heaven/And passion in the gods" (505-6). The contrast between Gertrude and Hecuba should be noted. To Hamlet, Hecuba has responded appropriately to her husband's death, while Gertrude has not.
cue for passion ] The reason for strong feelings.
Make mad the guilty ] "By his description of the crime he would drive those spectators mad who had any such sin on their conscience, and would horrify even the innocent" (Kittredge 68),
amaze ] Plunge into confusion.
muddy-mettled ] Dull-spirited.
peak ] Moping about; languishing, unable to act.
John-a-dreams ] A nickname for a dreamer.
unpregnant ] "Pregnant" here does not mean "with child", but rather, quick or ready. Thus to be "unpregnant" is to be unable to act quickly.
pate ] Head.
swounds ] God's wounds.
pigeon-liver'd ] In the Renaissance, the gentle disposition of the Dove was explained by the argument that it had no gall and thus no capacity to feel resentment or to seek revenge. The liver also was seen as the body's storehouse for courage.
region kites ] The birds of prey in the region, circling in the sky, waiting to feed. If Hamlet were not "pigeon-liver'd" (583) he would have long ago fed Claudius to the hawks.
kindless ] Unnatural.
drab ] A whore.
scullion ] A kitchen helper, either man or woman but usually a woman. It was a term used to show contempt. One should note that in the second quarto, scullion was actually "stallyon", which means a male whore. Scholars are still undecided on the matter, but scullion is the more generally accepted of the two.
proclaim'd their malefactions ] Announced their evil deeds.
blench ] Flinch.
Source: http://shakespeare.about.com/library/weekly/aa061500b.htm
2.2 Soliloquy Explication (Due by class time on Monday)
 In the comment box write an explication (300+ words) of this soliloquy (300+ words). An explications is not a paraphrase or a summary, but explains and explores a text thoroughly. You will explain what Hamlet is saying and how he says it. (What the text says and what it does.)
When explaining “what Hamlet is saying,” remember to consider the soliloquy sentence by sentence (not line by line and not by summarizing). Remember that the soliloquy is a tool that Shakespeare uses to show Hamlet’s mind at work. In addition to asking yourself "what is Hamlet saying?," ask yourself “what does this reveal about Hamlet?” and “how does what he is saying fit into the work as a whole (especially the development of themes)?” Deal with the surface and the depths.)
When explaining “how he says it,” pay close attention to the language (particular word choices, sentence structures, etc.) and imagery (including figurative language, such as metaphors). Ask yourself “what does the language itself reveal about Hamlet?"
At the beginning of your comment write your first name and the first initial of your last name. Then write "2.2 Soliloquy Explication"    Oops! I'd meant to have you share this with me in a Google Doc labelled "first name last initial 2.2 Soliloquy".

2.2 Soliloquy Performance "Shuttle" Comparison (Due by class time on Tuesday)
In the comment box address the following prompt: compare and contrast how two versions of the soliloquy use different strategies to convey the meaning of the soliloquy. Pay close attention to choices made the actors and directors. Take notes. Then, interpret the significance of those choices. I'm looking forward to reading these because of how passionate and thoughtful you were about your act one scene two preferences.
How to write a shuttle comparison...
Start your response with a bold, nuanced assertion, something like "Not only does Michael Almereyda's version of the soliloquy use a distractingly non-traditional setting, it also fails to convey the nuances of the speech captured by Gregory Doran's version, through phrasing, facial expressions, gestures, movement, lighting, and prompts." Or, "Kenneth Branagh's version of the soliloquy captures Hamlet's erratic anger and crafty intelligence whereas Franco Zeffirelli's version emphasizes the depths of his madness."
Then, move back and forth through the two soliloquies from beginning to end developing specific details to support your bold, nuanced insight.
At the beginning of your comment write your first name and the first initial of your last name. Then write "2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison".
 

First clip: 2.2 soliloquy, directed by Kenneth Branagh, Hamlet played by Kenneth Branagh (1996)
Second clip: 2.2 soliloquy, directed by Franco Zeffirelli, Hamlet played by Mel Gibson (1990)
Third clip: 2.2 soliloquy, directed by Michael Almereyda, Hamlet played by Ethan Hawke (2000)
Fourth clip: 2.2 soliloquy, directed by Gregory Doran, Hamlet played by David Tennant (2009)
Fifth clip: 2.2 soliloquy, directed by Laurence Olivier, Hamlet played by Laurence Olivier (1948)

67 comments:

  1. Gloria K 2.2 Soliloquy Explication
    Hamlet wishes that he could somehow adjust his way of thinking to fit the vengeance mindset, but he doesn’t feel like he can. He feels that he is too “pigeon-livered” for such thoughts, and he is still confused about what the ghost told him about the murder , because he doesn’t know whether or not the ghost should be trusted for he “May be the devil: and the devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape;” (2.2.606-7). In lines 556-563 he envies the actors who can embody the role of their character very convincingly. However, Hamlet thinks he’s nothing but “A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause, and can say nothing—no, not for a king upon whose property and most dear life a damned defeat was made.” He puts himself down with the words “dull” and “muddy-mettled”, because he doesn’t think he’s strong enough to carry out the vengeance that is asked of him, by a person who could be setting him up for eternal damnation. He doesn’t think he’s ready to act right away because of “…My melancholy and my weakness…” (2.2.608), so instead he needs to set up an experiment to confirm his Uncle’s guilt. Meanwhile, his mother still grieves him because she is acting like the opposite of how she should act in her situation. Since his family fell apart he compares himself to a “rogue”, because his home isn’t really a home anymore, ever since his Uncle became his stepfather. Hamlet is uncertain about a lot of things in his life, and has low self-esteem. He feels alone in his world, carrying this load of vengeance with him. The only way he knows how to deal with his uncertainty, is to set up an experiment and base his decision to carry out an act of vengeance on it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Emma P 2.2 Soliloquy Explication
    This soliloquy shows Hamlet’s thoughts in three sections. The first part of the soliloquy discusses the player and his monologue that Hamlet asked him to perform about Hecuba. When he uses the word wann’d you can imagine the player growing pale as Hamlet imagines him becoming Hecuba’s emotion. The part of the beginning of the soliloquy, “Could force his soul so to his own conceit, That from her working all his visage wann'd, Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect, (560) .” Shakespeare uses great descriptive language so that you can picture the player mourning. You can also picture that this is what Hamlet would like his mother to look like in mourning for his father. the second part of the soliloquy discusses Hamlet’s hopelessness. He compares himself to the player , who can according to Hamlet make a difference and move people, “ He would drown the stage with tears, And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,
    Make mad the guilty and appall the free,Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed (570)
    The very faculties of eyes and ears.” Hamlet feels that he is a coward and he cannot change anything about his horrid life like the player can. He feels he should stand up to the king but can’t. He calls himself “pigeon-liver'd “ and that he lacks the gall. This brings us into the third part of the soliloquy where he plans to take action against the king. He will gauge his reaction and his guilt by asking the players to play something similar to his father’s murder. This plan gives Hamlet a sense of purpose which, makes him less hopeless. As he says, “Abuses me to damn me: I'll have grounds (610) More relative than this: the play 's the thing, Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.” He is very clever and he wants to make sure the ghost is his father and not the devil tricking him before he does something stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joseph C.
    2.2 Soliloquy Explication

    After watching an actor perform a couple speeches with great emotion, Hamlet is left alone on stage, and begins to process what had just happened. The actor was able to force himself to cry and he appeared to feel the loss of Priam, even though the actor could not have had a relationship with him that would normally evoke such emotion. Shakespeare uses the example of Hecuba, the one mourning the death of Priam, because she serves as a foil to Gertrude, since Hecuba has truly felt a loss of a loved one, whereas Gertrude showed no sign of true sorrow and quickly remarried. Hamlet sees that the actor can become emotional over almost nothing, and mentions that he has a much more painful situation, but he cannot act out his feelings. Hamlet asks what the actor would do if he were in Hamlet’s situation, and then follows with the answer that the actor “would drown the stage with tears And cleave the general ear with horrid speech, Make mad the guilty and appall the free, Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed The very faculties of eyes and ears.” This shows the beginnings of Hamlet’s plan to find out if Claudius is guilty of murdering his father, since if Hamlet’s situation was acted out, it would “Make mad the guilty and appall the free.” Hamlet is saying that when has the actor recreates what happened to his father, if Claudius flinches or appears mad, Hamlet will think of this as enough evidence to prove Claudius guilty of murder. Hamlet realizes that he may have only been imaging his father’s ghost when it told him that Claudius murdered him, so Hamlet feels that he needs actual evidence. This starts to show that Hamlet may not be crazy, since this part of his logic seems to make sense. Hamlet shows that he truly believes that his plan to trick Claudius will work, and that Claudius reacting in what Hamlet considers to be the wrong way, is valid evidence. This sways the reader back to thinking that Hamlet may actually be mad, because this evidence does not seem to be convincing or foolproof. If Claudius is appalled by the play, it may be because he is reacting to a dramatic play, and that his reaction is normal and appropriate. Claudius may realize that the situation the actors are performing is exactly what he had done to King Hamlet, and may not react at all, or realize that someone is trying to trick him. If Claudius does “blench” or flinch in reaction to the play, it is not certain that anyone else besides Hamlet will see this as evidence. Hamlet’s certainty in his very flawed plan reveals that Hamlet may actually be mad, even though understanding that he may have only imagined his father’s ghost makes him seem rational and reasonable. Hamlet seems to find a way to prove Claudius guilty quickly after a performance from an actor, and it seems Hamlet took the first way he saw to prove Claudius guilty, which reveals that Hamlet is desperate and is reaching for an answer about how his father died. If he is really looking for closure on his father’s death, he may be quick to claim that any simple reaction is enough to find Claudius guilty. Hamlet did not consider all possible outcomes to his plan, which is similar to what Polonius has done with his plan to spy on Hamlet. Hamlet’s character constantly has the audience guessing if he is truly mad, or if he is just pretending to be mad like he said he was going to do. Hamlet asks if he is a coward, and shows he might be since he is not anyone’s villain. Hamlet feels he should seek revenge on his uncle, since his dead father had told him that his uncle committed murder. Hamlet thinks he has not responded correctly to his situation by just talking and expressing himself through his soliloquies, and he suggests he should have been planning to murder Claudius. This goes with the theme of manliness, because Hamlet thinks it is his obligation to avenge his father, and that using words is not sufficient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joseph C.
      2.2 Soliloquy Explication (Revised)

      After watching an actor perform a couple speeches with great emotion, Hamlet is left alone on stage, and begins to process what had previously happened. The actor was able to force himself to cry and he appeared to feel the loss of Priam, even though the actor could not have had a relationship with Priam that would evoke such emotion. Shakespeare uses the example of Hecuba, the one mourning the death of Priam, because she serves as a foil to Gertrude, since Hecuba has truly felt a loss of a loved one, whereas Gertrude showed no sign of true sorrow and quickly remarried. Hecuba is used as a foil to Gertrude to contrast Gertrude’s response, and what people might consider a normal response to tragedy. Hamlet sees that the actor can become emotional over almost nothing, and mentions that he is in a much more painful situation, and suggests he has much more “motive,” but he cannot act out his feelings because he is “A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak, Like John-a-dreams,” and “unpregnant” of his cause. Hamlet asks what the actor would do if he were in Hamlet’s situation, and then follows with the answer that the actor “would drown the stage with tears And cleave the general ear with horrid speech, Make mad the guilty and appall the free, Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed The very faculties of eyes and ears.” This shows the beginnings of Hamlet’s plan, to find out if Claudius is guilty of murdering his father, since if Hamlet’s situation was acted out, it would “Make mad the guilty and appall the free.” Hamlet is saying that when has the actor recreates what happened to his father, if Claudius flinches or appears mad, Hamlet will think of this as enough evidence to prove Claudius guilty of murder. Hamlet realizes that he may have only been imaging his father’s ghost when it told him that Claudius murdered him, so Hamlet feels that he needs actual evidence. This starts to show that Hamlet may not be crazy, since this part of his logic seems to make sense. Hamlet shows that he truly believes that his plan to trick Claudius will work, and that Claudius reacting in what Hamlet considers to be the wrong way, is valid evidence. This sways the reader back to thinking that Hamlet may actually be mad, because this evidence does not seem to be convincing or foolproof. If Claudius is appalled by the play, it may be because he is reacting to a dramatic play, and that his reaction is normal and appropriate. Claudius may realize that the situation the actors are performing is exactly what he had done to King Hamlet, and may not react at all, or realize that someone is trying to trick him. If Claudius does “blench” or flinch in reaction to the play, it is not certain that anyone else besides Hamlet will see this as evidence. Hamlet’s certainty in his very flawed plan reveals that Hamlet may actually be mad, even though understanding that he may have only imagined his father’s ghost makes him seem rational and reasonable. Questioning whether or not he can trust his own eyes also suggests that Hamlet is not only pretending to be mad, or that he has become mad from pretending for so long. Hamlet seems to find a way to prove Claudius guilty quickly after a performance from an actor, and it seems Hamlet took the first way he saw to prove Claudius guilty, which reveals that Hamlet is desperate and is reaching for an answer about how his father died. If he is really only looking for revenge or closure on his father’s death, he may be quick to claim that any simple reaction is enough to find Claudius guilty. Hamlet did not consider all possible outcomes to his plan, which is similar to what Polonius has done with his plan to spy on Hamlet, and it seems to be a theme in the play. Hamlet’s character constantly has the audience guessing if he is truly mad, or if he is just pretending to be mad, which is what he said he was going to do.

      Delete
    2. Hamlet asks if he is a coward, and shows he might be, since he is not anyone’s villain. Although he is not anyone’s villain, it seems that Claudius and the Queen are the answer to Hamlet’s question of who “plucks off my beard, and blows it in my face.” Hamlet feels he should seek revenge on his uncle, since his dead father had told him that his uncle committed murder. He thinks he has not responded correctly to his situation by just talking and expressing himself through his soliloquies, and he suggests he should have been planning to murder Claudius. This goes with the theme of manliness, because Hamlet thinks it is his obligation to avenge his father, and that using words is not sufficient. There is some irony in Hamlet’s plan though, because after sarcastically calling his actions brave because he only uses words and not actions, he decides to have an actor perform another speech, which is essentially all words.

      Delete
  4. Act 2 Scene 2 Soliloquy Explication

    In this soliloquy Hamlet has an epiphany of what he has been doing and what he needs to do. He beats himself up by saying he has not been acting the right way as he should have when trying to find his father’s murderer; he attitude towards the whole thing has not been serious or sincere. As he says here, “Had he the motive and the cue for passion That I have? He would drown the stage with tears” (line 566-567) inside he emits the proper emotion like the actor does but he goes on to say that he has not been expressing this, instead he has merely put the thought behind him. He truly beats himself up calling himself a coward and then his mind begins to whirl. You see within the speech when Hamlet begins to devise a plan and his mind starts to wander towards the idea of expressing himself as a vengeance filled person. On line 595 you can see this change of thought, “Fie upon't! foh! About, my brain! I have heard That guilty creatures sitting at a play” for this is when he begins to tell his plan of the play he will perform that will help him discover if Claudius did murder his father. Reading this soliloquy gives the reader an idea if Hamlet is truly going mad or not. After reading this one can come to the conclusion that Hamlet is going mad with obsessing over the right way to avenge his father’s death at the right time, the right place, and making sure he can prove that it is Claudius. How he connects the play he witnessed back to the death of his father is a sign of his obsessive need to please the Ghost by avenging his father which makes him seem mad.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You can almost see the wheels whirling in Hamlet’s head as he goes from reprimanding himself on account of being a coward, to using his personal disgust as incentive to mastermind a plan to trick King Claudius into admitting he killed King Hamlet. He begins his soliloquy by comparing himself to an actor performing a scene. The actor had previously performed a speech depicting the Trojan War and during the speech the actor’s voice rang with great passionate emotion. By the end of the scene the player was crying. Hamlet analyzes this fictional emotion with the curiosity of a mad man. He obsesses over the fact that a person can cry tangible tears over a made up story. He scrutinizes his own self upon comparison to the actor’s performance. He imagines how the player would have responded had he been in Hamlet’s real-life scenario. Hamlet goes on to criticize the fact that he is grieving about his father’s death yet he has said nothing and has taken no action. What kind of a person is he that he cannot weep for his own father, yet a man in the same room can cry over a fictionalized character? He calls himself a coward but as he does so the nature of his soliloquy shifts. His anger towards Claudius builds and as it does he begins to formulate a plan. He decides he will make Claudius watch a play that is similar to the way the spirit said King Hamlet died. Based on his reactions Hamlet believes he will be able to catch Claudius’s guilt. “Make mad the guilty and appall the free.” Hamlet says this line after he has seen the actor’s performance but before he has planned to trick Claudius into admitting his guilt. He will slowly come to the realization that the ability of actors to “Make mad the guilty and appall the free” pertains to his situation of exposing Claudius. If Claudius is guilty, as the spirit is suggesting, then he will be driven crazy upon watching a play similar to the circumstances under which he killed his brother. His mother, disgusted and in shock, will be free of Claudius as well as the kingdom “…and appall the free”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Branagh’s version of the soliloquy portrays the stages of Hamlet’s madness as it escalates and simmers, as he becomes agitated then quietly reflective, through his posture, actions, appearance and tone; something Hawke’s version fails in doing do to the fact that the soliloquy takes place as a thought process. Branagh enters out of breathe, and seemingly relived to finally be alone. He holds the door frame for support and you immediately gather the sense that he has seen something that has disturbed him. He is slouched as if in defeat. His first sentence is filled with the relief of being alone but immediately following his relief comes a self-loathing groan. Hawke’s scene begins by him lying on the bed. The line “Now I am alone” has been taken out of the scene so you don’t gather the sense that he is relived to reflect upon himself in solitude. The only sign that he has seen something upsetting is the rubbing of the hands on his face. In Branagh’s version the scene continues as Branagh talks to himself; quietly at first as if in a state of reflection then with escalating agitation. His walk turns into a pace as he dives deep into thought. His tone rises and falls. As he speaks of the actor his voice turns into that of a yell and when he calls himself a coward his voice lowers to that of a choked whisper. He continues on as if having a conversation with himself, asking questions and proceeding to answer them. He throws his hands in agitation and even hits things , slamming on a globe to show his frustration. His looks emanate regality yet his reaction to the actor’s performance masks his grand appearance leaving him a disheveled, ranting mess. Hawke, for the same portion of the soliloquy, continues to lie on his bed, watching videos of perhaps the actor and his play. It is obvious he is deep in thought but you don’t immediately grasp the fact that Hamlet is going mad, that this is a turning point in the play. His tone remains even throughout the soliloquy and he is very matter-of-fact about his plan to “catch the conscience of the king”. Hawke is young, in modern attire, and does not bring with him the sense of royalty and importance as does Branagh. The only hint of his insanity shows later in the scene by the biting of his fingernails in agitation as he puts together videos of what appear to be the play that will supposedly catch the king’s guilt. He plays the videos quickly and watches the screen with great intensity. His eyes flicker intensely as the images rapidly change. He is entranced by his idea. As Branagh comes to formulate his plan on catching the king in his guilt his voice becomes quiet. His eyes are lit with the insanity of a new idea. The camera zooms in on his face as he goes deeper and deeper into his idea. While he speaks his last words an eerie music plays, matching the mood of Branagh’s quiet, mad, revelation. Hawke’s performance is inadequate to the performance of Branagh in that his appearance and lack of emotion and movement struggle to satisfactorily show Hamlet’s insanity.

      Delete
  6. Jaclyn W
    2.2 Soliloquy Explication

    Hamlet's mindset in this soliloquy has a different mindset then the first as he has more of a plot to exploit Claudius in comparison to the first soliloquy where Hamlet is disgusted more than anything else. In this soliloquy it describes Hamlets inner problems by first looking at the player and comparing himself to him. When comparing himself to the player Hamlet observes that his passion for Hecuba, a character, shows greater passion than his own even when he is not in the situation remotely close in comparison to Hamlet. Yet Hamlet is unable to create these emotions to feel for his mother who can be compared to Hecuba. Hamlet cannot cry and shrivel up like the actor did to Hecuba as Hamlet's mother did not break down into tears for his father's death. This makes Hamlet not only unable to grasp the emotions of the player even with a reasonable cause (his father's death and all the drama with Gertrude and Claudius), it also puts Hamlet in a tizzy as he cannot portray these feelings. Hamlet then dives deeper into a negative emotional state as he declares himself "a dull and muddy-mettled rascal. peak Like a John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause" (lines 5945-594, Shakespeare) which means that he is dull spirited and unable to create the illusion of such passion on action as he is more of a dreamer and not a man of pure action. This puts Hamlet's thinking style in a more passive fight stance at the beginning, as Hamlet is not directly going up to Claudius with a sword, but is instead portraying the accusation through a play in public. After stating his lack of passion in comparison of an actor Hamlet goes on to say lines such as "Plucks off my beard and blows it in my face." which is basically saying that are the people taking away his manliness and honorably just because he is taking a less drastic approach to this. Of course this is all in Hamlet's mind, and he himself seems to be thinking of himself less before the actual event even happens. Hamlet even states "I am a pigeon-livered and lack gall" which also emphasizes that Hamlet thinks he is less of himself for seeking a more passive route in exploiting Claudius and having no guts to kill him. Yet Hamlet wants and needs to seek revenge in his own ways, which he has, and that is the play.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michael M

    2.2 Soliloquy Explication

    When he is left alone on stage, Hamlet begins to ponder what the actor had just told him. Hecuba, queen of Troy, is a foil to Hamlet’s own mother Gertrude, queen of Denmark. Both of the queens have suffered the death of their husbands. Hamlet uses this connection to show the great emotion portrayed through the Player. Hamlet is extremely baffled by the emotions brought out in the Player, by the death of Priam, a man who the Player did not even have a close relationship with. This act of immense sorrow for the death of another character, much like Hecuba did when she lost her husband. Meanwhile, Gertrude is completely different and appears to have no sorrow for the death of her husband, as she remarries to her brother-in-law. Next in the soliloquy, Hamlet questions the Player’s emotions if he were in Hamlet’s shoes and he decides that the player would, “ drown the stage with tears/ And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,/ Make mad the guilty and appall the free,/ Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed (570) .” That last part, “and amaze indeed” shows Hamlet’s knowing that if everyone knew the true story behind the death of his father, that they would be shocked. That is when Hamlet begins to plan his way to prove Claudius’s guilt. As the actor reenacts King Hamlet’s death, Hamlet believes the new king my flinch or show signs of anger. These emotions will be enough, in Hamlet’s mind, to prove that Claudius killed his brother. However, this plan is certainly not foolproof and it makes Hamlet seem mad, as he has throughout the play. Meanwhile, Hamlet seems to think that this plan is more believable than the idea that a ghost told him of the murder. This soliloquy shows Hamlet’s sorrow and his anger toward his father’s murder, as well as his plan to show everyone what truly happened.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Laura J.
    2.2 Soliloquy Explication

    Hamlet’s 2.2 soliloquy reaffirms the audience’s evidence of Hamlet’s desperate need for closure to his father’s death. In the beginning of the soliloquy he contemplates how the actor was able to make himself cry over a fictional character he has no ties to. He fathoms how an actor can take more measures of grief and action over a fictional character than he can over his deceased father. The actor speaks of Hecuba, which acts as a comparison to Gertrude. Hecuba responded to her husband, King Priam’s death the right way, unlike Gertrude who Hamlet has an underlying anger at for her quick remarriage. These angers at people in his life is what lead him to this madness, be it real or imaginary. This leads Hamlet to question his courage. He feels like a coward and questioned why he hasn’t taken action to avenge his father’s death. “Am I a coward? Who calls me villain? breaks my pate across?” He wonders about himself in an almost insane way, getting more emotional throughout the soliloquy. He uses specific words like “A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak, Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause” to describe himself showing that he is unhappy with his actions and emotions. He shows how lowly he thinks about himself and where he is in his life, a dark place of anger and revenge. He is overwhelmed with emotion and confusion. He begins to conjure a plan to collect evidence of Claudius’s guilt. He thinks that if the actors perform a story similar to the one the ghost told Hamlet of his father’s death than Claudius will flinch, or “blench” and that will be enough evidence to confirm him guilty. Hamlet’s thought process reveals a lot about himself, leaving the audience to doubt the reality of his madness, is he actually crazy for thinking a flinch is evidence or is he sane because he can clearly follow logic of a situation? This soliloquy develops the themes of madness, truth, appearance, and acting in the drama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laura J.
      2.2 Soliloquy Explication

      Hamlet’s 2.2 soliloquy reaffirms the audience’s evidence of Hamlet’s desperate need for closure to his father’s death. In the beginning of the soliloquy he contemplates how the actor was able to make himself cry over a fictional character he has no ties to. He fathoms how an actor can take more measures of grief and action over a fictional character than he can over his deceased father. The actor speaks of Hecuba, which acts as a comparison to Gertrude. Hecuba responded to her husband, King Priam’s death the right way, unlike Gertrude who Hamlet has an underlying anger at for her quick remarriage. These angers at people in his life is what lead him to this madness, be it real or imaginary. This leads Hamlet to question his courage. He feels like a coward and questioned why he hasn’t taken action to avenge his father’s death. “Am I a coward? Who calls me villain? breaks my pate across?” He wonders about himself in an almost insane way, getting more emotional throughout the soliloquy. He uses specific words like “A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak, Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause” to describe himself showing that he is unhappy with his actions and emotions. His immense detail in his feelings is almost confusing because if he can pull so much emotion up talking about the actor, his father, and his plan then why can he not take action against Claudius? He asks himself this question too, crying out with emotion, “Who is stopping me from taking action?” He shows how lowly he thinks about himself and where he is in his life, a dark place of anger and revenge. He is overwhelmed with emotion and confusion. He begins to conjure a plan to collect evidence of Claudius’s guilt. He thinks that if the actors perform a story similar to the one the ghost told Hamlet of his father’s death than Claudius will flinch, or “blench” and that will be enough evidence to confirm him guilty. His idea of, “Make mad the guilty and appall the free” is his way of saying he will drive Claudius to madness with guilt to uncover the truth of his father’s death. Hamlet is starting to question the truth and reality of the ghost and this plan is his desperation for an answer. He needs to be reassured that this is how his father died, this is his ticket to sanity. He is not thinking about the outcomes of his plan which multiple characters in Hamlet also do not do. Hamlet’s thought process reveals a lot about himself, leaving the audience to doubt the reality of his madness. Is he actually crazy for thinking a flinch is evidence or is he sane because he can clearly follow logic of a situation? Is Hamlet pretending to be insane to keep his family from thinking they understand him or is he actually mad? This soliloquy develops the themes of madness, truth, appearance, and acting in the drama.

      Delete
  9. Winslow L

    2.2 Soliloquy Explination

    Hamlet is left alone following the performances by the actors. He is able to reflect to himself on what he has just seen. He is amazed by the ability these actors have to fully commit themselves to a scene where realistically it shouldn't affect him. Amazed but also disgusted. He describes this ability as "monstrous" and "all for nothing", and wonders if this is the emotion and passion the actor displayed for a fictional story, just what it would be like if this actor was experiencing what Hamlet has been going through. Well, according to Hamlet, "He would drown the stage with tears and cleave the general ear with horrid speech, make mad the guilty and appall the free, confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed the very faculties of eyes and ears." This is a well-written passage. First it describes Hamlet's grief-stricken emotions, while also hinting at a bit of irritation in Hamlet regarding the Actor's performance. I believe Hamlet finds it a bit maddening that the actor can just display this amount of passion, without having to go through any of it. Hence Hamlet describing the ability as "monstrous" and the reason for doing it as "to his own conceit." Then, Hamlet says this performance would "make mad the guilty." This is foreshadowing and scene development towards the end of the scene, when Hamlet decides to have the actor perform a scene that might incite action out of Cornelius. But then Hamlet realizes that even though it might be maddening that the actor is lucky enough to just act distraught, he hasn't acted on any of these emotions. This leads to many lines describing his self-hatred. Following this, he begins to devise a plan to bring down Cornelius, or at least to incite a reaction out of him. It's quite a well thought out plan if conducted correctly. If uneasiness and guiltiness is seen in Cornelius's expression it means the ghost was really of Hamlet's dead father. If not, it either means Cornelius is incapable of guilt or that the visit from the ghost was imagined or from a demon. If this second scenario occurs, I'm afraid Hamlet would try harder and harder to incite a reaction, to the point that he would come off mad. I don't believe Hamlet could ever go back to believing the death was not caused by Cornelius after he's been so affected mentally by the whole experience.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rachael S.

    2.2 Soliloquy Explication

    Hamlet yearns to have a strong passion for his most unfortunate situation like that of the player who lacks “the motive and the cue”. The player is able to find the passion in his role that causes him to weep for Hecuba who is no one to him and he no one to her. After watching this play out Hamlet questions what this player would do if he were in his situation and determines that he would “drown the stage with tears and cleave the general ear with horrid speech, make mad the guilty and appall the free.” The idea that this is what the passionate player would do causes Hamlet to form his plan of proving Claudius guilty. If he is able to “make mad the guilty” then Claudius will become enraged at the performance and if Claudius is not guilty he will “appall the free” making Claudius terrified like the other innocent spectators. Hamlet then goes on to criticize himself as a “dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause and can say nothing.” He seems to be ashamed of himself, embarrassed to lack passion about his situation and unable to say anything about knowing that his uncle was behind the “damned defeat.” To put an end to his cowardly behavior, Hamlet proceeds to devise his plan to reveal Claudius’s guilt. He believes that if the guilty Claudius watches the performance he will be “struck so to the soul” that he will instantly admit to the crime he committed. Therefore he decides to have the players act out a scene strikingly similar to that of his uncle murdering King Hamlet. During the scene Hamlet plans to observe Claudius and “if he do blench, I know my course.” He then has a moment of clarity in which he thinks: what if the ghost is really a devil who took on the shape of my father? In this moment of clarity when Hamlet realizes the ghost may not be telling the truth, Shakespeare shows that Hamlet may not be completely mad. But right after the madness seems to take over again when Hamlet proclaims that “the play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King.”

    ReplyDelete
  11. Zoe P 2.2 Soliloquy Explication

    In the soliloquy Hamlet compares his actions to those of the actor's speech. He is disappointed with himself because he is unable to evoke the amount of emotion the actor did into getting revenge on his uncle. The actor was able to make himself cry and his voice started to shake and Hamlet didn’t understand how the actor, who had no personal connection to the speech, could put so much feeling into it. “What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba that he should weep for her? What would he do had he the motive and the cue for passion that I have? He would drown the stage with tears and cleave the general ear with horrid speech…” Hamlet is disappointed with himself and says, “Yet I, a dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause, and can say nothing.” He looks down upon himself and frustrated that he is not able to do this. Hamlet begins questioning whether the ghost was actually his father of the devil, realizing that the devil has the power “T’assume a pleasing shape.” He knows he doesn’t have the audacity to stand up to his uncle, calling himself “pigeon-livered and lack gall” but he also knows that he has to help out his father so he decides to have the actors mimic his father’s death to see if his uncle will show any emotion towards it. Throughout Hamlet’s soliloquy he was both angry at himself and he was also still sad about his fathers death, confused on what to do about it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Everest C 2.2 Soliloquy Explication


    Hamlet is a distraught man, with unhealthy perceptions of his own worth. “ O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” he says, “...that this player here, Could force his soul so to his own conceit.” Hamlet refers to himself as an actor, and explains that only in “this players” wildest dreams could he be praising to himself. through comparing himself to an actor Hamlet is showing how his emotions have hurt him, and how he would need to be a different person to accurately portray his own struggle. The theme of anger towards his mother, Queen Gertrude, is shown again when Hamlet refers to Hecuba, the Trojan queen who lost her husband. Hecuba’s sitation relates to Gertrudes and Hamlet directs dome of his emotion toward this. “What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, That he should weep for her?” Hamlet was upset primarily at his mothers lack of mourning. He had said that the “shoes” she had followed the older Hamlet with were now old. Instead of a month crying and mourning her lost husband, it was a month preparing a wedding. So in his soliloquy, while still referring to himself as the actor he wishes he was, he makes the point that the actor would cry for Hecuba and “drown the stage with tears”. It also begins to seem that Hamlet is beginning to show his anger towards Claudius and his goal for revenge. His acting and sorrow will “Make mad the guilty..” Hamlet says, perhaps describing how Claudius would react to the sorrowful response to King Priams death, and Hecuba’s mourning. Of course, Hamlet does not know entirely if Claudius is guilty. So while Hamlet believes it, what the ghost leaned him towards believing, he wants to see the Kings’ reaction for himself. He devises a plan to catch his guilt in the act. “With most miraculous organ. I'll have these players Play something like the murder of my father Before mine uncle: I'll observe his looks; I'll tent him to the quick: if he but blench, I know my course.” If he shows any guilt or remorse towards the acting of his brothers death, than Hamlet will know for sure where to direct his revenge. Leaving Hamlet to his goal, to prove that his father was murdered, that his mother married his murderer, and to “catch the conscience of the king”

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kerri C.

    SOLILOQUY 2.2 EXPLICATION


    Hamlet questions himself a lot in Act 2 Scene 2 about who he is as a person and judging others, putting him in the position where he is playing God calling the shots on what is true and what is false. Shakespeare uses quite a few questions to reveal his thoughts in Hamlet. This causes the reader to form thoughts, ideas, and opinions on what Hamlet is asking about / questioning.

    Shakespeare uses Hamlet judging himself to unveil that he has low self esteem, after the death of his father, for himself, this is seen in Shakespeare's use of word choice for the character Hamlet, like “coward”(2.2 576) and “villain”(2.2 582), which he refers to when talking about himself. Sarcasm is used to harshly judge himself for his actions like in the sentence on lines 589 to 594. He at first says what an ass he is to believe that he could revenge the death of his father, King Hamlet, but he has no way to tell anyone else although he feels that he can’t keep this news to himself. Hamlet then develops a plan to present a play to his uncle. The play is similar to how Hamlet believes his father was murdered, by his brother. His uncle’s response will reveal if he did or did not kill his brother for power.
    Hamlet is determined throughout the soliloquy to revenge his father’s death and find the culprit, he believes to be his uncle the new king, guilty. After the ghost visits with Hamlet and tells him that he was murdered by his brother, the new king, Hamlet begins to put together the pieces about his uncle. Hamlet mainly thinks about how his uncle had responded to the death of his brother, the King, and the motives that his uncle may of had like gaining power and marrying Hamlet’s mother the queen. This is also where Hamlet begins to feel determined and starts to organize a plan of how he is going to catch the guilty party in the murder of his father.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Morey Ronan 2.2 Soliloquy Explication
    In this soliloquy, Hamlet expresses his strong feelings, in which he is angered towards himself for doing nothing thus far to avenge his father’s death. In a frustrated, questioning tone, he talks to himself, discussing the visiting actor’s contrasting ability to express himself perfectly. He says, “He would drown the stage with tears And cleave the general ear with horrid speech; Make mad the guilty, and appal the free; Confound the ignorant, and amaze, indeed, The very faculties of eyes and ears,” speaking of the skills the actor has to express his feelings and make a difference in his situation, which Hamlet compares to his cowardness (“Am I a coward?”, he says in a defeated tone). The actor delivers the emotions - sadness, anger - and amazement necessary to make an impact. He continues, “Yet I, A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak, Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause, And can say nothing.” He is dull-spirited, and apparently unable to respond to Claudius’s wrongdoing the way he wants to. He can only “unpack [his] heart with words”, when he should be avenging the “dear King’s” death, which, he is only considering doing because of being prompted by “heaven and hell” - he did not even set out with these intentions single-handedly. He dramatically focuses on putting himself down like this. Eventually, though, his spirit partially brightens, only because of the strength the king’s spirit has given him, which has caused him to “know [his] course” - he has hope in his conniving plan: “the play's the thing Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king”.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cody E.

    2.2 Soliloquy

    Hamlet begins the soliloquy by delving into his feelings of lowliness and cowardice as “a rogue and peasant slave,” triggered by the heart-felt acting before him. He appears to have a sudden moment of clarity while watching the play: this mere actor is more emotional than he is. Everything occurring on stage is by his own accord: the tears, the paleness, the agitated state. It is “monstrous” because the emotion derived from a fictional king’s death appears to be more powerful than the emotions demonstrated by both Hamlet and Gertrude in response to an actual death. The actor is somewhat of a foil to Gertrude, for he conveys the grief that Hamlet feels she is lacking. This causes Hamlet to ponder his own lack of action by ruminating on the actions such a passionate character might take. He renders a scene in which the actor is found in Hamlet’s position in order to contrast with his own passive existence. The imagery used is crucial to the scene, for the idea of a tear-flooded stage and bleeding ears illustrates just how intense Hamlet’s action should seem. Such an intense scene is followed by a self-deprecating series of thoughts, further defining the gap between Hamlet’s current state and the state in which he ought to be (as exemplified by the actor.) He contemplates his lack of action by asking the question, “Who is stopping me from taking action?” and realizing that no one is preventing him but himself. He then calls on himself to take action, as he should have long ago. His hatred towards Claudius emerges in the line, as he is described as a “Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain!” Hamlet then rips into himself even more vigorously, enraged at his own inaction at such a scoundrel. “Why what an Ass I am!” He moves on from his own self hatred to become inspired by the thought of how sinners cannot bear scenes reminding them of their own deeds, and devises a plan to assess Claudius’ guilt. There is a surge in confidence at the close of the soliloquy, signifying that Hamlet has reached a turning point: while maintaining reason, he is filled with spirit to take action.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ella B.
    2.2 Soliloquy Explaination

    Hamlet’s soliloquy in Act 2 sums up how he feels about the situation he believes himself stuck in. At the beginning of the soliloquy Hamlet compares himself with the player, and is distraught, and jealous of the player’s ability to “force his soul so to his own conceit” and be able to morn with visible distress the hardship of Hecuba. Hamlet is baffled by the players display of emotion despite the fact that Hecuba means nothing to him. Hamlet hypothesizes that if the player “Had he the motive and the cue for passion
    That I have” that he would fill the stage with tears, appall, and make mad the crowd, and simply “amaze indeed
    The very faculties of eyes and ears.” He brings back the speech to himself in further comparison of himself and the player stating that he can do nothing - like a dreamer unready for his situation -in his position, against the king who stole his father’s throne and life. Hamlet’s reasoning for not taking action is that he is “pigeon-liver'd and lack gall.” Hamlet now starts planning a way to ensare his uncle’s guilt, and reflects on how he has heard that guilty people have been forced to “proclaim'd their malefactions” while watching scenes that depict their acts of sin. He forms a plan to create a play molded around the death of his father, all the while watching every reaction of his uncle so that he may have his proof that what the ghost - that may be the devil using Hamlet’s grief over his father’s death as motivations to damn him - says is true. If the conscience of the king is shown to support the ghost’s words then Hamlet will have the ability to take action, and vengeance, with “gall”, against the murderer of his father.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Meghan O.
    2.2 Soliloquy Explication
    In my opinion, the epitome of self-loathing and desperation is captured in this soliloquy. Hamlet speaks about being very ashamed of the fact that he hasn’t taken any action to avenge his fathers death, and this is because he hates the idea of revenge in the first place. He compares his actions to those actions of the players on stage. Hamlet is upset that he doesn’t have nearly as much passion to avenge his father’s death as the players on the stage have toward their part in the play, and he hates himself for it. This causes him to go into a fit of rage, as performed in the five videos that were provided for us on the blog. Hamlet thinks that there is not yet enough concrete evidence to put Claudius as King Hamlet’s murderer, so he is has decided to wait it out before he acts to take revenge on King Hamlet’s death. On line 606, Hamlet speaks of King Hamlet’s ghost as “the devil”:
    I know my course. The spirit that I have seen
    May be the devil: and the devil hath power
    To assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps
    Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
    As he is very potent with such spirits,
    Abuses me to damn me
    This specific section of text shows that Hamlet is thinking through all the possible scenarios that could play out (no pun intended), revealing that he is an intelligent, careful man. He is thinking of how his fathers ghost could really be the devil, and the devil presented himself to Hamlet in King Hamlet’s form, in order for young Hamlet to seek revenge on an innocent victim and ultimately damning him to Hell. All in all, this particular soliloquy really gives a deeper look into Hamlet’s mind and conscience, providing us as readers with a more solid basis of knowledge to go off of when presented with the question: is Hamlet insane/mad?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hamlet starts out with a whole plan as soon as the players (actors) come into scene.He came up with the idea to make them perform a play that was somewhat close to his situation and his father's death so he could discover his uncle's reaction. Polonium kept saying how they were the best actors in the business and Hamlet asks one of them to recite a little part of a play about Hecuba, a queen who lost her husband and how she grieved. After seeing the actor cry out and perform the play so well he started thinking about his own situation. Hamlet is amazed that the actor could portray his feelings better than him who was in the situation. The actor performing the play did a better job grieving the fake person than he did with his own father and that really troubled Hamlet. When he says: " What an ass am I This is most brave, That I, the son of a dear father murder'd,Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words, And fall a-cursing, like a very drab..." (Lines 611-615) he means that he feels foolish for sitting around instead of taking action against his uncle. He also saw how the wife in the play grieved for the king, he grew angry because his mother did not grieve at all. He stars to feel unsure of himself because he is a "dull and muddly-mettled rascal" (page 117, line 594) meaning that he feels frustrated that he couldn't do more for his father. For his plan to work he could not show his emotions and that makes him feel helpless like a "John-a-dreams" (line 595). Hamlet feels as if he is acting like a "coward " (line 698) because he had not made a move on his uncle yet who he calls a "bloody, bawdy villain!" (Line 607). Through out the soliloquy, Hamlet's moods changes various times from him being angry for not portraying grief the way he should to his hopelessness to his scheming. He started doubting himself and the ghost: "The spirit that I have seen may be a devil..." (Line 627-628) and that got him to come up with the plan for the actors to enact a play very similar to what happened to his father and see if he could find guilt in his uncle's eyes. His actions show him to be very confused and doubtful, and maybe insane? This soliloquy brings up many important questions like does Hamlet really believe in the ghost? Is he focused on his revenge or lost in his rage? Is he mad or still pretending to be? These questions are important for the whole plot to work out.

    ReplyDelete
  20. In the soliloquy in act 2 scene 2, Hamlet thinks about the death of his father, and how he, and those around him were affected. Hamlet referred to Hecuba, the Trojan Queen, throughout this soliloquy in order to compare her to his mother, and Queen, Gertrude. The actors are going to perform a play about Priam and Hecuba , and Hamlet is wondering how Hecuba will be portrayed; as stated in (2.2.585-590), “For Hecuba! What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, that he should weep for her? What would he do had he the motive and the cue for passion that I have? Would he drown the stage with tears and cleave the general ear with horrid speech” Hecuba and Gertrude alike have lost their husbands, however they reacted in different ways. As Hecuba grieved for the loss, Gertrude did not seem fazed by the traumatic death of her husband. Here, Hamlet is saying that if the actor portrayed how Hamlet was feeling, then play would have deep emotion and great sorrow. Hamlet thinks about how he is, “pigeon-liver’d and gall to make oppression bitter, or ere this [he] should have fatted all the region kites with this slave’s offal: bloody, bawdy villain! He acted weak and depressed at the time his father died, and now he is wishing he acted with more vengeance and revenge sooner. Almost any soliloquy works to look at the character’s thoughts in order to learn more about him, and in this soliloquy, Hamlet’s deep thoughts and plans are revealed. In this soliloquy, Shakespeare made the choice for Hamlet to reveal to the audience his plan how he will get revenge on the present King of Denmark. “Abuses me to damn me; I’ll have the grounds more relative than this; the play’s the thing Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king”(2.2.610-612). Here Hamlet devises a plan to find out whether the new King is in fact guilty for the murder of his own brother. The use of alliteration in the final sentence, “I’ll catch the conscience of the king” adds poetry, which made it more enjoyable to the audience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When looking at my writing again, I realize there are places in which I could have talked about more, Hecuba, and what it represents. Now, I feel i have a better understanding about what is a happening in this part of the soliloquy. Hamlet is comparing himself to an actor, who portrayed such deep, passionate emotion about the death in the play. Hamlet is feeling bad, because he is
      having trouble finding enough anger inside of him for revenge, as he says in lines 582-584 ,”’Swounds, I should take it; for it cannot be But I am pigeon-liver’d and lack gall to make oppression bitter.” He says that did actor did such a good job when is pretending, he wonders what he would do if the actor were actually in the same situation, and he does this by providing the audience with some very vivid imagery to ponder, “He would drown the stage with tears, and cleave the general ear with horrid speech” Hamlet hopes he can find the courage inside of him in order to right the murder that has been committed on his father.

      Delete
  21. 2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    Both performances, by Kenneth Branagh and Mel Gibson show the agony Hamlet is going through when trying to reason with himself on what he should do about his situation. Both actors portrayed the madness that is going on in Hamlet's mind as he begins to think of a plan that will corrupt Claudius. In Gibson's version I found the soliloquy much more realistic because of the minimum amount of anger he put into his tone when saying the speech. Branagh's version portrayed Hamlet's anger in a similar way although a bit harsher than Gibson's focusing on how this would make Hamlet seem to be a less sane person. Both actors used anger as their main theme but each interpreted it in their own way, the way they saw Hamlet in this seen whether it was minimum anger, almost frustration or a great amount of anger showing the audience just how mad Hamlet is.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Zoe P

    2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    In the Kenneth Branagh version of the soliloquy the actor captures the anger and frustration of Hamlet, while the David Tennant version captures more of the crazed and deranged side. Both clips portrayed Hamlet’s actions in a realistic way, however the Tennant version I felt to be a little distracting. Near the end the camera was following Hamlet around in circles, which really convey’s the madness Hamlet felt, but as the viewer it made me dizzy and it took away from the speech itself. In the Branagh version I liked how the actor broke the glass and slammed the doors shut, it added to the emotion of the soliloquy and really brought about the anger Hamlet felt. What i didn’t like about the Branagh version was the screaming throughout almost the whole scene. Branagh was screaming his lines and it made some of the words hard to understand and unclear. The emotion in Tennant’s voice was soft and he took a lot of pauses which made it more appealing to listen to. As the scene went on, his voice began to rise and build up with anger which displayed the emotion very well.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Michael M

    2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    While Tennant does an excellent job portraying the confusion and anger of Hamlet, the Gibson version truly focuses on the madnesses of Hamlet during this second soliloquy. Tennant takes time to slowly ponder the reaction of the player and his emotions toward the situation in Troy. Gibson just seems to yell and let out all of his frustration in the skit. Gibson does not stall to try to figure out why the player has these feelings, instead he shows the immediate anger toward his mother and her quick change and remarry. As the soliloquy progresses, Tennant changes from confusion to clever madness, as he begins to create his plan to catch Claudius. Meanwhile, Gibson does not change to this clever anger, because his tone has been the same throughout the seen. Gibson establishes the reasoning behind his plan earlier than Tennant, through his speech and anger.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Everest C

    2.2 Soliloquy Shuttle Comparison
    Kenneth Branagh and Ethan Hawke

    Variation in an actors intensity drives the internal struggle visible to the viewers from the stage. Kenneth Branagh and Ethan Hawke approach this variation differently. While Branagh begins in a melancholy whisper, transforms to a fervent rage, and then crumbles into parabolic planning, Hawke keeps a somber tone throughout. Neither side is the correct one, and neither one is incorrect. However, they do each provide different presentations, and essentially, different meanings to the viewers. Kenneth Branagh exudes self pity in the first several sentences, but quickly shows his anger towards king Claudius until he snaps inside and shows pure, physical fury. Branagh then shows how quickly the mind can change course and Hamlet is soon angry at himself for this. Branagh displays Hamlets differing attitudes by accurately acting them on stage/camera. Hawke, on the flip side, has the same tone of voice and (for the most part) facial expression. Keeping the soliloquy internal and keeping his actions minimal. What he does during the speech does have an impact though. Him watching video of what is clearly Hamlet performed on stage echoes Hamlets on thoughts about being a player in an earth that does nothing for him. (while these thoughts are not in this speech they do apply to Hamlets thoughts about players) Hawke is also applying edits to what seems (through inferences) to be the play that he is planning to trick Claudius with. The Branagh soliloquy uses actions for emotional purposes, but not through the more abstract methods that Hawkes does.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gloria K. 2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    Gregory Doran’s version of Hamlet’s 2.2 solioquy shows the increased madness, and emotions happening in Hamlet’s mind, which Michael Almereyda fails to do by using tone, posture, and movement. Ethan Hawke, who performed Michael Almereyda’s version of the soliloquy, had very subtle changes in tone in the beginning of the scene. His tone lacked the sudden changes that was evident in the beginning of Gregory Doran’s version, played by David Tennant emphasized the word “peasant” more. As a result David Tennant’s tone in the beginning gives a sense of anger, and self loathe while Ethan Hawke falls short of registering a specific emotion about himself or the situation. Towards the middle of the scene, David Tennant has a variety of postures within seconds, which gives a sense of franticness, and transition into madness. He starts by standing up straight, then transitions into crouching over slightly, and walks into a different posture. In the middle of Michael Almereyda’s scene, Ethen Hawke is crouched over the computer, showing a contemplative side of his character. At the end of David Tennant’s performance, he starts to walk as he makes a more assertive statement about his plan to see if his Uncle is guilty. His walk shows more certainty about his next move, in dealing with the information the Ghost gave him. Towards the end of Ethan Hawke’s performance, there is only movement in the changing of the pictures on the computer. However the movement does not show the sudden certainty that David Tennant’s walk does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the beginning of David Tennants scene he puts a lot of emphasis on the word "peasant", which is one of the lowest ways Hamlet insults himself in the soliloquy. His angry walk to a crouched position, after he rips the camera from the wall, shows the audience the anger and self-hatred. Ethan Hawke didn’t show the same emphasis in the words he used to insult himsel

      Delete
  26. Joseph C.
    2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    With the use of tone, gestures, and unique settings, the performance by Tennant conveys Hamlet’s complex feelings of hopelessness and cowardliness in a more dramatic way, whereas Gibson has a more realistic reaction.
    Before Tennant starts his soliloquy, he tears down a security camera that was watching him, and then says, “Now I am alone.” This seems to be a more erratic reaction to being around someone else's presence compared to Gibson’s reaction, which is to go into a separate room. Tennant uses his set to express how Hamlet is feeling constantly surrounded, and gives a different meaning when he says he is alone. The audience sees a sense of relief come over Tennant as he sits with his back against the wall. He does not seem angry when he throws the camera, which might be expected from someone who had just torn down a camera presumably out of anger. Tennant later stands up and walks around, raising his voice and using large gestures, especially when saying, “He would drown the stage with tears And cleave the general ear with horrid speech.” Tennant’s level of anger appears to change much more frequently than Gibson’s, because Gibson takes more time to get to an excited state. Gibson starts his soliloquy in a quiet voice, asking himself if he is “a coward.” As the soliloquy progresses, the audience can see the anger in Gibson’s voice continue to build. He remains angry until he reaches the top of a set of stairs, and he calms down at very natural parts in the soliloquy. Gibson’s lack of dramatic gestures, and steady buildup of emotion makes for a more realistic reaction. Changing emotions sporadically and pacing back and forth, like Tennant does, shows the complexity and the swing of emotion in the soliloquy, but seems like something only an actor would do, and not an actual person. Both performances use a fluctuation of emotion that convey Hamlet’s feeling of self hatred, when Hamlet calls himself a coward. There is a distinct point in both versions, where Hamlet has a sudden realization of what he thinks he should do to prove Claudius guilty of murder. When reciting the plan, Gibson uses a more depressed or crazed tone, that presents the reoccurring idea that Hamlet is mad. Tennant seems more excited that he discovered a way to prove his uncle guilty, and when he brings up that the ghost he saw may have been imagined, he seems like he is just using logic. When Gibson says he might have imagined his father’s ghost, he seems to be questioning his sanity, and if he can believe himself. Although this may not necessarily be a realistic reaction, Gibson moves from a sudden realization to a depressed tone, which both include slow talking. Tennant seems to switch from a quiet voice when thinking of a plan to a more excited tone when realizing he can finally do something about his father’s death.
    Both Tennant and Gibson convey the complexity of Hamlet’s feelings, but Tennant has a more dramatic reaction, whereas Gibson does so in a more realistic way. The two versions include different uses of their setting, tone, and gestures to suggest that Hamlet feels he is a coward and that he is hopeless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joseph C.
      2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

      I tried to further explain not

      Through the use of tone, gestures, and unique settings, the performance by Tennant conveys Hamlet’s complex feelings of hopelessness and cowardliness in a more dramatic way, whereas Gibson has a more realistic reaction.
      Before Tennant starts his soliloquy, he tears down a security camera that was watching him, and then says, “Now I am alone.” This seems to be a more erratic reaction to being around someone else's presence compared to Gibson’s reaction, which is to go into a separate room. Tennant uses his set to express how Hamlet is feeling constantly surrounded, and gives a different meaning when he says he is alone. The audience sees a sense of relief come over Tennant as he sits with his back against the wall. He does not seem angry when he throws the camera, which might be expected from someone who had just torn down a camera presumably out of anger. Gibson uses his environment in the beginning of his soliloquy, by becoming angry and yelling at the sight of the actors in the street. Later in his version, Gibson uses the sight of Claudius and the actor to come up with his plan to use a play to prove Claudius murdered his father. Using a play, or words, to find evidence instead of immediately seeking revenge is something Hamlet considers cowardly and womanly which is evident from the lines, This is most brave, That I, the son of a dear father murder'd, Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words.”
      As Tennant’s performance continues, he later stands up and walks around, raising his voice and using large gestures, especially when saying, “He would drown the stage with tears And cleave the general ear with horrid speech.” The imagery created from this figurative language shows how Hamlet has a tremendous amount of motive, but he shows he also feels that he cannot do anything about it when he says he, “can say nothing; no, not for a king, Upon whose property and most dear life A damn'd defeat was made.” Tennant’s level of anger appears to change much more frequently than Gibson’s, because Gibson takes more time to get to an excited state. Gibson starts his soliloquy in a quiet voice, asking himself if he is “a coward.” As the soliloquy progresses, the audience can see the anger in Gibson’s voice continue to build, when he asks who calls him “villain.” He remains angry until he reaches the top of a set of stairs, and he calms down at very natural parts in the soliloquy. Gibson’s lack of dramatic gestures, and steady buildup of emotion makes for a more realistic reaction. Changing emotions sporadically and pacing back and forth, like Tennant does, shows the complexity and the swing of emotion in the soliloquy, but seems like something only an actor would do, and not an actual person. Both performances use a fluctuation of emotion that convey Hamlet’s feeling of self hatred, when Hamlet calls himself a coward. There is a distinct point in both versions, where Hamlet has a sudden realization of what he thinks he should do to prove Claudius guilty of murder. After the line, “Fie upon't! foh! About, my brain,” there a pause, and both actors appear to finally be thinking a plan of action to take against Claudius. When reciting the plan, Gibson uses a more depressed or crazed tone, that presents the reoccurring idea that Hamlet is mad. Tennant seems more excited that he discovered a way to prove his uncle guilty, and when he brings up that the ghost he saw may have been imagined, he seems like he is just using logic. When Gibson says he might have imagined his father’s ghost, he seems to be questioning his sanity, and if he can believe himself. Although this may not necessarily be a realistic reaction, Gibson moves from a sudden realization to a depressed tone, which both include slow talking. Tennant seems to switch from a quiet voice when thinking of a plan to a more excited tone when realizing he can finally do something about his father’s death.

      Delete
    2. Both Tennant and Gibson convey the complexity of Hamlet’s feelings through the use of their setting, tone, and gestures, but Tennant has a more dramatic reaction, whereas Gibson conveys that Hamlet is a hopeless coward in a more realistic way.

      Delete
    3. Impressive insight with convincing development of precise support

      Delete
  27. Tess B.
    Soliloquy Performance Comparison
    Branagh’s version of the soliloquy portrays the stages of Hamlet’s madness as it escalates and simmers, as he becomes agitated then quietly reflective, through his posture, actions, and tone; something Hawke’s version fails in doing do to the fact that the soliloquy takes place as a though process. Branagh enters out of breathe, and seemingly relived to finally be alone. He holds the door frame for support and you immediately gather the sense that he has seen something that has disturbed him. Hawke’s scene begins by him lying on the bed. The only sign that he has seen something upsetting is the rubbing of the hands on his face. In Branagh’s version the scene continues as Branagh talks to himself; quietly at first then with escalating agitation. His walk turns into a pace as he dives deep into thought. His tone rises and falls. As he speaks of the actor his voice turns into that of a yell and when he calls himself a coward his voice lowers to that of a choked whisper. He continues on as if having a conversation with himself, asking questions and proceeding to answer them. He throws his hands in agitation and even hits things or slams on a globe to show his frustration. Hawke, for the same portion of the soliloquy, continues to lie on his bed, watching videos of perhaps the actor and his play. It is obvious he is deep in thought but you don’t immediately grasp the fact that Hamlet is going mad, that this is a turning point in the play. His tone remains even throughout the soliloquy and he is very matter-of-fact about his plan to “catch the conscience of the king”. He does being to show his insanity later in the scene by biting his fingernails in agitation as he puts together videos of what appear to be the play that will supposedly catch the king’s guilt. He plays the videos quickly and watches the screen with great intensity. As Branagh comes to formulate his plan on catching the king in his guilt his voice becomes quiet. His eyes are lit with the insanity of a new idea. The camera zooms in on his face as he goes deeper and deeper into his idea. While he speaks his last words an eerie music plays, matching the mood of Branagh’s quiet, mad, revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rachael S.

    2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    Kenneth Branagh’s version of the soliloquy shows Hamlet’s anger at his inability to feel vengeance while Laurence Olivier’s clip avoids Hamlet expressing his emotions.The beginning of Branagh's soliloquy, Hamlet races in the room, out of breath, and relieved to finally be alone. His mind is clearly working out his thoughts, like in Olivier’s. Olivier’s begins with Hamlet standing in a room saying nothing though he is clearly thinking of something. While he merely stands and thinks Branagh paces around the room his emotions evident in his actions and his tone. As his anger with himself grows greater his voice rises and his actions become more violent and seemingly aggressive. Branagh portrays all of Hamlet’s emotions effectively allowing the audience to fully view his agony which eventually leads to his devising of the plan to expose Claudius. On the other hand, Olivier does not portray what is going on in Hamlet’s mind, and does not even have the expressions that Branagh did to show if there was any resentment or agony. Instead Olivier immediately jumps to the creating of his plan, choosing to have Hamlet only say that “the play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king!” This choice hid Hamlet’s inner turmoil from the audience, far different from that of Branagh. Branagh played up the turmoil more than anything, responding to his conflicted mind in the ways one would expect. He hits various surfaces and throws himself against others due to how strongly he wishes he could feel the vengeance he should be able to feel.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Both gibson and tennent show emotion in their soliloquy. Tennent's is more internalised and is talking more about what he is thinking about and his stream of conscience. gibson seems to be more focused on the world around him and what the king is doing . I prefer tennent over gibson because tennent speaks in a more stream of conscience and that is how i think. Gibson is much more vivid than tennent but i like the personal aspect tennent brings to the stage. both of them have great revelations, when the figure out what they should do, they are vivid and emotional, which is what hamet is during this time. he is questioning the ghost and he is still wrestling with his inner demons. they take that and really show it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Kerri C.

    2.2 Performance Comparison


    The more modern era that Gregory Doran presents the mixture of modern and medieval and how the two worlds collide, while Franco Zeffirelli’ s use of dramatics and movement differs tremendously because of the more active the actor is. Tennant uses a lot of eye contact with the filming camera to hold the attention of the audience unlike Gibson who avoids direct eye contact but speaks outwards in any other way than that of the reader.
    Setting the story in a completely different era compared to the one that the book is based in causes attention to develop to particular details like the technology around him as he begins talking in the clip and the clothes he is wearing. Zeffirelli places Gibson in medieval times where the scene is detail specific revealing that each item adds to the solidity of the story and what happens in it. Doran uses the seclusion of a room to narrate what is going on in the story the narration is implied because Tennant continuously uses eye contact. The continuous movement that is seen in Zeffirelli’ s soliloquy of Hamlet along with being around other people, compared to the few times that Tennant moves while inside the room with complete privacy unveils the idea that to one person Hamlet may be cut off from the world with solid thoughts in his mind to another he may just be someone in the background that nobody ever took notice of.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    Gibson's and Hawke's soliloquy focused on the same emotions but did it very differently. Gibson overreacted and was very theatrical in his soliloquy and spoke as Shakespeare probably intended it to be recited. However it was so overdramatic that it was humorous. Hawke acted completely different in a more modern persona. He acted very calm and down to earth. The emotions did not get the better of his character. It seemed much more realistic but would probably seem dull and bland if put of a stage. Gibson seemed to rush through the soliloquy which made it harder to follow. This may have been due to the emotional intensity. He did not give enough time between lines for the viewer to take it all in. I believe this had the positive effect of showing how strongly his emotions were and that he could not control his emotions. Hawke was very calm and took his time with each line. He gave the viewer just enough time to think about the line but not get bored. It was very easy to follow due to the calm nature. Both Gibson and Hawke viewed the outside world while enveloped in their own world. Gibson looked through a window to see events taking place and Hawke viewed the world in a modern way through television. They both tried to show while wrapped up in their own minds they are still aware of the world around them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison (rewrite)

      Gibson's and Hawke's soliloquy focused on the same emotions but did it very differently. Gibson overreacted and was very theatrical in his soliloquy and spoke as Shakespeare probably intended it to be recited. However it was so overdramatic that it was humorous. Hawke acted completely different in a more modern persona. He acted very calm and down to earth. The emotions did not get the better of his character. It seemed much more realistic but would probably seem dull and bland if put on a stage. Gibson seemed to rush through the soliloquy which made it harder to follow. This may have been due to the emotional intensity. He did not give enough time between lines for the viewer to take it all in. I believe this had the positive effect of showing how strongly his emotions were and that he could not control his emotions. Hawke was very calm and took his time with each line. He gave the viewer just enough time to think about the line but not get bored. It was very easy to follow due to the calm nature. Both Gibson and Hawke viewed the outside world while enveloped in their own world. Gibson looked through a window to see events taking place and Hawke viewed the world in a modern way through television. They both tried to show while wrapped up in their own minds they are still aware of the world around them. Gibson's anger was apparent by the way he stomped up the stairs and his body posture was the opposite of relaxed. His facial expressions were very intense which highlighted emotional unstability. Hawke was much more relaxed which made it seem as if he had just given up on the world. His emotional agony was so great that he was past the point of freaking out. His face seemed very concerned but his body made it seem as if he was done. He is seen laying down which i think symbolizes him giving up.

      Delete
  32. Emma P
    2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison
    In the version with Tennant I enjoyed the scope of his emotions, he used the whole room unlike the version with Branagh. Tennant started small in the corner of a grand room with informal clothes on, but when he figured out his plan he became a bigger person and also more manic. In the version with Branagh, it was the opposite, he started quicker and slowed down as the plan became clear to him. Both versions featured stages. In the version with Tennant it was the raised part of the black floor which, he made use of at the beginning to illustrate the player. In the version with Branagh, the stage was a toy that had the King on it. He uses it towards the end to show the downfall of the king. The version with Branagh depicts more anger with himself and desperation until he becomes more calculated in his plan. Tennant, however was just desperate until his scheming made him manic. I think both versions give off a very different feeling.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Paula C

    2.2 Performance Soliloquy Comparison

    Branagh's version shows a deep feeling of anger coming from Hamlet, much like Gibson's version. They both show extreme emotions and gives the audience a real feeling of how Hamlet would sound. Unlike Branagh's and Gibson's, Hawke's version lacks emotion and he uses a monotone kind of voice which makes the soliloquy sound boring and emotionless. Hawke's version also lacks the medieval setting of a castle and royal clothes of both Branagh's and Gibson's version. Tennant's version does not lack emotion, in fact, he varies his emotions into more than just fits of rage which makes his version my favorite. Some might say that Tennant's version was exaggerated but I personally think he successfully brings out the emotions in this soliloquy. He did lack the clothing that Gibson's and Branagh's versions had, but he had the setting. Tennant managed to combine the modern aspect of Hawke's version with the old aspect of Branagh and Gibson's version. He made it into a whole new original one which it worked because he incorporated all the good parts into his. Now unlike any other version, Olivier's version comes into place with its whole musical concept. To be honest, I was confused by it but did notice that it contained the similar medieval setting Branagh and Gibson's version had. Much like Hawke's version it lacks emotion and it seems to lack relativity to the matter at hand. Branagh succeeded not only in his fits of anger but also showing the audience Hamlet's "madness". At the very end, it is almost as if he has an epiphany and finally focuses on what's important portraying the soliloquy wonderfully. Gibson's version also did that, but instead of getting all quite and serious, he uses almost the same tone and out of breath says he will "catch the conscience of the king" and runs off. Both endings give the same idea performed a little differently. Like said before, Tennant's version incorporated both Gibson and Branagh. By having him change his tone and facial expressions as if he had suddenly regained his course and then running off to his task, Tennant brings elements that were in Gibson's and Branagh's versions. Hawke's version fall short to do all three since all he does is lay down or sit in front of computers with the same tone of voice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paula C

      2.2 Performance Soliloquy Comparison

      Branagh's version shows a deep feelings of rage, insanity, and sadness coming from Hamlet, much like Tennant's version. They both show extreme emotions and gives the audience a real feeling of how Hamlet would sound. Branagh slams the door, and walks around the room beating on things in fits of rage while Tennant yanks a camera and sits in a corner until his burst of anger. Tennant's version puts Hamlet very vulnerable to the matter by making him be sitting on the floor in a corner whereas Branagh is in an office kind of room and paces while giving the speech. Even though both versions start with the "Now I am alone" line, they are very different in fact. Branagh comes into the office like room out of breath using a melancholic tone as if he needed to be alone because the thoughts in his head would burst where Tennant is already very agitated and seems to start his speech with an insane look. The setting's are also similar; Tennant and Branagh both have a royal castle setting as a background, but Tennant lacks the right clothes from the setting which takes away from the setting as a whole.
      Tennant's version does not lack emotion, in fact, he varies his emotions so carefully, and his approach, unlike any other, to look at the camera gives it a bigger reliable frame to the. Some might say that Tennant's version was exaggerated but I personally think he successfully brought out the emotions in this soliloquy while Branagh succeeded not only in his fits of anger but also showing the audience Hamlet's "madness". Tennant dismisses his melancholic tone at “ Had he the motive and the cue for passion” (line 566) and goes mad until he collapses on the floor at “O, vengeance!” (line 588) in tears almost to demonstrate his helplessness whereas Branagh starts very calmly and starts raising his voice at “ he would drown the stage with tears” (line 567) putting emphasis on the drown to show the deepness of his emotions, and then gets to the apex of his soliloquy at “'Swounds, I should take it” (line 582) by knocking over everything on top of a table .By the very end it seems almost as if Hamlet has an epiphany with the phrase “ about, my brain!” (line 595). Branagh carefully shows the audience this moment by changing his facial expression to a softer one while his voice comes back to normal as if he regained his wits whereas Tennant looks up as if he has had an idea, only he keeps looking flustered and disturbed while talking directly to the camera about his plan.

      Delete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jaclyn W

    2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    Where in Gibson's version of Hamlet the meaning of Hamlet's plans are clearly displayed through surrounding settings to key the viewer in, Tennant's version unfortunately fails to do this. I will firstly state that both of these versions did a very excellent job as they had prior. Both plays had very emotionally good acting, with Gibson portraying his anger filled shame through the tone of his voice, and Tennant with his smooth transitions from each point of emotion. as was stated earlier Tennant's lacked the setting keys to which a viewer can appoint what is going on. Though most viewers are aware of this as they hopefully watch the prior scenes Tennants just lacked the keys of his surroundings to which he is inspired. Gibson's piece has a setting which shows Claudius and the players which give a reason for Hamlet to connect his thoughts out in his soliloquy. Also in Gibson's version, when he saw the players later rather than former, while planning a way to bring forth Claudius' deeds the players show up which show Hamlet hatch the idea and a clever on the spot way. The context clues of the setting in Gibson's movie actually give an idea of how things will go down, and also fit a movie format better than Tennants. Tennant's version seemed to have suited an actual theater better, and would have portrayed Hamlet's ideas better. Plus Tennant needs to stop staring at the camera and addressing the audience as it makes it more of a monologue than a soliloquy. The evidence of acting however, as stated prior, that both actors displayed an immediate air of shame, anger, frustration, and cleverness within their own scenes respectively and their body movements and actions both displayed the emotions through actions, such as Gibson angrily thumping up the stairs or Tennant slumping into the floor in grief and shame. Yet the final difference, as gone over many times, in determining the better of the two would be the key setting hints that give a final push to clue in the audience. Tennant does attempt this by ripping out the camera to say that he does not want to be watched in a time of shame and irritation of constantly being watched on, but Gibson's frustrated reaction to Claudius along with the clever twist in seeing the players really topped the icing on the cake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where in Gibson's version of Hamlet the meaning of Hamlet's plans are shown through externally through the watching of the surrounding setting, whereas Tennant's version was exclusively internally bound with a voice and was in fact opposite to Gibson's portrayal of the scene. Tennant's scene forced the viewer to focus on the internal aspects of Hamlet's soliloquy when Tennant rips the camera out of the wall to signify that he is alone with his thoughts and it is more of a thought process of struggling emotions as Tennant smoothly flails from one point of the soliloquy to the other. Gibson on the other end of this uses context clues such as looking at the wagon of players to connect his thoughts to reveal a quick to think improvision of ideas. Gibson manages to create this aspect by changing his tone of voice to a more optimistic and confident voice to tell that he now knows a way to slowly bring his plan together to ultimately get Claudius out. Tennants does the opposite by having no scenery changes to possibly demonstrate Tennant's inner mind, as he is explaining his inner thoughts in this room. The black room appears in both of Tennant's soliloquy speeches, so it would make sense for this place to be used as an imagery of Hamlet's mind: it also dark like his soul is since his father's death and all of the other events that we know about happening in his life. Gibson's format does not go into depth in the matter of a room as he is constantly reacting externally to the outside world to represent his ideas and draw them from the audience. This main reason is why Gibson's is better: it is in a movie format acted out as a movie so that anyone can clearly watch and understand along with having lines in the soliloquy switched (the lines about the players) so that the flow of the story is more modern and easy to grasp. Tennant's version, in contrast, plays out more as a theatrical event by having Tennant display the majority of the soliloquy in an internal struggle by thrashing his emotions into phrase someone needs to listen to to get. Tennant also stares into the camera YET AGAIN to address the audience, except this time around it only lasted for a short while and made more sense. This time his stare into the camera seemed to address the audience for a reason, which is to say that Hamlet is questioning himself in a way that makes him look more insane. Gibson does not address the fourth wall but remains in a view port dimension to be looked upon by acting out his rage by thumping up the stairs to let the reader know of his emotions by interacting with the set. Tennant usually only uses himself to act out his emotions by using his arm gestures and slumping on the floor (there will always be floors so I don't consider them parts of a set usually, this is my own opinion) and which this could further suggest that Tennant is just fighting himself inside of his own mind literally as he is the only singular being the matters on the set and he is a very internal soliloquy. The cameras of course are there to say that he is always watched even in places, such as his own thoughts, that he shouldn't. Ripping out the camera and showing relief on Tennant's face gives the viewer the idea that he is tensed up with the constant spying before going off into the meat of the speech with the various crazy mood swings. Gibson also gives off emotional cues to the actor, but pull his scene off better in the end by fitting the format better by using external cues.

      Delete
  36. Laura J

    2.2 Performance Comparison

    David Tennant’s version of Hamlet’s soliloquy depicts anger, and maniacal motions through movement and facial expressions whereas Branagh’s version shows a more calculated thought process by setting and shooting choices. The settings in the two plays were very different, which had an impact on the viewer's perspective. In Tennant’s version, the black room and the eerie lighting create an atmosphere of sneaking around and making the viewer feel unsettled. The camera spins around him as he gets more emotional, making you almost sick, which is exactly how Hamlet felt in that scene. Branagh's version takes place in a library- type room which makes him seem more logical or alone. In Tennant’s version, he looks in the camera with a crazed look to emphasize his awareness of being watched. Branagh’s version has a more plain camera motion, keeping the emphasis on his words not the atmosphere around him. Both actors use precise pronunciation and in-depth emotion throughout the soliloquy, going from speaking to screaming. Tennant’s facial expressions portray a more maniacal atmosphere whereas Branagh seems more angered and infuriated. Branagh goes as far as to smash a lamp to show his immense frustration and Tennant uses an intentional music at the end of the clip to invite the viewer into the climax of the speech. Tennant’s speech portrays Hamlet more insane and gives the idea of hamlet actually being crazy whereas Branagh shows a more logical but infuriated Hamlet. They both respond to the players with immense emotion and frustration (shown by the movement throughout the soliloquy and the increasing volume of their voices) but give the viewers different ideas of Hamlet’s intended or unintended madness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Tennant’s version of Hamlet’s soliloquy depicts anger, and maniacal motions through movement and facial expressions whereas Branagh’s version shows a more calculated thought process by setting and shooting choices. The settings in the two plays were very different, which had an impact on the viewer's perspective. In Tennant’s version, the black room and the eerie lighting create an atmosphere of sneaking around and making the viewer feel unsettled. The camera spins around him as he gets more emotional, making you almost sick, which is exactly how Hamlet felt in that scene. Branagh's version takes place in a library- type room which makes him seem more logical or alone. In Tennant’s version, he looks in the camera with a crazed look to emphasize his awareness of being watched. Branagh’s version has a more plain camera motion, keeping the emphasis on his words not the atmosphere around him. Both actors use precise pronunciation and in-depth emotion throughout the soliloquy, going from speaking to screaming. Tennant’s facial expressions portray a more maniacal atmosphere whereas Branagh seems more angered and infuriated. Hamlet in Branagh's version gets so frustrated he almost smashes a candelabra, but at the last second he refrains. This is a hint at sanity, he shows that he has even the slightest bit on control on himself. This action, made by the director is intentional to hint at Hamlet's sanity.Tennant uses an intentional music at the end of the clip to invite the viewer into the climax of the speech. Tennant’s speech portrays Hamlet more insane and gives the idea of hamlet actually being crazy whereas Branagh shows a more logical but infuriated Hamlet. They both respond to the players with immense emotion and frustration (shown by the movement throughout the soliloquy and the increasing volume of their voices) but give the viewers different ideas of Hamlet’s intended or unintended madness.

      Delete
  37. Kate P.
    Scene 2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    In both Branagh's adaptation and Tennant's adaptation, Hamlet's actors convey a strong emotion of irritation and anger towards himself. Branagh's emotions are more like a child in a fit of rage: throwing things, breaking things, and hitting walls. Tennant's performance of the soliloquy seem a bit more emotionally invested in that he seemed to not know how to react to the players, or better yet to his own inability to properly avenge his father's death. The way he pulls at the ends of his hair, pacing around and thrashing violently reminds me of how a when you get frustrated, it feels as though all of your emotions compete inside of you and create an enormous amount of energy that needs to be released with action. The way Tennant acts out this scene seems to capture Hamlet's spiral into insanity, as he literally looks like he's about to burst with all his competing energy, unlike Branagh who seems to have a straight path of emotions: upset and thoughtful, to suddenly very angry, and back to thinking rational when concocting his plan to trick Claudius. Branagh's character would react how a normal person would, getting upset and angry, then working through their problems with rationality, whereas Tennant's character seems to only become increasingly more unstable throughout the scene, ending and confirming this in the way he exits in a hurried and erratic way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kate P.
      Scene 2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison: VERSION 2
      In both Branagh's adaptation and Tennant's adaptation, the actors convey a strong emotion of irritation and anger towards themselves and their situation. Branagh's brief emotions or anger are more like a child in a fit of rage: throwing things, breaking things, and hitting walls, whereas Tennant's performance of the soliloquy seem a bit more emotionally invested, and Tennant keeps an angry, frustrated persona throughout the entire performance. He seemed to not know how to react to the players, or better yet to his own inability to properly avenge his father's death; Tennant’s body language and strained voice showed his anxiety and frustration towards the situation throughout the entirety of the clip. For example, the way he pulls at the ends of his hair, pacing around and thrashing violently reminds me of how sometimes when people become extremely agitated, it feels as though all of their emotions compete inside of you and create an enormous amount of energy that needs to be released via physical exertion- yelling, hitting things. Branagh’s performance differentiates in this sense because his emotions travel a much more natural path of dealing with frustrated emotions, first expressing his frustration, then escalating to brief outbreak of rage, then returning to rational thought process when he prepares his plan to deceive the king. The way Tennant acts out this scene seems to capture Hamlet's spiral into insanity, as he literally looks like he's about to burst with all his competing energy, unlike Branagh who seems to have a straight path of emotions: upset and thoughtful, to suddenly very angry, and back to thinking rational when concocting his plan to trick Claudius. Branagh's character reacts how any normal person would, getting upset and angry, then working through their problems with rationality, whereas Tennant's character seems to only become increasingly more unstable throughout the scene, ending and confirming this in the way he exits in a hurried and erratic way.

      Delete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ella B
    2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    David Tennant’s performance is able to convey – through movement, expression, emotions, speech – the path those take who are stricken with such emotion, and a weight, of a seemingly impossible task on there shoulders, accelerate down. Ethan Hawke’s version – partly because he is not delivering the speech on camera – does not encapture the raving’s of a half crazed man falling deeper and deeper into the hole of the task that lies ahead. The comparison between Hamlet and the player is almost tangible when Tennant pauses after “Yet I…”. Before he talks of the player and gestures to the heavens, but when he focuses on himself he looks to the floor, and continues with his soliloquy. The brief clips of an actor talking on screen in the Hawke version do not convey Hamlet’s deep depression and half-crazed madness, that his father has been murdered and the very person is now married to his mother, and on top of it all Hamlet has been tasked with vengeance. Tennant’s heightened emotion, hair-pulling, and utter frustration is in my opinion an accurate example of Hamlets current state.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Cody E.
    2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    Kenneth Branagh’s version makes use of a confined setting to reveal the inner workings of Hamlet’s mind, whereas Franco Zeffirelli includes visible events to make sense of the progression of emotion. Branagh’s adaptation begins with Hamlet closing a door behind him, breathing heavily, and saying “Now I am alone,” whereas the clip of Gibson does not start until he muses “Am I a coward?” while observing Claudius from behind a wall. However, the lines of “Who calls me villain…” are cut out entirely until “ ‘Swounds…” This detracts greatly from the scene, for it is a well of inferiority dredged thoroughly by Branagh. He lets out a brief “Ha!” as he realizes that no-one has held him back but himself, and then embarks on a fit of rage. He slams a candelabra to the ground, facing the fact that he has been a coward thus far. From “To make oppression bitter” through to “O, vengeance!” the action is nearly identical, as Hamlet’s anger towards his uncle is put on full view to the audience. Each actor proceeds to slump, upon a railing and beside a window. Beginning with “What an ass am I…” Gibson then speaks more matter-of-factly, satirizing his own shortcomings. When exclaiming “Fie upon't! foh!” he throws his jacket down forcefully, but appears immature and frustrated when juxtaposed with Branagh’s appearance of being on the brink of insanity. Gibson’s performance seems more fit for the average movie audience, whereas a Shakespeare fan would much prefer Branagh’s nuance in emotion. As Hamlet ponders the idea of how sinners cannot bear to stand their guilt during plays enacting their crimes, a distinct difference occurs in the two versions. Branagh’s pans out as an epiphany of sorts, like the answer to a riddle emerging from the depths of his mind. Yet in Zeffirelli’s version, it takes a wagon of actors to trigger the idea in Hamlet’s mind. This difference seems to define the difference between the two adaptations: they both possess strong emotions but Branagh’s version delves deeper into the psyche of the character whereas Gibson treads on the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hannah L.
    2.2 Soliloquy Performances
    Gibson’s version embodied the emotions of Hamlet through his aggressive actions, the way he spoke as well as the traditional setting, rather than in Hawke’s version, where he is in a very untraditional setting and due to director’s choices, he seems to just be talking nonchalantly about his “fiery emotions”. The director’s choice in Hawke’s of using the voice-over in the soliloquy makes his emotion seem less personal and contain less drive. Gibson having spoke the soliloquy on screen, gave the notion that he was experiencing much more of what he was saying, and the passion was prevalent through the way he yelled and spoke with intensity. Hawke’s setting puts the viewer at ease as well, for he is not in a castle as we would expect Hamlet to be, rather, he is laying on his bed. Layin down doesn’t convey feelings of intensity or even anger. Gibson shows the audience that he means what he says by stomping around the castle, throwing his jacket, and looking completely sad as he gazes out the window upon the people below him. Hawke also did not seem as though he was realizing what his ultimate task was while he was speaking as Gibson did. As Gibson peered out the window, he looked back slowly and spoke softer, because he had just figured out what he was going to do to capture the “conscience of the King”. Hawke seemed as though he was reading from a script rather than decoding the endpoint of his thought process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gibson’s version of the soliloquy embodied the intensity of Hamlet’s emotions due to certain choices by both the actor as well as the director, some of these being movement, external stimulus, tone of voice and aggressive actions that convey that Hamlet is in a state of anger and uncertainty. Also, that as the scene pans out, the viewer is able to tell that Hamlet is processing through his own thoughts, and eventually comes to a realization. Whereas Hawke’s version, due to some choices by the director as well as the actor, did not convey the same emotion or state of uncertainty that Gibson’s possessed due to an untraditional setting, unlikely body language, and lack of passion in his voice. The director’s choice in Hawke’s of using the voice-over in the soliloquy makes his emotion seem less personal and contain less drive. The way Hawke spoke was also quite monotone, and there seemed to be no puzzlement in his voice rather than boredom. Gibson having spoke the soliloquy on screen, gave the notion that he was experiencing much more of what he was saying, and the passion was prevalent through the way he yelled and spoke with intensity, but also softened when his emotion needed to be more solemn than anything. Just as after he runs up the stairs yelling (which completely reveals Hamlet’s anger and frustration with his own confusion) and he exclaims “Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave, That I, the son of a dear father murder'd Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words”, his voice softens for he is now working through the disappointment he has in himself for being a coward. Hawke’s setting confuses the viewer as well, although he is alone, he is not in a castle as we would expect Hamlet to be, rather, he is laying on his bed. Due to the screens of the computer and television, there also seems that there is too much happening around him for him to actually ponder and sort through his own thoughts. While the only other action in Gibson’s is the people outside of the window, but no one else is in his room with him. Still creating the feeling of “now I am alone”. Laying down doesn’t convey feelings of intensity or even anger. Gibson shows the audience that he means what he says by stomping around the castle, throwing his jacket, and looking completely sad as he gazes out the window upon the Claudius and the players below him, which is the external stimulus that prompts him to realize he must put on a play. As Gibson peered out the window, he looked back slowly and spoke softer, because he had just figured out what he was going to do to capture the “conscience of the King”. Hawke seemed as though he was reading from a script rather than decoding the endpoint of his thought process. Although at the end as Hawke spoke faster while playing with the video footage on his computer, you could feel a sense of his thoughts unraveling in front of him. But from the beginning to the end, there was a lack of emotion as well as connection between Hawke and the intensity and weight of the words he spoke. Gibson is able to demonstrate the really anger of Hamlet and the decoding of his thoughts while Hawke does not show much intensity or a significant turning point in his thought process.

      Delete
  42. Meghan O.
    2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison

    David Tennants version of the second soliloquy is unparalleled by any other version of the scene, particularly Laurence Olivier’s. Tennant's clip is angry, and thoroughly emotional. You can feel the anger that Hamlet has toward himself and the fact that the actors are more passionate about their scene than Hamlet is himself in avenging his father's death. Laurence Olivier’s version is lacking in many aspects. I didn't feel as emotionally disturbed by Olivier’s performance. He didn't take advantage of the space that he was given to perform. When I watch a play, I want to feel emotionally attached to that character and truly feel their emotions. I did not feel this enough in Olivier's version of the second soliloquy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Tennants version of the second soliloquy is unparalleled by any other version of the scene, particularly Laurence Olivier’s. Tennant's clip is angry, and thoroughly emotional. When Tennant delivers the line: “Now I’m all alone.”, you can feel the emotion in his voice. He rips the camera off the wall and throws it toward the ground, revealing how much Hamlet really has on his mind and how he feels confined and disgusted with how he is being monitored. You can feel the anger that Hamlet has toward himself and the fact that the actors are more passionate about their scene than Hamlet is himself in avenging his father's death. Laurence Olivier’s version is lacking in many aspects. I didn't feel as emotionally disturbed by Olivier’s performance. He didn't take advantage of the space that he was given to perform. Olivier’s performance was bleak not only due to the fact that it was a mere two lines, but also because it was poorly performed. When I watch a play, I want to feel emotionally attached to that character and truly feel their emotions. I did not feel this enough in Olivier's version of the second soliloquy. The fact that the director decided to only include two lines of speech (the play 's the thing Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king) into this scene shows that he wanted to emphasize the words that were actually spoken, and Olivier succeeds in that aspect. He wants the audience to see that Hamlet is very much set on the fact that he will find out if the King is guilty through his reenactment of King Hamlet’s death.

      Delete



  43. Melanie M.
    Soliloquy Act 2 Scene 2
    Shuttle Comparison between Branagh and Tennant
    Actions, body language, and tone of voice are very important tools for actors, because they revel the inner emotions of the soul.
    In the performances of Hamlet’s soliloquy, both Branagh and Tennant portray powerful emotions through their actions, body language, and tone of voice. In the beginning of the soliloquy, Branagh ran through a door, closed it behind him, and started panting.This action, along with a remorse tone of voice conveyed the emotion of deep sadness and weakness, in the first line of the soliloquy; “Now I am alone. O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!”(2.2.555). In the Tennant version, he starts by ripping down a security camera, which emphasises his anger. This emotion quickly changes to sadness, as Tennant makes his way over to a corner as he sits, hunched over. This position shows to the audience that he is feeling powerless, and depressed, as he states the first lines in a monotone and seemingly emotionless tone of voice.When Tennant says the phrase, “and all for nothing”(2.2.562), his tone of voice seems to shift slightly to a more desperate tone. In both versions, the actors can be seen with clenched fists and bold, swinging arm movements, which illustrates the great anger and frustration they are feeling. Their voices also seem to take on a much more aggressive tone when they are working to convey these powerful emotions. On the contrary, when the actors are saying a part they want to emphasize with a somber emotion, they can be seen with their heads down, as if in defeat. In the version with Branagh, his head is down and he is leaning on to a globe when he says, “And can say nothing; no not for a king, upon whose property and most dear life a damn’d defeat was made,”(2.2.574-576). Haunched, leaning on a globe emphasises his feelings of weakness and powerlessness, as he is feeling because he cannot seem to find the strength to get revenge on his own father’s death. In the part from 2.2.587-589, (“Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villian! O, vengence! Why, what an ass am I”) both actors convey a wide range of movements. In both versions, the actors seem to get angrier until the peak at the phrase “O, vengeance!”, then this emotion drops with Hamlet in despair again. In the version with Tennant, he spends the first line raising a pretend sword, as if about to strike a victim. However at “O, vengeance!”, he finds himself unable to make the kill, and falls to the ground. During the phrase, “why what an ass am I”, Tennant is on the ground with his hands over his face, as if he was ashamed he was unable to kill, even if it was for revenge. In the performance by Branagh, he acts these lines by walking over to a window, and raising his arms with fury. This action is suddenly followed by Hamlet crouching over, which emphasises the guilt and weakness he is feeling. In the final line of the soliloquy, (and of the act) the actors make different choices in how to convey Hamlet’s final attitude of the scene. In the clip by Branagh, as the final line was stated, a little toy king fell over, to signify his plan to murder his uncle. However, in the Tennant version, he stormed out of the room, to signify his newfound decisiveness. The actors made choices about how to act, which influenced the soliloquy as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2.2 soliloquy revisions
      In the soliloquy performances by Branagh and Tennant, their actions, body language, and tone of voice portray powerful emotions, and the different ways the actors perform this conveys Hamlet’s character in a slightly different light. In the version featuring Branagh, he starts his soliloquy in a somber, but more emotionless tone(as he is panting), then at the line, “ and all nothing! For Hecuba”(2.2.562-563) the emotion becomes more acutely depressed, and his voice seems to get higher. However, in the Tennant version, he is still on the ground from when he sat down at the beginning. Then after the line “he should weep for her” he jumps up, and starts walking around the room. Both actors make different choices about where to put their emphasis.
      Tennant and Branagh also make different choices when performing the line, “The spirit that I have seen may be the devil; and the devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape”. Tennant performs the soliloquy in more of a ‘mad’ way, compared to Branagh. At this line, and as Hamlet (by Tennant) is planning the play as part of murder, his eyes are wide, his hair is messed up, and he is breathing heavily. He also talks much more rapidly compared to Branagh, who slows his speech down dramatically, and says everything with a serious attitude. The different choices made by the actors concerning actions, body language, and tone of voice can greatly affect the characterization of the character.

      Delete
  44. Wherein David Tennant portrays Hamlet as a defeated soul who is deeply affected by the actor’s performance, Kenneth Branagh plays the character as slightly more confident, and only further angered by witnessing the actor’s speech. While Tennant begins with an expression of anger, disabling the video camera put in place to follow him, this attitude shifts immediately - suddenly his portrayal of Hamlet is as follows: Hamlet sits on the floor with his legs close to his body, and his hands faintly holding each other - a clear image of defeat. His eyes seem to certainly be focused on something that’s consumed him. They move rarely, and when they do, it seems to be a feat in itself for Hamlet to change his sight. His whole body is affected by the event he is discussing - seeing the actor so perfectly express his feelings, when Hamlet’s own are even more intense and yet he is unsuccessful - in a glum tone, where he almost seems non-present due to his hopeless focus on the actor’s speech. Branagh plays a more confident Hamlet from the beginning. Hamlet is portrayed as angry - that’s the key word one would use to describe the Branagh clip. Anger may not always correspond with confidence, but in this case, Branagh gives viewers the impression that Hamlet is strong enough to make good of the bad, through his anger. When the scene begins, Branagh’s Hamlet is angered - it is heard in his baffled voice, and seen in his extreme movements. As he is comparing the actor’s expressive abilities to his own lack of vengeance for his father’s death thus far, this excitement - expressed through anger - gives the impression that he’ll pull through, and turn his upset into something positive. As Tennant’s Hamlet discusses his lack of success in avenging his father’s death, he cannot maintain any level of hope, or even fake one - he continues to look down in hopelessness in between every false sense of the possibility of success in the soliloquy. Because of this hopeless impression of Hamlet the viewer is given, even once he begins to discuss his plan to uncover Claudius’s innocence with the play, viewers only see it as a silly, whimsical, and still desperate attempt. Branagh’s Hamlet escalates his anger physically - while still maintaining his composure to an extent, therefore expressing to the viewer the possibility of a good outcome from him - and his eyes show a strength unlike Tennant’s. Finally, he passionately cites his plan for the play and Claudius, with the viewers as riled up as he is, and on his side. Kenneth Branagh and David Tennant portray Hamlet very differently - Branagh, with passionate anger that actually brings about a certain level of positivity, and Tennant, with raw devastation, giving Hamlet a helpless, almost wimpy at times, portrayal - greatly affecting the delivery of this significant soliloquy of Hamlet, and contributing to his character.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Branagh and Tennant are two actors who play the role of hamlet very differently. Notably, Branagh starts the 2.2 soliloquy very calmly, contemplatively and solemnly, while tennant says it in angrier, more aggressive tone. Tennant sounds more confused and thoughtful at the beginning, then turns more and more manic, signifying the way that Hamlet may become more and more angry the more he mulls over his own situation. Similarly, Branagh goes totally nuts after the term “Drown the stage in tears” suddenly becoming almost incomprehensible, as if trying to hide his emotions, while Tennant speaks more clearly, signifying a release of emotion. Then, when Branagh mentions the King, he suddenly becomes more soft and sullen again, while Tennant waits for his self-accusations of “Am I a coward?” to switch back to a softer voice. This signifies the twists and turns that a person in emotional turmoil might take, in response to various stimuli, such as the mentioning of touchy subjects, like kings or cowardice. Notably, Branagh returns to speaking manically during the “Plucks off my beard and blows it in my face” part, while tennant slows down, letting the audience better understand the symbolism, and importance of the lines, while Branagh takes it as a large lump of emotion. Near the end, Branagh,after having a nice screaming fit, begins talking about his “Kill the king through a play” plan, yet he has no major “Aha” moment of it, sa if it had been in the back of his mind all along. Tennant, on the other hand, definitely takes a moment to think before realizing his plan, signifying how each actor decides to give Hamlet their own different personalities, and how they both interpret the scene differently.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Branagh’s version of the soliloquy portrays the stages of Hamlet’s madness as it escalates and simmers, as he becomes agitated then quietly reflective, through his posture, actions, and tone; something Hawke’s version fails in doing do to the fact that the soliloquy takes place as a though process. Branagh enters out of breathe, and seemingly relived to finally be alone. He holds the door frame for support and you immediately gather the sense that he has seen something that has disturbed him. Hawke’s scene begins by him lying on the bed. The only sign that he has seen something upsetting is the rubbing of the hands on his face. In Branagh’s version the scene continues as Branagh talks to himself; quietly at first then with escalating agitation. His walk turns into a pace as he dives deep into thought. His tone rises and falls. As he speaks of the actor his voice turns into that of a yell and when he calls himself a coward his voice lowers to that of a choked whisper. He continues on as if having a conversation with himself, asking questions and proceeding to answer them. He throws his hands in agitation and even hits things or slams on a globe to show his frustration. Hawke, for the same portion of the soliloquy, continues to lie on his bed, watching videos of perhaps the actor and his play. It is obvious he is deep in thought but you don’t immediately grasp the fact that Hamlet is going mad, that this is a turning point in the play. His tone remains even throughout the soliloquy and he is very matter-of-fact about his plan to “catch the conscience of the king”. He does being to show his insanity later in the scene by biting his fingernails in agitation as he puts together videos of what appear to be the play that will supposedly catch the king’s guilt. He plays the videos quickly and watches the screen with great intensity. As Branagh comes to formulate his plan on catching the king in his guilt his voice becomes quiet. His eyes are lit with the insanity of a new idea. The camera zooms in on his face as he goes deeper and deeper into his idea. While he speaks his last words an eerie music plays, matching the mood of Branagh’s quiet, mad, revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Emily Neves - F Block - 2.2 Soliloquy
    In Tennants version of the soliloquy, he is clearly focusing on making Hamlet seem mad, which he does quite well through both visual and emotional aspects of his performance. In comparison to Branagh's angry and raw performance with very plain yet rich surroundings, Tennant has just as much an accurate way of portraying Hamlet's feelings at the moment. Tennant visually is wearing a tee-shirt and no shoes, wandering around an empty room looking lost. After ripping down a surveillance camera, he speaks. While Branagh's Hamlet locks himself alone in a room and begins to revel in his loneliness. Each Hamlet reacts to his alone time differently; Tennant goes quite mad while Branagh is somber. Tennant portrays Hamlet as an unsure follower of a vision he has seen. Branagh makes his Hamlet seem as if his anger is a spiteful fuel for his avenging of his father, though both feel really crappy for not going ahead as planned with diligence and strength. Angry and confused, Branagh throws things around the office room while Tennant throws himself around or even onto the floor. Tennant, focusing seemingly more inwardly at Hamlet and his cowardly way, has won my vote for best pick overall because Hamlet may be angry but cannot act in such a way for the stress he is being put under has made him crack. Tennant has a more psychological approach and it catches my eye with his messy hair and bone/ab tee shirt.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Gloria K
    Director Michael Almereyda's "Mouse Trap" uses “normal” film clips, and more extreme film clips to express Hamlet’s feelings about his mother in the , and the progression of the types of clips to “catch the conscience of the king” in the film. The clips show the main ideas of lust, betrayal, anger and murder that Shakespeare’s work evokes throughout the play. The film reveal the evolution of Hamlet’s feelings towards his mother. They begin as loving, then end in disgust, and even hatred.
    The beginning of the film started with a clip of a normal family of three. The mother is depicted as a normal mother, loving to the son and the husband. Hamlet’s opinion about his mother before the death of his father is that she was a loving mother. Then towards the middle of the film the woman, in the clip involving the Roman soldier, is very easily seduced by a soldier, perhaps the same soldier that killed another soldier right next to her. Following that is a very erotic and disturbing image of a woman kissing a man. Subsequently a clip of a woman making love is shown. These clips shows how Hamlet is obsessed with his mother’s sexuality, and that she betrayed his father by easily marrying Claudius. Quite simply, Hamlet is disgusted by his mother for marrying Claudius, and spends most of his time thinking of her intimacy Claudius, who he suspects is the cause of his now broken family.
    After the last happy clip of the family of three, the world turns, and a clip of poison and then a silhouette of a man wearing a hat is shown. A hand pours a poison down the ear of a man, and a clip of a man dying in a strangely comical way is shown. The clip of the silhouette of the man followed by a hand pouring something from a vial down an ear, and that of a man slowly dying, shows the idea of Claudius killing the father. These clips are placed right before the clips of a happy family, expressing the sudden disruption the death of Hamlet’s father caused, in the clip of the falling humans. Then the director introduces a clip from a film, perhaps showing the death of Julius Caesar, of a Roman or Grecian soldier strangling a fellow solider right next to a woman. A few clips after that, the same film reappears, and the same soldier easily seduces the woman, who is most likely the wife of the soldier who was strangled. This is meant to “catch the conscience of the king”, in showing that Claudius is the soldier who kills a fellow soldier, than takes his wife. In the final clip, a man crowns himself, showing that perhaps the motive for Claudius to kill his brother, would be power. “The Mousetrap” seamlessly strings together clips from films, to depict the main ideas of betrayal, anger, lust and murder evident in Shakespeare’s work.
    The woman from the clip of the film shot in the ancient Roman times, as well as the man expresses the idea that Hamlet feels that Gertrude’s marriage to Claudius, betrays his father. Shortly after the clip of the murder in the Roman film, the murderer is able to successfully seduce the sole woman in the clip. Immediately a scene, of a woman disturbingly kissing a man, and a sexual scene is shown, depicting the Hamlet disturbance with his mother’s sexuality. They show that lust over Gertrude, could also be a motive of Claudius’ murder of Hamlet’s father. The disturbing quality of the kissing scene, shows the anger and frustration that Hamlet has with his mother. Michael Almereyda’s “The Mouse Trap” skillfully portrayed the main points of the play from Hamlet, and showed Hamlet’s emotions, and revealed a lot about motive.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Third clip: 2.2 soliloquy, directed by Michael Almereyda, Hamlet played by Ethan Hawke (2000)
    Fifth clip: 2.2 soliloquy, directed by Laurence Olivier, Hamlet played by Laurence Olivier (1948)

    Michael Almereyda and Laurence Olivier use their own personal depictions in how Hamlet is to be performed. Almereyda uses a modern setting as Olivier does not the films do have a fifty two year difference, that being a piece of my reasoning for choosing to analyze the two. Hawke in Almereyda’s piece stays very serious and determined as he stares intently at the tv, his camera or his computer screen as scenes of his parents flash by him. When Hawke speaks about the ghost as the devil taking a shape he is watching a flower coming to fully bloom or take shape. Olivier chooses to show things differently as he has set his piece in medieval Denmark. After a serious conversation olivier eyes the players props, the camera stays on this for a few moments then he dashed over to them and states the ending couplet for the soliloquy. Personally I thought both of the seens to be interesting and they both got their point across. Almereyda’s setting may make it a bit more difficult to understand the full story and this would make it more appealing to other audiences such as people who know the full story. These people would like to see a new aspect put into the story like it being in a modern era. Olivier keeps the old medieval castle this keeps the setting the play was written in alive along with the addition of slight artistic choice.

    ReplyDelete