tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post4396844336573319642..comments2023-10-25T05:04:21.908-07:00Comments on AP EngLang @ GHS (class of 2015) : Hamlet Act TwoMr. J. Cookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01556579115026049608noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-30944016291045167192014-02-04T14:31:56.141-08:002014-02-04T14:31:56.141-08:00Third clip: 2.2 soliloquy, directed by Michael Alm...Third clip: 2.2 soliloquy, directed by Michael Almereyda, Hamlet played by Ethan Hawke (2000)<br />Fifth clip: 2.2 soliloquy, directed by Laurence Olivier, Hamlet played by Laurence Olivier (1948)<br /><br />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. <br />Ryan Cilluffohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14318670151964418017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-36705760565951732062013-12-01T13:37:18.416-08:002013-12-01T13:37:18.416-08:00Impressive insight with convincing development of ...Impressive insight with convincing development of precise supportMr. J. Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556579115026049608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-19451158002687991852013-12-01T13:31:39.846-08:002013-12-01T13:31:39.846-08:00Superb, Tess!Superb, Tess!Mr. J. Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556579115026049608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-63356008700248338252013-11-25T19:21:58.276-08:002013-11-25T19:21:58.276-08:00Gloria K
Director Michael Almereyda's "Mo...Gloria K<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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. <br />Gloria Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05578381719134841982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-19478503217153693862013-11-25T16:31:25.285-08:002013-11-25T16:31:25.285-08:00Emily Neves - F Block - 2.2 Soliloquy
In Tennants ...Emily Neves - F Block - 2.2 Soliloquy<br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01900241811640636383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-2538357419059037212013-11-21T18:21:59.377-08:002013-11-21T18:21:59.377-08:00Paula C
2.2 Performance Soliloquy Comparison
...Paula C<br /><br />2.2 Performance Soliloquy Comparison <br /><br /> 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. <br /> 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. Paulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05782635259070877782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-87918387500384182182013-11-20T11:23:47.520-08:002013-11-20T11:23:47.520-08:00Gibson’s version of the soliloquy embodied the int...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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926314249803895517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-60643682925458158652013-11-20T09:25:11.374-08:002013-11-20T09:25:11.374-08:00David Tennant’s version of Hamlet’s soliloquy depi...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.Laura Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13245097153855827835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-27452101151366972812013-11-20T09:20:37.991-08:002013-11-20T09:20:37.991-08:00Laura J.
2.2 Soliloquy Explication
Hamlet’s 2.2 ...Laura J. <br />2.2 Soliloquy Explication<br /><br />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.Laura Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13245097153855827835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-89522489187424729002013-11-20T06:43:16.959-08:002013-11-20T06:43:16.959-08:00David Tennants version of the second soliloquy is ...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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16458166385907133440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-9050878872921295732013-11-20T05:54:43.431-08:002013-11-20T05:54:43.431-08:00Branagh’s version of the soliloquy portrays the st...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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141516242373582766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-29271811552599759842013-11-20T03:44:51.529-08:002013-11-20T03:44:51.529-08:002.2 soliloquy revisions
In the soliloquy performan...2.2 soliloquy revisions<br />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.<br /> 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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16312555086542814790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-4834963946631556412013-11-20T03:11:11.634-08:002013-11-20T03:11:11.634-08:00When looking at my writing again, I realize there ...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 <br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16312555086542814790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-70545396370391502372013-11-19T19:50:52.459-08:002013-11-19T19:50:52.459-08:00Where in Gibson's version of Hamlet the meanin...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. Jaclyn W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14428050906682160759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-54882620080157207762013-11-19T19:17:28.285-08:002013-11-19T19:17:28.285-08:00Kate P.
Scene 2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison...Kate P.<br />Scene 2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison: VERSION 2<br />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.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07861177921893089240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-7789274978570025342013-11-19T18:58:38.006-08:002013-11-19T18:58:38.006-08:00In the beginning of David Tennants scene he puts a...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 himselGloria Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05578381719134841982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-24692686276548934362013-11-19T16:26:47.879-08:002013-11-19T16:26:47.879-08:002.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison (rewrite)
Gi...2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison (rewrite)<br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09470599111428072858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-20168630309679180452013-11-19T16:14:36.886-08:002013-11-19T16:14:36.886-08:00Branagh’s version of the soliloquy portrays the st...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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430394993736559988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-52334784332304521972013-11-19T15:45:12.555-08:002013-11-19T15:45:12.555-08:00Branagh and Tennant are two actors who play the ro...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.Spencer Tafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888772521279636923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-75591159551785449902013-11-19T14:42:46.862-08:002013-11-19T14:42:46.862-08:00 Hamlet asks if he is a coward, and shows he might... 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.Joseph C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17453364703227379887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-22831622614154593832013-11-19T14:42:26.087-08:002013-11-19T14:42:26.087-08:00Joseph C.
2.2 Soliloquy Explication (Revised)
Af...Joseph C.<br />2.2 Soliloquy Explication (Revised)<br /><br /> 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.Joseph C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17453364703227379887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-52331375094935118942013-11-19T14:08:44.640-08:002013-11-19T14:08:44.640-08:00Wherein David Tennant portrays Hamlet as a defeate...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. Morey Ronanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11280716125054030096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-91966247124690910892013-11-19T14:07:34.605-08:002013-11-19T14:07:34.605-08:00Both Tennant and Gibson convey the complexity of H...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.<br />Joseph C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17453364703227379887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-1264688307886308642013-11-19T14:06:59.845-08:002013-11-19T14:06:59.845-08:00Joseph C.
2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison
I...Joseph C.<br />2.2 Soliloquy Performance Comparison<br /><br /> I tried to further explain not<br /><br /> 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.<br /> 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.” <br /> 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.Joseph C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17453364703227379887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3797625503076565533.post-42773558525747201972013-11-19T10:37:45.881-08:002013-11-19T10:37:45.881-08:00
Melanie M.
Soliloquy Act 2 Scene 2
Shuttle Comp...<br /><br /><br />Melanie M.<br />Soliloquy Act 2 Scene 2<br />Shuttle Comparison between Branagh and Tennant<br />Actions, body language, and tone of voice are very important tools for actors, because they revel the inner emotions of the soul.<br /> 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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16312555086542814790noreply@blogger.com