Marlowe and me. PUN.

Marlowe, is an English dramatist that is quite suspsicious, as he has a mysterious death (and is also rumoured to be Shakespeare...cheeky). Arrested for blasphamy on 20th May, just as you think things can't get worse, he was stabbed 10 days later. It is undecided whether or not his stabbing is related to his arrest, but there is great mystery otherwise from his 'Sherlock Holmes' era.

Mysterious Marlowe skived school (tut tut) and failed to tell Mr Francis why he was off. He also had loads of wonga, for which he had no explination. He counterfeited coins, and when he was caught for this, no action was taken... sounds like spy material to me.

Ok, so, the stabbing. One of the main conclusions of his death is due to a drunken fight, which is still considered today. An other, more dramatic, version involes a fight with him and Frizer, where he ended being stabbed in the eye, right after Marlowe wounded Frizers head. This apparantly went to court, and Frizer was not charged as it was seen as an act of self defence.

Another version of the events, the BAFTA award if you will, is he assasination of Marlowe, as the three people in the room were all in the secret service (although that would make the service public knowledge, hardly a secret at all.. bad joke award for me). So basically, it's up to you which version of the stbbiong you choose. But personally, i'd drag it out for as long as you can.

I do not believe he is shakespeare. Simple, as even Marlowe (the Inspector Clouseau of the Elizabethian era) isn't THAT good (a mon avis).

Hit it Natasha Bedingfield - "In the silent movie, there's no talking, you're just an actor..."

Nosferatu you are a dark and complicated soul, that's for sure. Setting wise, things are more easily figured out.

Nina is shown at the beginning of the film, as a beautiful, perfect, little twinkle toes - and we all know what happens to the goodens. Also - FORESHADOWING IS BACK BITCHHHES. "You cannot escape destiny" - surely thats foreshadowing the distaster along with the letters and what not like "nothing will happen to me".. right?

The weather immediately lets you know that you're in for a treat of a 1922 silent movie with the stormy/wet weather; nothing like a bit of pathetic fallacy to get you going. There are also a few sneaky menacing shadows that help to create the early feeling of the appearance of someone new and bad.

Its midnight or after sundown when all the action happens in the film, so the element of darkness adds suspense as your mind plays tricks on you and thinks can appear like (clicks fingers) THAT.

The setting created the atmosphere of vulnerability, by people being alone and therefore in more danger as "no one can hear you scream". Also, everything happens in small rooms, which is the one thing that really gets to me. Well actually it all does, especially the thought of a vampire noming on my neck. But, I have noticed that there's a lot of atmosphere created by the almost claustrophobic situations, as it slyly suggests to the reader that danger can easily happen, preparing them for the hungry blood sucking vampire. The room that Harker is in, and although there's no lock so he's not literally trapped, has been forced in a more gentle manner. There's also the coffins and confined spaced imagery painted, as well as the boat where people died below the decks.

The Gothic atmosphere is also created every now and then, probably more often than that but hey. As Mr F helpfully mentioned the connection between man and wife helps to create it, as there appear to be physic connections between them; the relationship slowing deteriorating as they are separated and Nina can do nothing but hopelessly sleep walk her way into danger.

There's obviously loads more, but I would like to give the others a chance to make a valid point rather than my jibber jabber. But if you doubt my actual ability to make notes, which I admit, this blog does represent, then just ask for my notes.

Toot-te-la-fruit. (courtesy of Joey Tribiani)

drip drip drop little gothic setting...

Better late than never (so they say).

Right then, Gothic settings seem to be created by the same themes every time; a few creepy descriptions of loneliness, vulnerability, darkness and a sense of entrapment, and voila - you have reached your destination. I shall now entertain you and prove that i'm right by showing you where they are in "the castle of Otranto".

The idea of entrapment is created when the princess describes her location as the "lower part of the castle" that "was hollowed into several intricate cloisters"; which when backed up with the anxiety to find the door, creates a prison like situation. The entrapment means the princess cant escape who comes to see her.

Vulnerability is created as shes a perfect little princess, perhaps in pink,and probably quite hopeless - unless shes trained in Karate like Princess Fiona. This not only makes her more susceptible to danger, but creates greater tension as you know it's only a matter of time. The vulnerability ties into loneliness, or rather the other way round, as she has no one else to protect her for the majority of the story, making her even more vulnerable. I hate how that word is spelt.

The darkness, as said by pretty much everybody is important in the Gothic setting. By the by, just wondering, is it true that if you aren't using one of your senses, the others get stronger? Because if it is, which i'm going to say it is purely for this long, unimportant point i'm trying to make, then the wind and the noises which create suspicion as you cant see, will only be emphasised more - adding more drama and tension to the mix. The small lamp the princess uses also makes more drama because then her mind can only fill in the gaps of the majority that she can't see - if that makes sense. It does to me.

I think all of the themes - vulnerability, loneliness, darkness and entrapment all tie into each other, and help to build up the idea of a Gothic setting, as all elements are crucial if you want to get a real feel of the terrifying setting.

Scene Proposals...

I think you'll find that my creativity and my commentary gets progressively worse as you read on as it reaches Midnight (gross). So yeah, read Steph's instead.


Rosencrantz and Guildenstern:

I want this imaginary conversation to slot in just after R and G have left the King and Queen (Act 2, Scene 2, line 40 +). As R and G walk towards Hamlet, they have a whispering conversation about what they should say and how they should address him. Rosencrantz suggests a formal conversation, and subtly hints that the Kings remembrance may lead to further things. Guildenstern portrays a torn character, and whilst swayed by the Kings remembrance, also mentions Hamlets feelings and current emotional state.

Commentary:
This scene is important because it distinguishes and highlights R and G's personality from each other - as before they sort of 'merged' into one character. It shows Rosencrantz to be less loyal than Guildenstern, and Guildenstern to be a push over. It also creates less ambiguity for the audience as more of their personality is revealed so more reliable assumptions can be made. The characters R and G could then also be seen to symbolise the relationship between the King and Queen. This is because the Queen (Guildenstern) could be viewed as a pushover as she doesn't voice her opinion much in the play, and the King (Rosencrantz) is all about the power he could gain, and doesn't stop to consider others feelings.

Ophelia:


I would like an extra scene to be put in with the King and Ophelia discussing Hamlets intentions and the future. This scene slots in after Ophelia, the King and the Queen talk about Hamlets state of mind, but before the conversation between Hamlet and Ophelia takes place (Act 3, Scene 1, lines 55 +). The King and Ophelia discuss a different plan including Hamlet. The King suggests the idea of keeping Hamlet off the throne, and eventually replacing Gertrude with Ophelia. This conversation between the King and Ophelia may appear to be a manipulative one at the beginning, but it later becomes clear that Ophelia is more than willing to sacrifice her love for Hamlet for power.

Commentary: 
This scene is important because it reinforces a possible suggestion of the King being the bad character of the play, which suggests that he did actually murder the King, and it's not just a figure of Hamlets' imagination. But, this scene also shows more of Ophelia's character, as she is fairly silent throughout the play, or only obeys other, more dominant characters. It shows Ophelia to be an intelligent, head strong woman - also bringing in an aspect of feminism as she otherwise fails to voice and opinion; as well as showing that Ophelia will remain to have no power unless she marries the King. This scene allows the audience to make a better decision on Ophelia's character as she betrays Hamlet instantly for the chance of higher Archy.

Polonius:


This bonus scene portrays Polonius as a fragile, old man, who is trying to do what he thinks is best, while he still can. This scene occurs just after the conversation between him and Hamlet (Act 2, Scene 2, line 214+), where Polonius walks around by himself, wondering what to do, and appears to be going senile. He has forgotten parts of the conversation, and is left confused as to why Hamlet obviously does not like him. He walks around aimlessly, then begins retracing his steps. Half way through his speech, he repeats a few lines as if he's saying them for the first time. Polonius mentions good things about Hamlet, and is sad that there isn't a stronger relationship between the two of them. It's a very confusing conversation with himself.

Commentary:


This scene is significant because it highlights quite a commonly occurring thing in life, but one which may only be appreciated in the more recent context of reception. It creates sympathy for him by the audience, as it becomes clear that he is mentally ill. It may also create slight anger with the other characters, especially Hamlet, as he may know (as he is incredibly intelligent) that Polonius is no long 'all there', and yet is still sometimes harsh with his. It may also make the audience reconsider their impressions of Polonius, as the things Polonius may have said and the things he may have done may be out of character from when he was mentally stable.

Gertrude's Soliloquy...

Hamlet has left the bedroom of the Queen. The Queen is in shock from the previous conversation with Hamlet. She strolls silently around her room, and finds a picture of Hamlet on her dressing table. Picking it up, with great trepidation, she begins...

To you, my darling, I am blind,

But it is you, you, that fails to see,

For I am not cold,

But frozen through the loss of love,

A pain you will understand one day.

My voice is little and insignificant,

Yet accusations are still voiced,

With words that stab me deeply,

With blame that’s too hard to hear.

My darling, I, your mother,

Should be treated with respect,

Not disgrace,

Not doubt, nothing but love.

And nothing but love, my dear,

Is what I feel for you.

Whilst I am ageing,

My heart remains full of youth,

Full of love that is now unrequited,

Un-responded from my dear husband that used to be,

Your dear father.

Now I ask you this,

Where is my love to go?

To a stranger?

To a man with no knowledge of you?

To a man with no respect for you?

The ache in my heart is not fixed,

But the burn is soothed,

By a man who respects my wishes,

And means good for the Country,

And good the Country shall be, when you rise to the throne.

I understand, I do,

This is hard to comprehend,

And it is not without great thought that this situation arose,

But I know in your eyes I shall remain blind,

For to you, my voice shall remain insignificant.

The Queen drops the photo of Hamlet, flinches, but leaves it to fall. She walks over to the picture of her dead husband, places it beneath her pillow, and with her hand still touching the photo, climbs into bed and closes her eyes... 

(then bursts into a hardcore rap)

Gertrude talks back...

Wowza - totally thought i was reading the wrong think at first - the joke about Hamlet and pork still has me pondering. Anyways after quadrupole checking that i was reading the right thing, i read on. And even though in this version Gertrude is the murderer (always the quiet ones), i actually quite like her character.

I think Margaret Atwood has been very clever by putting elements of Hamlet's wit into Gertrude's personality - after all that good old sense of humor has to come from somewhere, and his father didn't exactly seem a barrel of laughs. And although i didn't really think her personality would be as 'strong' as Margaret has portrayed her to be, it works really well. I agree with the things Margaret has put, because although Gertrude has opinions, she still has remained concerned about Hamlet; even though Gertrude is telling Hamlet off for being so nosey and inappropriate about her sex life, she still wants Hammy to "have a nice roll in the hay".

However, i also disagree with Atwoods' interpretation slightly because, as Alice and i discussed in class today, Gertrude doesn't actually mention her sex life at all, and she chooses not to respond to the things young Hammy comes out with. So, personally, i think it's not really in her personality to discuss her sex life with her son, as normal as that may sound (sarcasm there), and i really don't think a mother would say "And every time I felt like a little, you know, just to warm up my ageing bones" to her son.


Now after blabbering on, i cant really decide whether i like this version of Gert or not. In fact, no i dont. I know i've changed my mind from the beginning of this blogatron but i think she's a bit of a hypocrit after calling her dead husband selfish, which just makes me want to go up to her and say "What non-selfish reasons did you commit murder for then?". I expect silence as her reply, well either that or she'll run and get a sword to kill me with.

So long, farewell, auf weidersehn, adieu....

The blog where I've just realised I've blogged about the wrong thing. Poo...

In Act 2, Scene 2, there is ambiguity whether Hamlet is pretending to be mad in this conversation or if he really is mentally ill. In this essay I shall explore the possibilities to suggest Hamlet is sane or insane.

Hamlet talks very highly of the actors, “for they are the abstract and brief chronicles of the time”.  Lines 459-470 highlight Hamlet’s passion for the stage and the respect he shares for the actors, a characteristic that audience had not seen before now, suggesting this part of the play should be played with genuine enthusiasm and excitement.  This could suggest that Hamlet could not be mad, as he remains intellectual enough to later write a scene for the actors to perform.

Later in the same scene, Polonius engages in a conversation with Hamlet, although for completely selfish reasons - to “find where truth is hid”.  Some people may think that because his words still contain depth and meaning, he is therefore sane. For example, when Polonius asks if Hamlet knows who he is, Hamlets reply is “excellent well, you are a fishmonger”.  Whilst this may seem a completely unstable reply, it is possible that Hamlet could have overheard the plan between the King and Polonius; Hamlet is perhaps calling him a fishmonger as an insult, hinting to Polonius that he knows what is going on. However, Hamlet could also be purely playing into Polonius’s hands, by taking advantage of the fact he is believed to be mad.  

It may also be thought by some that Hamlet isn’t mad because he drops subtle warnings into the conversation, which although Polonius appears not to realise them, the audience may as Hamlet uses words he has already used earlier on in the play. An example of this is when Hamlet refers to the sun breeding “maggots in a dead dog”, which could be viewed on a deeper level to symbolise himself (as he has already been referred to a son by Claudius earlier on) and Ophelia. Hamlet then asks “have you a daughter”, which could be seen as a warning for Polonius not to use his daughter for power. However, this could also be viewed by the audience as a sign of Hamlet’s madness, as Hamlet’s responses aren’t well fitting to Polonius’s questions, making his sanity seem somewhat questionable. This may be thought when Polonius asks Hamlet what he’s reading, and Hamlet’s answer completely misses the answer; “words, words, words” is very literal and creates ambiguity whether or not Hamlet is still control of his own mind.

Personally, I am still unsure whether Hamlet is pretending to be insane, or whether he really is mad. This is because his madness does seem to have a method, by using words with underlying meanings and making it clear to the audience that he does not trust Polonius, making it doubtful that Hamlet would be able to do such things if he was in such a delicate state of mind. However, I do also wonder if Hamlet is slightly mad, or at least beginning to lose his sanity, as he presents very literal answers in some instances, and I wonder why a sane person would willingly choose to ‘pretend’ to be mad, unless of course, he already was insane. 

The very first serious, but shocking blog...

In Act 1, Scene 1, the ghost, “in the same figure like the King that’s dead” is introduced to the audience. However, because he shows little emotion and no interaction, ambiguity is created for the audience as the first impression of the ghost will largely be based on the body language and stage directions of the ghost.  For example the fear felt by Horatio, Benardo and Marcello may be transferred to the audience, presenting the ghost as a fearful character. But, the audience might be interested to discover more, just like Hamlet, presenting the ghost as an intriguing and significant character.

Hamlet’s instant reaction to the ghost is to ask for protection, and after the ghost beckons, “as if it some impartment did desire” for Hamlet to follow, Horatio orders Hamlet not to go; reinforcing the idea of the ghost being a dangerous and powerful character. The ghost finally speaks to Hamlet when he’s alone, but still shows little emotion and says blunt sentences like “mark me”, to show the importance of what he’s saying.

As there have been different performances of the play, the audience may have had different opinions of the ghost, creating many discussions about what the character is really like. In the version of the play with David Tennant, some people may think that the ghost appears quite bitter and desperate to seek revenge. However, when the ghost realises Hamlet’s despair, he comforts him for a brief moment before fading away; which may cause others to think that the ghost is a softer, more emotive character.  This differs to the version of Hamlet directed by Laurence Olivier, where people may think the ghost seems more ‘human like’ and relaxed, as his tone of voice is much softer than the play with David Tennant.  Although, some may disagree and think that the ghost is more ‘robot like’ as he has no physical interaction with Hamlet, and stands at a much greater distance to Hamlet.

Some people think the ghost is a manipulative character because the ghost draws him in with a speech expressing the “murder most foul”, and then proceeds to question Hamlet’s love for him; “If thou didst ever thy dear father love” could warn the audience that the ghost may be a suspicious character as he has seen the reaction of Hamlet since his father was killed which is obviously genuine and sincere. Also, Hamlet previously said that he wants his body to “thaw and resolve itself into a dew” but he can’t because God doesn’t allow it, yet after the conversation with his father’s spirit, is willing to commit murder, which is not allowed by God either. However, people may disagree with this and think that the ghost isn’t suspicious and manipulative, but hurt and suspicious of others. This is because the murdered King may have had a strong relationship with Claudius, but then the King was murdered, poisoned by his own brother, understandably raising trust issues for others, even if it is unlikely.

Throughout the conversation of Hamlet and the ghost, people may question whether the ghost is an illusion in Hamlet’s mind, or if it is really his father’s spirit. This may be thought because a lot of what Hamlet says during the first few scenes in act 1, is later repeated or familiar to what the ghost says to use to persuade Hamlet. For example the ghost talks about the “most seeming-virtuous Queen”, which is a repeat of the conversation when Hamlet disagrees with the Queen about his feelings of grief – “Seems’, madam – nay it is, I know not ‘seems’”. It could also be argued that the things that are said to Hamlet by the ‘ghost’ is exactly what Hamlet wants to hear, again suggesting that the ghost is in fact a hallucination; it was clear in Act 1, scene 2 that Hamlet was not happy with the speech made by King Claudius regarding his father. Hamlet may have already had suspicions about his uncle and the death of his father, and this is shown after the ‘ghost’ gives clues to Hamlet about who committed the murder, as Hamlet shouts “O my prophetic soul”, admitting he had already been thinking about it. However, you could argue against this point, as both Horatio and Marcellus saw the ghost before Hamlet did.

The ghost, on several occasions refers to religion throughout his conversation with Hamlet. The ghost teases Hamlet with the thoughts of the “sulphurous and tormenting flames” and the crimes done that are “burnt and purged away”.  When this play was being first performed, the main religion of the audience was protestant Christianity, yet the ghost refers to purgatory - a part of catholic religion.  This creates ambiguity over the character of the ghost; could the ghost be tricking Hamlet into potentially murder by creating horrid thoughts? Or is the ghost, his father’s spirit, being open and honest because they will not see each other again? 

Not going to lie, I found this very hard, and I'm not happy with this essay on a whole, plus there are things that I didn't get into it like the tragic villain theory, but i'm still not too sure on that, so i'll have to have another stab at it me thinks.

So long, farewell, auf weidersehn, adieu...

The Three Hamlets...

After thinking about the three versions of Hamlet we watched today on my rainy walk home, I cant remember the second one we watched at all... obviously not a great hit. So I'll just ramble on about the other two. The first one we watched (the one with the ventriloquist skills) didn't impress me as the one with David Tennant in, but then when we discussed it and I realised that not everyone can be as good a actor as Dave I realised just how clever it was; although he looked like a ghost, being able to hear his thoughts created an even more honest Hamlet. The one with David Tennant in was really good acting, and although I preferred his performance, it was realll different. It made me think that Hamlet is really grieving at his fathers loss, but is also slightly mad. So yeah, not much else to say.

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehn, adieu..

King Claudius...

I must admit, I'm confused about my feelings for Claudius. HA! That sounded wrong. What I meant is, I don't know whether I hate him as much as I did before. And this is because we've watched different interpretations of the play, so really, Mr Francis, this is you're doing. But I still stand by my initial thought that he's sly and manipulative. Plus, he's very patronising and cold hearted, especially when he tells Hamlet to 'grow up' - "'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet, To give these mourning to your father, But you must know your father lost a father...". It seems to me that Claudius is very comfortable accusing others as things such as not commanding god, but fails to take responsibility himself; we have already seen this when he writes a letter to stop young Fortinbras take back his land.

Since last lesson, I've been thinking about first impressions of Claudius (obviously as it was the assignment) but also about the Queen, and I'm beginning to wonder if she's as good as everyone makes her out to be, could anyone be that blind to see what is happening to her family? Hamlet realises that he's a nasty piece of work, so why doesn't she?

p.s. I would like to point out that after I had finished my blog, I went through all of my work and turned every 'i' into an 'I', which took ages. Next year, Sir, please find a blog which will allow auto-correction.

p.p.s This blog is in no way a dig at Mr Francis, merely a co-incidence. I LOVE ENG LIT.

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehn, adieu....

The very first Hamlet blog...

Today in our lesson times two we looked at King Claudius' speech, after looking at Aristotle and other things (which i'm going to have to read more about as I don't really get it yet.)  But hey ho, that's not the blog assignment so it's all good. I do, however, have to blog about Claudius, so, here goes...

My first impression of Claudius isn't a good one. As we said in class, he doesn't exactly paint a nice picture with "mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage". And his speech gives the impression that the loss of former King Hamlet is recent as people are still grieving, so these remarks seem a tad insensitive, yet the whole audience seem to agree. So yeah, not a fan, not a fan. 

However, we also discussed the different plays performed, and the way things are set out and how the actors perform the line, depend on how the audience are affected. We looked at 3 different versions of the performance, and the King in each of them portrays the speech in different ways. The first one was more intimate with a smaller audience who were very supportive of him and his decisions. The second version gave the impression of a King who only wanted the power, as he gave a very echoey, formal speech with greater distance between him and the Queen. Finally, the third version seems very over dramatised by the King, with what seems to be an acted pause. The impression is that the audience are forced to agree in the awkward atmosphere. 

p.s Now we're in 2011 and i think this is my first blog of the year, i think my sign off needs to a bit better than the now overdone "TOOODLES", so while i ponder on this, for now my sign off shall be a variation on the theme of TOOODLES,

NOOODLES.