Monday, March 19, 2012
Hamlet Assignment
Review the script for the Hamlet production we will be viewing on Thursday, March 22nd. Select a change made to the script and comment on the anticipated impact it will have on the overall production. Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and must include quotes from the script. No two students can comment on the exact same topic. (Students can discuss the same change to the script, but only if they anticipate and discuss different impacts on the overall production.) Students do not need to comment on other students' blogs. Blogs must be posted by 7:30am on Thursday, March, 22.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the changes I noticed made in the script was when Claudius asked Rossencraft and Guilderstone to keep an eye on Hamlet and try to figure out what the cause of his madness was. In the real play, we notice that Gertrude is a little more involved in the conversation and worried about her son. However, in this Hamlet production, it is mainly Claudius who is conversing with them and giving them instructions. The only thing that Gertrude says during this scene is “Thanks, Rossencraft, and gentle Guilderstone.” This can have a very significant change on the way we see Gertrude because she does not appear caring during this scene. It almost seems like she just lets Claudius be in charge of her and everything else. This is different from the real play because even though Gertrude is with Claudius, she still shows that she cares about her son’s well being. This is not to say that in this production Gertrude is going to be portrayed as a cold hearted individual, but this scene does help contribute to the idea that she lets Claudius dominate her. The real play has a level of ambiguity that does not let the reader fully identify Gertrude as either “good” or bad”. The fact that in this scene she is not very involved can also mean that the director of this play wanted to portray Gertrude as more of an insignificant character to show Claudius’ dominance. There are many ways in which this can be interpreted, but I think it was done for the reasons I mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I really liked about the script is that they made it more modern so it is easier to comprehend. Also, this may just be the way I was reading it but to me it seemed as if Claudius is more sincere and gentle, that or he was being very sarcastic. For example, when Claudius is talking to Hamlet and says, “This shows a loving care in you, son Hamlet…” He sounds like a loving caring parent. This is different from when I read it the first time because my initial thought was he's just in it for the wealth and power, but now I have a different point of view. His tone towards everyone seems to be friendly; he seems to be acting as a real King, wanting to help others and not just in this for himself. And who know maybe Claudius could have been a better King than King Hamlet, but in reality neither of them deserved the title because neither of the set a good example for the people of Denmark. This could have an impact on the production as a whole because now Claudius doesn’t seem like the bad guy, and Hamlet just seems to be over reacting. Now if I didn’t already know that he murdered King Hamlet I would think that he’s an okay person and it would be a big shock to find out that he did. After reading parts of the script I predict that Claudius is going to do a better job at hiding his sins then I pictured when I read the play a few months ago.
ReplyDeleteOne of the major changes I found in the script when reading was the dominance of Claudius over Gertrude. I think that Claudius’s false remorse over Hamlets emotions were taken too serious. I think when watching the play, the viewer might misinterpret Claudius for his true colors and how he really can be (evil): “his shows a loving care in you, son Hamlet…die.” In this scene Claudius appears to show concern for Hamlet. This can be interpreted as he really does care for Hamlet or for a post reader of the real play og Hamlet. it could stand as an exaggeration to show how Claudius can be sneaky. Gertrude also appears to be insignificant in this part of the scene because she had very little lines compared to Claudius. This can affect the viewers as I have mentioned earlier, with respect to Claudius appearing to have dominance over important decisions made for Hamlet. In the real play, Gertrude was more involved in the decision of whether Hamlet should stay in Denmark or go to Wittenberg. This later can affect the play as a whole in which Gertrude’s role would become narrowed down to more of a minor character and not very well developed. Her behavior towards Hamlet for instance isn’t the same as portrayed in the real play. I think that this later would make the interaction between Hamlet and Gertrude more difficult to understand. Throughout the script Gertrude didn’t have many lines which could highlight her insignificance with respect to Claudius. But the negative affect of this is that her ambiguity later contributes to the downfall of Hamlet. Without the development of her character through out this script, it becomes difficult to understand how she contributed to downfall of Hamlet and him not trusting females and I think that this factor was really important to the play.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that popped out at me when I read the Arts' script was how early they got to the "To be or not to be" soliloquy. I thought it changed the dynamics of the play completely. I anticipate that this is put in to quicken the play, since they only have a limited amount of time. I think that the placement of the soliloquy will have a much more profound effect on the audience because it will come right after a calm scene where not much is happening.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed how the diction is modernized. I think the effect that the soliloquy will have will extrapolate to this in the sense that the play will be much more profound because of the heightened understanding that the audience will have.
There also seems to be much more of a focus on Claudius in this production, as opposed to the original work where Gertrude actually mattered in the Claudius-Hamlet relationship. In this production, Claudius is completely dominant over Gertrude, she does not show the love towards Hamlet that she showed in the original play. Although she does not seem to be opposed to Hamlet, she seems much more passive. However, this detraction from Gertrude in favor of Claudius will help the audience keep their thoughts straight. The quote that really define Claudius in this production to me was "Spoke like a kind and a most loving son". This quote felt ominous to me because the Claudius-Hamlet conflict is what the whole play is based off of, so when he said this I felt as though he was mocking Hamlet. It immediately reminded me of the proverb "Use soft words and hard arguments", because although Claudius is speaking gentle words, behind the scenes he's doing whatever he can to make sure Hamlet will not get what he wants. My expectation is that Claudius will be much more inconspicuous, because of his softer dialogue.
Peace, love, and English class,
Ahmed Ouda ;*
To me the production tomorrow leaves out one vital scene: Hamlet’s conversation with the gravedigger. This is the scene where he laments the death of the jester who used to entertain him, Yorick. I thought this scene was very important to the work as a whole, particularly as a method of characterizing Hamlet. Whereas before he was an emotionless killer, the scene with Yoricks skull turns him into a human, showing us he can really feel emotions other than anger. Beyond the effect it has on the reader, the scene gives Hamlet a more thorough understanding of death, which is critical to him fulfilling his role in the play. Beyond Hamlet however, the scene was important in addressing the circumstances surrounding Ophelia’s death. Before the conversation with the jesters, there was not much to imply to the reader that Ophelia may have committed suicide (At least in print, actors would of course allow Shakespeare to convey more information through their tone, body language, etc.) Without this scene I believe the portrayal of Ophelia’s death may appear biased toward it being accidental or her having been murdered by Gertrude. While I am hesitant to say the effect on the play will be hugely potent, at least not on us, having read and discussed it already, but I do believe that someone new to it would be quite surprised by some of the theories about Ophelia’s death. Additionally, I think the play would become less poignant as an exploration of the human mind. Hamlets transformation from naïve to wise (To an extent) gives the reader time and reason to think about death, on a deeper level than we are used to.
ReplyDeleteAs I was actively reading this script, I found it easier to comprehend the point they are trying to convey. I think the reason for that is because they modernized the play to a certain extent. Claudious in this play seems a lot more compassionate than he actually was in the actual play. He later on claims, ““through yet of Hamlet our dear brother’s death the memory be green, and that it us befitted to bear our hearts in grief, and our whole kingdom to be contracted in one brow of woe”. In the original text he got married to Gertrude three months after the death of the previous king hamlet, basically instead of mourning the death of his brother, hamlet, he was having a huge celebration of his marriage with Gertrude. But in this play, he realizes that his brother has died and that mourning was necessary. In the original play it seamed like Claudius only “mourned” the death of hamlet because if he hadn’t, it would look bad in his part, so therefore he acted like he had some sympathy for young hamlet. But in this play, it actually seems like Claudius is somewhat depressed or sad that his brother is gone. I see the Claudius in this play as being more caring and charismatic, I say this because, later on says, “Right noble friends, that our dear cousin Hamlet Hath lost the very heart of all his sense, it is most right, and we most sorry for him. Therefore we do desire, even as you tender, our care to him and our great love to you, that you will labor but to wring from him.” He actually sounds like he cares for hamlet, when in the original play, he was sort of scared of him.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most immediately obvious changes to the play is its overall truncation. While "cutting out the fat" makes sense from a practical standpoint, both in the logistics of production and the desire for a wider understanding from the audience, it is nevertheless inexcusable in certain scenes. One of the most important parts of a play, especially in a play of literary merit, is the opening sence. In Hamlet, for example, the general tone and themes of the play are introduced, namely the concept of appearance versus reality and the gloomy atmosphere that mirrors Hamlet's grief. By leaving out key parts such as "And I am sick at heart," the play does not effectively establish the dread the guards feel and the ghost as a portent of the dark events that are to come. Even the impact of the iconic “To be, or not to be?” soliloquy is reduced or entirely removed: the lines do not address the central conflicts that Hamlet experiences. It does not seem at all that Hamlet is conflicted between the difficulties of life and the peace of death, or that he is indecisive about actually fulfilling his philial duty and doing something so drastic as murdering his uncle. Like the “sound and fury” soliloquy of Macbeth, Hamlet’s rant exemplifies the meaning of the play itself. Without the strong introduction and the reinforcement of the central themes of Hamlet, this rendition seems little more than entertainment, and I doubt that the audience will be able to grasp the message that Shakespeare attempts to convey.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the Art Academy’s version of Hamlet I noticed many things. One thing that stood out to me the most was the name changes. In the beginning of the actual Hamlet play William Shakespeare has Francisco, a minor character, start of the play by saying “Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself.” In the Arts Hamlet play I noticed that they call Francisco a First Sentinel (a soldier or guard whose job is to stand and keep watch) and simply have him say “Stand! Who is that?” I feel like in the actual Hamlet play Shakespeare made everyone of his characters be important in their own way. Francisco had the opportunity to start off the play; by the words he used it gave the reader a sense of mystery, no one knew who was at the door and what was going to happen. Because the script writer names Francisco the First Sentinel I feel as though the script writer send a message to the audience that this character is not as important as others.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I also noticed this with the character Polonius. In the actual version of Hamlet Shakespeare names Polonius with a regular name but in the Arts version the script writer names him Corambis. According to dictionary.com Corabmis is a genus of the spider family Salticidae (jumping spider). I feel as though the script writer changed Polonius’s name in this play to show the audience that Polonius is a very sneaking character that not many people notice because they are too blind. Polonius is exactly what Corambis is defined as a jumping spider. No one ever knows when a spider will jump and what he is plotting against others. In the play Hamlet Polonius helps Claudius to figure out certain things out like why Hamlet was acting crazy and mad through Ophelia, his daughter. In terms of Ophelia she didn’t know that her father was using her to get information to use to his advantage which again is evidence of him being sneaking toward others, even his loved ones.
I thought that this changed really helped make the play a little more ambiguous. Many people probably can’t see the significance of the name change but others might see the significance. Whether the change of name was to show how important a character is or how a person may act I think it’s a nice touch to make the audience think more about the characters and why they act the way they do in the production.
Like several other people, I thought one of the most significant changes to the script was the amount Gertrude’s role was minimized to make her more of a minor character. However, instead of focusing on the scene where Rossencraft and Gilderstone, I considered the impact on the controversy over Ophelia’s death. Reducing the number of lines Gertrude had portrays her as a less important and less detailed character, and I am interested to see how she will appear tomorrow in the performance of the play, since only so much of the characters’ emotions can be gleaned from the script. Gertrude is definitely set up as a minor character, more subservient to Claudius. It is interesting to consider the effect it would have on the debate surrounding Ophelia’s death, if this script was the one considered. For Gertrude to be the one responsible for Ophelia’s death, then she would need to seem like someone capable of being manipulative or creating plans. Since in this version of the script, she seems more like a minor character, and possibly more controlled by Claudius than anything, it would make it seem more unrealistic that Gertrude did have a hand in Ophelia’s death. If Gertrude is shown to be controlled by Claudius, it makes her less of an individual capable of such actions. Minimizing Gertrude’s role in the script might have been necessary to keep the length of the production reasonable, since Hamlet is a very long play in its entirety, but reducing the length does make some of the subplots less complex and detailed.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through the Hamlet theater play, I noticed many differences from the play that we read. One dominant difference was the removal of the archaic language. One of Shakespeare’s novel’s traits is the archaic language because of the Elizabethan time era in which it was wrote it. Disintegrating that language removes the essence from the play as a whole. It is understandable why the authors of the CREC script changed the wording so that it would be more accessible to a larger audience but the essence of Shakespeare is that archaic language without modernized twists. In act 2 scene 2 of the play, it is when Polonius talks to Claudius about how Hamlet has supposedly gone mad for Ophelia. In the actual play, both Claudius and Gertrude talk to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern but in this interpretation of the play, only Claudius talks to them. This then provides an example of another change in the play. The minimization of Gertrude’s role throughout the piece proves evident. The authors of the CREC play probably decreased her role because of either time constraints or the want for a new tone for the play. As an effect to the decreased role that Gertrude had, Ophelia then receives more recognition throughout the play. The change in the archaic language and the loss of the essence of the play then factors into this because without Gertrude as a major character, the entire idea and focus of the play has been shifted therefore not exactly interpreting what people would assume to be a Shakespeare play. Overall, the CREC play has it’s similarities but it also has these dominant differences maybe to give it individuality.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was reading this version of Hamlet, I was intrigued by the number of name changes that occurred throughout the play. Not only were Rosencrantz and Guildenstern renamed to Rossencraft and Guilderstone, which seems like a close change to make, but Polonius was renamed completely to Corambis. These changes seem superfluous in the grand scheme of the play but I find it to be a slightly confusing and interesting change to the play. It seemed as though more people were given names in this version of the play.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I felt as though some things were out of order, like Ophelia’s conversation with Corambis about Hamlet’s obsession with her. It also seemed like the play moved at a much faster clip, which makes sense for abbreviating the play. I also didn’t like that the ending to their version of the play didn’t match as well with the actual play. I liked the way everyone died and Fortinbras came into power, but he has such a minute role in this version.
This is going to sound like a joke, but I am almost positive Fortenbasse is going to be portrayed as a black people. As weird as it sounds I have a strange suspicion that Fortenbasse will be a black actor. I think if this is the case, the play would be illuminated as a whole in that the ability to foil hamlet would be less direct. The ethic change in actors would separate the characters as a whole while still displaying similar qualities. In the book Hamlet it’s easy enough to get past color in books. In a play acted out, color and visual affects have huge changes on the story as a whole. This seemingly is a simple change in characters but I think that allows enough difference in characters to change the ending plot. Such as Fortenbasse, winning or losing in the grand scheme of the play.
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
Da boss
Ps... This is 250 words
While reading Hamlet by the Art's Academy, I noticed quite a few changes. In Hamlet's original script, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz seem like they are playing one character. Neither of the two seem to be able to function on their own, independently. They show up in the play as payed servants to spy on Hamlet, who is their friend. But, in the Arts' version of the play they renamed the character Guildenstone. I think this is very significant to the piece as a whole because of what they renamed him to. A stone could symbolize something much more stable, which could mean that Guildenstern can be more of an independent character, rather than being dependent on Rosencrantz.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I noticed was the modern diction. I think since they modernized the play, they will get a better understanding from their audience. In other words, the audience will have a better understanding of the other play since they will actually understand the language. I think this is better since the audience is not going to be sitting in an English reading the play, instead the play is going to be easily understood.