Week 13 or 14 or something: BBC's Hamlet

What did I think of BBC's Hamlet? I liked it quite a lot! For one thing, it starred David Tennant! (Do you really need another reason?) As expected, he was one of the better "Consumed by madness" Hamlets. He also lent to the movie's semi-modern setting quite nicely. A very important element in this movie is that of cameras. The first shot in the movie is filmed by one of many surveillance cameras (Presumably set by Claudius) throughout the "castle", and a particularly memorable moment ensues when Hamlet rips one down in anger. Hamlet has a small video camera of his own he sometimes uses to film important events (such as Claudius' reaction to the play), or his soliloquies. In any case, the BBC (or David Tennant) version of the play is a fine one, and quite possibly my favorite.

Can Anyone Help?

I was trying to figure out what to answer for thought question three in lesson three of Hamlet,

"Hamlet tells Horatio that he prefers a man who is 'not a pipe for fortune's finger to sound what stop she please' (3.2.76-77). Looking at the context of this remark, what does Hamlet mean by this? Is Hamlet such a man? Is Horatio?"

but while context seems pretty important here, I couldn't find a mention of said quote anywhere! Can anyone help me?

 -McKinley :D

Hamlet: Lesson III: Review Question III (Week... Eleven, I think.)

As Hamlet steps on to the stage (Act III, Scene I) he utters one of the most famous lines in the history of literature: "To be, or not to be? that is the question-". The soliloquy that follows is literally a matter of life and death. Hamlet says over, and over again that the sufferings in this world are many and terrible, and to die is to be free of them. Hamlet then asks why people don't just choose this freedom, and commit suicide. This being a soliloquy, he oddly (but not unexpectedly) answers the question himself; "To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub, For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause. There’s the respect That makes calamity of so long life.". What Hamlet is basically saying, is that if we are to shed our earthly trials and tribulations, then who knows what might be placed upon us then? I have long upheld my belief that above all other phobias, man fears the unknown. Hamlet reinforces this idea by saying that man fears the greatest unknown of all- life after death.

 -McKinley :D

My Julius Caesar Descriptive Essay: First Draft

Hey, everybody! This is the first draft of my Julius Caesar paper. Mrs. Flickner said we could put it on our blogs, but it wasn't required. Likewise, it would be helpful if you gave me your thoughts on it, but it's not required. Thanks.

 

 

McKinley Warrick

Julius Caesar

 

Descriptive Essay

11/2/12

Charlton Heston's Julius Caesar:

A Descriptive Essay

Several silver screen adaptations of William Shakespeare's famous play Julius Caesar have

been produced. This paper, however, is regarding the one known as "The Charlton Heston Version" (but is officially called Julius Caesar, of course). The paper will be split into three paragraphs, in which I will discuss the costuming, analyze the scenery, and compare Shakespeare's work to actual history.

　

　

      The Patricians and the Pleabians are opposites in many ways, and costuming just so happens to be one of them. In the movie's beginning (Act I, Scene I), two figures stand out from the crowd: Flavius and Murellus. This is largely because of costuming. The two Patricians are clothed in resplendent and immaculate robes, while the unwashed masses clothe themselves in simple, shabby, and worn tunics. The difference between the two are merely status symbols in the ancient Roman world, but they are there to show the watchers the monumentous cultural differences between them; an idea that would later become a reoccurring theme for this play. Naturally, these aren't the only things worn by the actors during the course of the movie, nor is this the only example of symbolism seen in the costuming. Clothes reflecting the wearer's character can be seen throughout the movie, from the dark cloaks worn by conspirators plotting dark deeds, to perhaps the most famous and recognizable garment of the play, Julius Caesar's bloodied toga. An example that I found particularly outstanding are the lions (symbolizing strength, courage, and heroism) adorning the armor of Mark Antony in the last act. Symbolism, however is seen in more than just the costuming.

　

　

        Scenery is what sets the mood of a scene, and often foreshadows its events. The entire first half of the movie remains in Rome itself, and the scenery there often supports this idea. The huge and
magnificent Senate Building fills the viewer with a sweeping sense of scale and grandeur, and the
Patrician's houses look lavish and expensive, echoing the lifestyles and self-regard of the inhabitants. By stark contrast, the Pleabians are only seen in the dirt streets and back alleys of crowded and dirty areas. Halfway through, the movie changes direction and so does the scenery, for we now find ourselves on the battlefield. The terrain of said battlefield is rocky and perilous, something the horses were painfully aware of. The tent of Brutus had moody and dark candlelight, setting the scene for a quarrel between two friends quickly followed by the plotting of warfare. Costuming and scenery are just fine for telling a story, but be ready to watch the historical fiction unravel and the solid fact remain as I administer a cold dose of truth surrounding the events of the Julius Caesar.

　

　

      So, just how does Shakespeare's version of history line up with the real deal? Well, to answer that
question we will first take a look at the conspiracy against Caesar. "Beware the Ides of March": a
famous and remembered line to be sure, and historians generally agree that the assassination of
Julius Caesar really did take place on March fifteenth. It wasn't the first assassination though, in fact Julius Caesar was involved in one himself during his younger days. The next topic I would like to address regarding historical accuracy is Mark Antony. After Caesar's murder, Antony actually fled, and was only lured back by Brutus' promise of safety (against Cassius' wishes, of course). It is popularly believed that it was Mark Antony's speech that moved the crowd (as seen in the play and it's movie adaptations) and although he gave a speech, it has been recorded it was actually Caesar's brutally murdered body that stirred the crowd into such violent actions. Regardless of when the assassination took place, or what spurred the angry mob on, Shakespeare generally stayed pretty close to history.

　

　

    That pretty much wraps up my thoughts and observations on the costuming, scenery, and historical accuracy of Charlton Heston's Julius Caesar. I hope that you will get to experience this play-accurate film one day, and that my musing will help you delve deeper into it.

What did you think? Let me know through comments.

 -McKinley :D

　

　

Hamlet: Other Question (Week 10)

{Duel of the Hamlets}

 

Kenneth Branagh VS. Mel Gibson

 

 

Let's start with the Branagh version of Hamlet. If I could use only one word to describe it, I would have to choose "Complete". When comparing the original play to Branagh's movie adaptation, nary a word is out of place. That's right, it follows the source material to a "T", something that is rarely seen nowadays. Something else that really stuck out at me was the ghost scene. The camerawork was superb, balancing exploding patches of earth, stone cold close-ups of the ghost's pale facial features, and horrifying flashbacks. Together with the unearthly sound effects and music, this scene's chilling demeanor made it one of my favorites. By contrast, there are a few things I disliked about this version; most notably (in my opinion) is that in trying to fill us with a huge and sweeping sense of magnitude and grandeur, Branagh made his movie just a bit to "Hollywood". To explain what I mean by this, I'll compare the bright and glaring spotlights of the Branagh version to the flickering firelight of the Gibson version: Face it- it's just not as dramatic. While the glamorous Hollywood style worked for some scenes, it fell flat during others.

Next, I discuss the pros and cons of the Gibson version. If I could use only one word to describe it, I would have to choose "Moody". Since the movie mostly took place in a stone castle, the play was literally "Set in stone", which combined with the eerie torchlight, made the it seem very dark. Mel Gibson also made an extremely moody Hamlet, with his sad moments feeling gloomier, his moment of anger being truly filled with rage, and his fear is one that penetrates our own souls. On the other hand, Gibson's version lacked what I liked about Branagh's (and vise-versa). The ghost of King Hamlet, for instance just isn't as spectral as it is the Branagh version. Sure, there was howling wind, and he did stick mostly to the shadows, but he just didn't live up to the expectations set by Branagh.

I could go on and about this version not having what I liked in that version, but that version having less of what I liked in this version, but that's simply because this simple idea echoes my feelings on both plays, and I belive it sums up my thoughts quite nicely.

 -McKinley :D



Hamlet: Lesson II: Thought Questions: Question II

Hamlet's random barging into Ophelia's chambers was not directly shown in the play, but was vividly described by Ophelia.

"Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbraced;

No hat upon his head; his stockings fouled,

Ungartered, and down-gyvèd to his ankle;

Pale as his shirt; his knees knocking each other;

And with a look so piteous in purport

As if he had been loosèd out of hell

To speak of horrors—he comes before me."

 

If Hamlet's look was strange, his behavior was even stranger.

 

 

"He took me by the wrist and held me hard.

Then goes he to the length of all his arm,

And, with his other hand thus o'er his brow,

He falls to such perusal of my face

As he would draw it. Long stayed he so.

At last, a little shaking of mine arm

And thrice his head thus waving up and down,

He raised a sigh so piteous and profound

As it did seem to shatter all his bulk

And end his being. That done, he lets me go,

And, with his head over his shoulder turned,

He seemed to find his way without his eyes,

For out o' doors he went without their helps,

And to the last bended their light on me."

 

What would you do if a high-ranking and important figure and *ahem* "close friend" (or anyone for that matter) did this to you? What if you were just minding your own business, sewing (or whatever) and suddenly this madman who looks like he was halfway through getting dressed when Hell itself swallowed him up and had just spat him out and into your room. When this happened to Ophelia she reports that she has "...been so affrighted!". Yeah, that would be pretty freaky. How is the imagery of clothing used in this scene? Well, all that I could really get out of it was that his clothes seemed to mirror the state of his sanity: "unbraced", "fouled", and "ungartered".

 

 

 -McKinley :D

Hamlet: Lesson I: Review Questions: Question X

The Death of King Hamlet

(Week 9)

 

 

King Hamlet (not to be confused with Prince Hamlet, his son) died before the play opens, and it is around his death that the play revolves. How did he die? Well, most everyone in Denmark thought that while sleeping in his orchard, the king was bitten by a serpent. But as it turns out, the whole thing is actually a giant government cover-up (the last thing I'd expect to find in a Shakespeare play)! In the words of the murder victim himself, "The serpent that did sting thy father’s life Now wears his crown." That's right, it was Claudius! "...Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole With juice of cursed hebenon in a vial, And in the porches of my ears did pour The leperous distilment...". Why is this significant? Let's start with the entry of the deadly substance into the body. It is poured in the ear, a comparison to tempting words, a prime tool in Claudius' arsenal. Claudius used his tempting words in a variety of ways, but most notably to seduce Gertrude. This is a powerful analogy, not just because of the entry point, but also because tempting words can be just as deadly as a potent poison, working to kill a victim from the inside out.

 

 

 -McKinley :D

Hamlet: First Impressions

As Mrs. Dunlop said in her e-mail, "Students should BRIEFLY BLOG FIRST IMPRESSIONs!"

 So here goes nothing.

 

 

 

My first impressions of Hamlet ? I like it! Many people regard it as the perfect tragedy, and I can see why! It's filled with mystery, intrigue, and a wondrous amount depth. It keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time, always wondering what's going to happen next. Plus, the play ends with a massive heap of corpses. If that's not a tragedy, I don't know what is.

 

 

P.S. Sorry it's a bit short, but I was running low on time.

 

 

 -McKinley :D

One down, two to go.

It seems like only yesterday we started this Shakespeare class, and we've already covered the first of three genres: History. Even now, we're beginning Tragedy, then we'll move on to Comedy. I just can't believe we're a third of the way through this class! Well, just thought I'd share an observation.

 -McKinley :D

Politics: Some Things Never Change

Brutus ----- Mitt Romney

 

Like many others in this class, I am comparing Brutus to modern Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Like Brutus, he has his nation's best interests at heart, but doesn't always go about it the best way. Also like Brutus, he sticks to his beliefs very firmly.

 

Cassius ----- Ron Paul

 

I'm comparing the wily Cassius with former Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Why? One reason is that he mirrors one of the most famous passages about Cassius in the entire play:

"Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look about him..." His methods are also very different from his competition. On the other hand, I'm not trying to say that he is evil or self-centered like Cassius, but he does bear other similarities.

 

Caesar ----- Barack Obama

 

As for the current president of the United States, I'm likening him to Julius Caesar. For one thing, he's being viciously attacked (figuratively, of course) by Romney and Paul, who I have chosen to represent Brutus and Cassius. For another, he is of course, the President of the United States of America! That's right, the highest ranking person in the entire country. Is he as arrogant as Caesar? No, I don't think anyone in the world today honestly thinks that they are a god, but Obama has a few arrogant traits.

 

Antony ----- John F. Kennedy

 

Mark Antony- one of the most charismatic characters in the play. So who better to be chosen for him then John F. Kennedy. To put it simply, America loved him! He was a fairly young, happy, ideal American. Adding to this effect, is the fact he had a wife, kids and a dog. Go ahead, try to think of a more charismatic person. Mark Antony? Ah, yes. As touched on in previous posts, Mark Antony could turn a mob against a man they had been cheering for a mere moment ago. He was a great speechmaker, another trait shared with J.F.K.

 

 

As I have shown you, the political world is a dangerous one, full of all types of people. While it looks as if this is a landscape that is constantly changing, certain ancient Roman politicians bear remarkable similarities to a few modern American ones. It guess even after thousands of years,

 

Some Things Never Change

 

 -McKinley :D

Julius Caesar: Lesson 4: Review Questions: Question 3 (Week 8)

Brutus and Cassius: Each interesting characters on their own, but their relationship with one another is purely fascinating. In the beginning of the play Brutus seems to be wary of Cassius, then the two appear as close as two men can be, but here in Act IV, Scene II, they are torn violently apart. They begin yelling at each other, and accusing the other man of wrong. But, seeing how such talk tore they, themselves apart, they wish to continue in private, to prevent the same thing from happening to their army. Brutus accuses Cassius of  accepting bribes, saying that he has an "itching palm". However, Cassius is taken aback by such a remark, thinking that is is hardly the time or place to point out every little mistake of an ally, especially a dear friend. After all, to a man like Cassius, that's what friends are for. For Brutus, a true friend is honest with his companion, a philosophy that fits within Brutus' strict sense of honor. Quite a contrast, isn't it? Have you ever heard the phrase "Opposites attract"? Despite what you may guess from Scene II and the first part of Scene III, it turns out to be true. By the end of Act IV, Brutus and Cassius seem to be better freinds then ever, with the final farewell in Act V feeling more heartfelt than any other conversations between the two.

 

 -McKinley :D

ATTENTION HIGH SCHOOLERS: More Missing Comments

This one goes out to the High Schoolers. I've been commenting on your blogs, but they haven't showed up either! Are they arriving in your spam boxes? Please, let me know as soon as you can. Thanks,

 -McKinley :D

Julius Caesar: Lesson 3: Thought Questions: Question 6 (Week 7)

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears." Thus begins one of the most famous speeches in the history of literature. Mark Antony begins his tactical and well-oriented manipulation of the crowd with the first of many sarcastic remarks: "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.". He's only started speaking, and he's already saying the exact opposite of what he means! Then, he moves on to the topic of Caesar's ambition. He seems to start or end every point with "But Brutus says he was ambitious, And Brutus is an honorable man." This is the equivalent of saying "Well, what actually happened is one thing, but Brutus' word is far more important. What you see with your own eyes, counts for something, but if Brutus says the opposite, that makes it so, for Brutus is an honorable man." Antony points out how Caesar brought so many captives back to Rome, how he wept along with the poverty stricken, and how he turned down the crown not once, not twice, but three times. After pointing out Caesar's positive traits and dispelling the negative ones, he plants the seeds of doubt by saying "You all loved him once, and not without reason. Then what reason holds you back from mourning him now?", then excuses himself for a moment, possibly to regain his composure, but more likely to give the crowd time to think about what he has said, turning it over in their minds, and discussing it between themselves. Then he continues his speech, stirring up rage against the the conspirators. But let's go back a moment, back to the first part of the speech, the part inspiring love for Caesar, and to an extent, himself. Speaking the exact opposite of what one means seems to be a rather roundabout way to get one's point across. It appears that it would only confuse, but by the speech's end his meaning becomes crystal clear. Was it convincing? Take a look at the play: before Antony spoke, the crowd was shouting "Live, Brutus! Live, live!" and "Give him a statue with his ancestors!", while after Antony spoke, every last plebeian cried "Revenge! Let’s go after them! Seek! Burn! Set fire! Kill! Slay! Leave no traitors alive!" I think that the play speaks for itself.

 

 -McKinley :D

Julius Caesar: Lesson 2: Reiview Questions: Question 5 (Week 6)

Brutus decides to join the conspiracy, easily swayed by Cassius' forged letters. Brutus justifies his action on a "better safe than sorry!" policy, comparing Caesar to a poisonous adder, thinking it better to destroy the egg on the mere possibility that the fully grown serpent could come return one day to harm him. Soon, his fellow conspirators arrive. As they discuss whether or not to assassinate Mark Antony along with Caesar, "Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius, To cut the head off and then hack the limbs, Like wrath in death and envy afterwards, For Antony is but a limb of Caesar. Let us be sacrificers but not butchers, Caius." Brutus seems to contradict what brought him here in the first place! He overlooks the potential threat of Mark Antony, neglecting to crush the egg of what is perhaps an even more deadly beast. Cunning Cassius sees the truth, but agrees with Brutus to stay in his favor. This brings up some shocking similarities with Caesar. He too, was duped, flattered, and manipulated by the conspirators. He too, ignored the potential threat of  Calpurnia's dream, and the Oracle's warnings. And like Brutus', these mistakes would come back to bite him.

 

 -McKinley :D

The Missing Comments

I've been posting comments on "Steph's Blog" (http://stephaniesshakespeare.blogspot.com/), but they still haven't showed up! Maybe it's some kind of technical error or something. Any ideas? Any and all comments would be helpful.

 -McKinley :D

Julius Caesar: Lesson 1: Review Questions: Question 2 (Week 5)

Shakespeare's play mostly revolves around a group of conspirators, their plot against Caesar, and the unforeseen aftereffects of this plot. Although it is up for debate which characters are to be considered "The Main Characters", in my personal opinion the main characters in said play are as follows:

Julius Caesar
Despite the fact the play bears his name, Brutus has over four times as many lines as Caesar. On top of that, the title character dies relatively early in the play. On the other hand, the focus of the other characters often is trained upon Caesar.

Antony
An absolutely loyal friend of Caesar, he remains true to him until the bitter end, and fights for him even after his death.

Octavius
Caesar's adopted son, he returns from abroad halfway through the play to find his father killed. He then joins Antony to avenge Caesar. After the conflict, he succeeds his father.

Brutus
Pity "poor Brutus", torn between his love for Caesar, and his love for Rome. He greatly respects and admires Caesar, but believes his assassination could greatly benefit Rome. Brutus is a rare breed: an honest politician! The others simply envy Caesar, but Brutus actually has other people's best interests at heart. However, the other conspirators exploit Brutus's honesty and easily manipulate him.

Cassius
Shrewd and sly, "Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look." He is jealous of Caesar's power, and will get rid of anything- and anyone- that gets in his way. He uses subtle flattery and forged letters to sway Brutus to his point of view, and eventually succeeds in his attempts to  assassinate Caesar.

These characters are often in the spotlight, or "the focus of the play", and for that reason, they have secured their spots as the "Main Characters" in my mind. They tie the play together, giving it direction and feeling. They intrigue us, repulse us, and win our admiration. These are the characters that, despite their every word being scripted, have so much personality and make Shakespeare's play a timeless work of art.

P.S. After finishing my post I look over it, unsatisfied at my work. Nothing I can do will scratch that itch to make it just right. Is this normal? What can I do? Any and all comments would be welcome.

 -McKinley :D

HenryV: Lesson 4: Review Questions: Question 10

The play ends alluding to a wedding of great ceremony, "Prepare we for our marriage; on which day, My Lord of Burgundy, we’ll take your oath...", quickly followed by the Chorus' apologies for the play, "Thus far with rough and all-unable pen our bending author hath pursued the story", his praise for Henry, "Small time, but in that small most greatly lived this star of England." Then, after touching on Henry VI and making one last apology, the Chorus exits, the curtains are drawn, and the play ends. What does this say about Shakespeare's view of Henry V? The answer seems clear to me; through the Chorus, he emphasizes the achievements of Henry, "Fortune made his sword, By which the world’s best garden be achieved and of it left his son imperial lord." If he was still alive today, I believe Shakespeare would probably put to rest any ideas about a double meaning to "The Mirror of all Christian Kings". In my humble opinion, Shakespeare simply meant it in the first sense, seeing Henry as a reformed low-life who became a great man of God.

P.S. Sorry, but I won't be able to make it to co-op this coming Friday.

Henry V: Review Questions: Question 6

"Upon the king! Let us our lives, our souls, our debts, our careful wives, our children, and our sins lay on the king! We must bear all," Henry laments. He's obviously feeling the crushing weight of  responsibility that comes with such a high position. The only advantage of such a position, he claims, is ceremony; something he cannot see the value of.  It cannot cure disease, its abilities are only of ritual. Just wearing a crown, holding a scepter, or being preceded by a title gives no real power, he argues. Beneath the ceremony he's just an average man, a life he wishes he could have. He would exchange his life and the responsibility that comes with it, for the hard, grueling life of a peasant. In conclusion, it is made explicitly clear that the ultimate difference between commoner and king is, in fact, ceremony. It's the only thing making Henry different from any other man, and in his eyes, the power of ceremony is no power at all!

Henry V: Lesson 2: Review Questions: Question 10

Just before an attack, Henry tells his troops to "... imitate the action of a tiger: Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favored rage, then lend the eye a terrible aspect...", and so on. He's basically telling his men to be fierce and threatening, perhaps trying to boost morale, or make it seem as if his army is more powerful then it actually is. Or perhaps, he's just trying to frighten the enemy into surrendering in order to win the battle without spilling a single drop of blood! This seems like a "sound Christian advice"; after all, no one is hurt, just a peaceful surrender. However, this is a classic example of "The End Justifies the Means" philosophy, something that's definitely not Christ-approved. In fact, this command to inspire fear in the French is just the opposite! I believe that Henry was war-crazed and thirsty for blood. This speech was simply given to inspire his troops and instill in them the same blood lust that came upon Henry.

Lesson 1: Review Questions: Question 9.

The Dauphin of France sent Henry tennis balls, along with several mocking remarks regarding the wild days of his youth, his inexperience on the throne, and his bold claim to ownership of various dukedoms. As for the significance of said tennis balls, it's most likely a reference to Henry's youth and immaturity (he calls the tennis balls "meeter for your spirit", or, in modern English, "more suited for your character"), but some suggest that the Dauphin is saying that England is no match for the military might of France, that Henry is simply playing at war, and should not be taken seriously. Perhaps the Dauphin's joke was in good humor, but it seemed to me that his message was designed to provoke Henry into war. Whatever the case, the Dauphin's disrespect for Henry was one of several factors that led to mass loss of life in a war between England and France.