Random Post

I was randomly "googling" Shakespeare and I came across several interesting, thought-provoking articles, comments, and blog posts.  According to these texts, Shakespeare might have created some of the most popular phrases that we use today. I'm surprised, but when I think about it, I guess that it's not so surprising given that he was a "language chemist." I don't know how valid all this is, but it's just something to think about.

"Common Phrases Invented By Shakespeare" by Lee Jamieson
http://shakespeare.about.com/od/shakespeareslegacy/a/Common_Phrases.htm

http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2527-shakespeares-word-inventions

Let me know what you think. This entire search has reminded me about the discussion we had concerning misquotes; that is, inaccurate documentation of what a person has said or written. Even the article's author, Lee Jamieson, states, "I'm many cases, it is not known if Shakespeare actually invented these phrases, or if they were already in use during Shakespeare's lifetime. In fact, it is almost impossible to identify when a word or phrase was first used, but Shakespeare's plays often provide the earliest citation" (1). This makes me think that even if Shakespeare is the originator of all these phrases, are they all 100% his, or have they been altered and manipulated (by other writers) over the years? And how much have his words and the meaning to them been changed? Simply, all this revisits the notion that texts are constantly "evolving." The example that the article gives is that of the phrase "sweets to the sweet" from Hamlet. Reiterating  this idea that language transforms with time, the article states that, "many of the original meanings behind Shakespeare's words has evolved. For example, the phrase 'sweets to the sweet' from Hamlet has since become a commonly used romantic phrase. In the original play, the line is uttered by Hamlet's mother as she scatters funeral flowers across Ophelia's grave in Act 5, Scene 1...[the] passage hardly shares the romantic sentiment in today's use of the phrase!" (1). Are there any more changed-meaning scenes, speeches, or phrases that one can identify?

State of Decay

      In class, I talked about how theatre remains in this continual space of decay. I brought up one of Anselm Kiefer’s works as an example. I’d like to expand and unpack more on this idea/notion. First, I’d like to give you a little more background information on Anselm Kiefer himself, and later relate his work to our discussion about theatre and acting.

 Lot's Wife, 1989

Anselm Kiefer, a German painter and sculptor born on March 8, 1945, is an artist that’s known for his controversial and taboo issues (displayed throughout his work). Known for studying under Joseph Beuys, he often worked with natural or obscure materials such as straw, grass, sand, wood, glass, salt and even ash. A major theme in his artwork is coming to terms with Germany’s past (pertaining to his country’s struggle and devastation during the Holocaust)(Huyssen, 1992, p.86). His deliberate strategy of opening up Pandora’s box of fascist and nationalist imagery of his homeland’s past (the Holocaust) has ultimately gained him fame in the United States, while stirring up unwanted memories in Germany (Huyssen, 1992, p.86). One of his most interesting and compelling pieces is his Lot’s Frau (Lot’s Wife) painting. Made of chalk, polymere emulsion, salt, linseed oil, stucco, ash, and other applied elements, the painting incorporates a lot of grats and earth tones to invoke a feeling of abandonment. On the barren landscape are a set of railroad tracks, which refer to the bleakness of the Holocaust. The transformed landscape is perceived to be a metaphor for human suffering (which is further emphasized by the use of ash). The feeling of devastation is definitely present in the painting. Moreover, the torn edges along with the ash-covered canvas echoes this idea that it has survived a fire (Gorslin).

Kiefer’s painting was (intentionally) designed to deteriorate. The painting itself has begun to fall apart (ash and other such materials falling to the ground). This artistic image ultimately unveils the theme of absence, death, and decay. And at the same time, because the art piece is dying, the essence of life becomes more valuable. That is, the artwork incorporates or engages its viewers/spectators in such a way that they recognize that life is more precious when they witness an actual deterioration or decay, and/or destruction of something (that’s visually, artistically, or poetically alive). This is quite similar to how we treat Shakespearean texts and the like. In other words, after recognizing that some kind of literary work might be lost, the text itself then becomes more valuable to us. I want to return now to the quotes discussed in class.

“Acting…seems to contain in itself the seeds of perpetual renovation and decay” (Hazlitt, 132). As I stated in class, acting—and theatrical performances in general—are constantly in a space of decay. What I mean by this is that an original performance is difficult to preserve. A play can be seen from numerous angles and perspectives, and is always changing depending on what’s happening on stage (concerning the actors, actual environment, vibe of the room, lighting, and so forth). Therefore, it’s practically impossible to contain (record and/or document) a single performance in its purest form. However, despite this, our culture is still so worried or concerned about things decaying that we try to preserve artistic and literary works, such as Shakespeare’s plays. That is, we desperately try to hold onto or re-create a memory of an original work.

Similarly to acting’s ability to decay, Kiefer’s painting is also decaying. However, Kiefer embraces this aspect of his work. Over the years, many people have discussed “fixing” (making repairs to) his work since ash and other such elements have broken off the painting (relating to how we try to hold onto preserving original works in their “purest” form). Kiefer, however, insists that the work remain the way it is. The materials that he has used allows for the painting to deteriorate and change overtime, similar to how a play is able to be altered, evolve, and/or even deteriorate over time. There is just something so raw and natural about the lifespan of these artistic spaces. Moreover, just as theatre serves as a “place where the mind investigates how it remembers,” (Holland 221), Kiefer’s artwork functions in a similar way, as it was designed to serve as a reminder for Germany’s horrific past. It’s interesting to see how Kiefer, who didn’t even live through or experience World War II, would attempt to remind his fellow Germans of their past. Nevertheless, he used his canvas as a space where he can investigate remembering (memory, recalling, and so forth) what has taken place. Both theatre and the canvas are important tools for recalling particular actions (and thereby creating a kind of psychological drama/investigation for both author/creator and spectator alike).

      In short, I think that it’s interesting to see that both theatre and artworks like Kiefer’s leave room for decay. In addition, both try to re-create a memory through a kind of performance (whether it be acting or a brushstroke). I also think that it’s somewhat ironic that things become more important or valuable to us because they are in a state of decay. That is, decay and deterioration somehow reinforces our attempt to preserve things. I gave Kiefer's painting as an example, but can anyone think of another? In my opinion, even though we acknowledge that things perish, it's somehow difficult for us to accept that. Somehow, this entire circling around death and deterioration makes me think of the complete opposite, that is to say, the complete opposite of decay. Perhaps my thoughts concerning decay can be summed up in one simple quote, which is, “Art teaches nothing except the significance of life” (Henry Miller).

More Hamlet

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1019499.ece

Sleep No More...

Following up on today's discussion:

http://sleepnomorenyc.com/

check it out!!

Murphy vs. Cumberland

Arthur Murphy does not seem to be a fan of David Garrick's. In his parody of Hamlet, he replaces King Hamlet's ghost with the ghost of Shakespeare, and Hamlet with Garrick. Shakespeare haunts Garrick's peers and brother for a few days before he finally gets Garrick's attention. He whisks Garrick away and basically tells him that he is sick of him and all the other playwrights making fortunes off of bastardizing his plays. He calls Garricks revisions the "juice of cursed nonsense" and says that it "annihilates the sense" and instills a numb stupor into his words, "like sheets of water on a fire" extinguishing them. He leaves Garrick to the revenge of the critics who will inflict their vengeance upon his adaptation of Hamlet. Garrick incredulously misunderstood the entire event- he believes " this Ghost is pleas'd with this my alteration, and now he bids me alter all his Plays. His plays are out of joint".

Based on what we've read and learned about David Garrick, I feel like Murphy's parody is pretty accurate and warranted. Though Garrick claims to adore Shakespeare beyond all else, lauds him as a genius and attempts to almost become him as much as possible, Garrick doesn't seem to quite get it. He simply cannot place Shakespeare's works above all else, and then just change them! Either he doesn't truly celebrate Shakespeare as much as he claims, or he is so innately arrogant that he believes he can "fix" the bard's words. I thought the parody was really great because it seems almost possible- Garrick seems so obliviously arrogant, that I would not be surprised if Shakespeare's ghost really had visited him and he completely misconstrued his words.

Richard Cumberland has quite a different take on Garrick- though at first he seemed to be making fun of Garrick in his mention of the gravediggers and the letter f/s thing, he ends it with an approval. He has Shakespeare come out of his grave and thank Garrick for improving his plays (telling him, "Freely correct my page"), since he wrote them "to please a rude unpolisht age". Richard Cumberland obviously takes Garrick's view that he is only improving Shakespeare's words and somehow simultaneously remaining loyal to them.

Act III, Scene IV: Hamlet and His Mother

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggnckrKeKkk&feature=related

When I read this scene in the play, I remembered it as presented by Mel Gibson in his version of Hamlet: an incestuous mess, full of Freudian hints and Oedipal complexes. Now, my impression of this scene wasn't always geared this way- when I read it for the first time, I simply saw it as Hamlet yelling at his mother. Following the prompt, I found two different versions of the same scene: the first with Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet, and the second one with Mel Gibson (starting at 12:49). Someone had kindly compiled three different versions of the same scene, as seen in the link above.

In comparing the two, I found that the Branagh version focuses primarily on Hamlet's father and Claudius whereas the Gibson version focuses more on the relationship between Hamlet and his mother. Branagh really describes his father and uncle with detail and the camera shows the faces of the necklace portraits that Hamlet shows to his mother. As for the Gibson version, when the portraits of the fathers are shown side by side the camera does not focus on them in the way the first scene does- instead, it focuses on Hamlet and Gertrude as the more important part of the scene, ignoring the dead father and uncle/husband. The detailed comparison that Hamlet makes between his father and his uncle are also cut out of the dialogue, and more explicit action occurs between Hamlet and his mother such as thrusting and kissing. It greatly emphasizes that a relationship exists between Hamlet and Gertrude extending beyond the normal relationship of mother and son; they are cast into the role of lovers.

The appearance of Hamlet's father's ghost also takes on a wholly different meaning in both of the movies. In Branagh's version, the father is seen with respect and reverence. The whole room is full of light, and while it is easy for the viewers to see the ghost it is impossible for his mother to do so. Overall, this Hamlet comes off as more sane and rational than Gibson's portrayal. In Gibson's scene, the ghost is used as a device to break apart the incestuous kiss that takes place between Hamlet and his mother. The warning given to Hamlet now works in two ways: not only should Hamlet lose his rage and be kinder to his mother, but he should also be careful not to fall into temptation. He essentially falls to his uncle's level at this point, and the shame that he feels over the whole altercation is a tangible element. While the first movie seems to portray Hamlet at the end as a sane person who regrets his actions and is capable of making better decisions, the second movie only serves to show Hamlet unnerved and positively spooked.

The Tempest in the 21st-century...

For those of you with iPads, etc...might check this out?

http://www.theappside.com/2012/04/13/shakespeares-the-tempest-gets-ipad-book-app/

Who are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?

When most people think about the story Hamlet, the characters most central to the plot jump to mind: Hamlet himself, King Claudius, Queen Gertrude, and even Ophelia to name a few. But few rarely remember, or even pay much notice, to the characters Rozencrantz and Guildenstern. These two characters are delegated a small, seemingly insignificant role within the play. When they are needed they make an appearance, but they seem to be rather removed from the majority of the play. The pair do not even have a scene written out for their deaths; rather, the audience learns of it from Hamlet as he relays it to others. They seem to be more or less vehicles of convenience, used by Shakespeare simply to move the play along and to give Hamlet people with which to interact. The pair are randomly introduced to the audience by King Claudius as childhood friends of Hamlet, and are immediately set upon him to spy and report back to the king. Their role in the play is summarized neatly through the pair's own words:

Rosencrantz: Both your majesties

Might, by the sovereign power you have of us,

Put your dread pleasures more into command

Than to entreaty.

Guildenstern: But we both obey,

And here give up ourselves in the full bent

To lay our service freely at your feet

To be commanded. (Hamlet, II.ii.27-32)

They are set up as puppets, with little mind or will of their own: essentially, they seem to have little control over the direction or purpose of their lives. This very idea is encapsuled within Tom Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. In Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are the main stars; the large amount of time that they are not seen within Shakespeare's original play is depicted here. This idea that they are not entirely in control of their own lives (and if you think about it, what character is ever in control of his or her own life?) is prevalent within the play, It examines how bewildering this loss of control is, and looks at the uncertain line between life and death while ushering them towards their inevitable ends as determined in Hamlet.

But moving on. While doing the reading, I stopped at the section when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern meet up with Hamlet for the first time. The first time I read Hamlet, I remember skimming over this part: while the word games seemed amusing, the characters themselves seemed flat and shallow; tripping over themselves in an effort to catch Hamlet out. But because I've read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, it's so much harder to try and ignore them. Instead, their words seem to hold so much more weight. For example:

Hamlet: Denmark's a prison.

Rosencrantz: Then is the world one.

Hamlet: A goodly one, in which there are many confines,

wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o'th'worst.

Rosencrantz: We think not so, my lord.

Hamlet: Why, then 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either

good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.

Rosencrantz: Why, then your ambition makes it one; 'tis too

narrow for your mind.

Hamlet: O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count

myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad

dreams.

Guildenstern: Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very

substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream.

Hamlet: A dream itself is but a shadow.

Rosencrantz: Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a

quality that it is but a shadow's shadow.

The word play between the three characters is very interesting to me; it feels as if they are constantly making pun after pun; taking each others words and twisting them all around in order to make some sense out of what is said. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem as if they are trying to place limits on the words that Hamlet says; limits that they cannot see past. While they speak of Hamlet's ambition (thinking of Hamlet's motives through King Claudius' words), Hamlet knows this and speaks of larger things that seem to throw the pair off. The sense of word play is also prevalent within Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead through the question games that the pair play with each other while standing around in between scenes. Given that they are shown to have the ability to play these kinds of games, I then found it funny that Stoppard completely cuts out the entirety of their interaction with Hamlet. Right when they meet with him in their play, a blackout occurs and the lights come back on only after Hamlet is about to take his leave. The reversal of what scenes are important for the audience to see is very interesting to me; just as we are not allowed to see much of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern without their interaction with Hamlet in Shakespeare's play, Stoppard also blocks us from seeing them interact with Hamlet.

To Be or Not to Be: Branagh vs. Tennant

Kenneth Branagh's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7740lGif65Y&feature=related

David Tennant's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYZHb2xo0OI

When watching Branagh's performance of this famous soliloquy, the first thing I noticed was how slowly he recites the lines. He seems to be pondering the question of suicide/murder very logically and calmly, he has no urgency in his voice. He recites it the way I often read the words in my mind--slowly and as if relishing each and every word. I thought the choice to have Hamlet facing the mirror and speaking to his reflection was interesting though not very subtle, as he is in self-reflection (ha, ha, ha) at the time. I also noticed, though he is speaking clearly and slowly, he seems to have this glint in his eye, perhaps foreshadowing his dissent into semi-madness.

Tennant instead seems worried and almost sad in his portrayal, definitely less self-assured and arrogant than Branagh. He isn't looking into a mirror, instead he's kind of staring off into space, slumped up against a wall--which is definitely less cocky than Branagh. He speaks rather slowly as well (both renditions are about the same length though Tennant cuts out several lines), but he seems to have more urgency in his voice: he's kind of whispering and his rhythm isn't as smooth as Branagh's, indicating a more emotional and indecisive portrayal.


The most stark difference between the two performances is in their tones: Branagh's Hamlet seemed calm and cold, almost power-hungry and violent (particularly when he pulls out his dagger during the soliloquy), while Tennant's Hamlet was anguished and distraught about his situation. He speaks slowly, like Branagh, but he has more worry in the way he says his words and in his facial expressions: his eyebrows are constantly furrowed and his eyes are wide in confusion. Branagh on the other hand keeps his face rather still and always has an eyebrow cocked in a powerful arrogance (which, I feel is also amplified by the fact that he's staring into a mirror). Branagh portrays Hamlet as though he is reveling in the possibility of power (the power to decide to end a life, whether his or Claudius'), he seems angrier and more detached from the situation--which suggests to me that either Hamlet (or at least, his rendition of Hamlet) was a bit more aggressive and strong than I had previously imagined, OR that his madness has started to present itself as early as this scene.Tennant's Hamlet comes off as worried, weak and anxiety ridden, the way I would imagine anyone to be were they in his position. He seems to be looking into himself, into the abstract image of the world (since he is looking at nothing but the air when he speaks the soliloquy), which feels more contemplative than Branagh's arrogant mirror-gazing. Tennant's version also cuts out the "whips and scorns of time", "bare bodkin" and the whole dagger/flashback to Claudius thing that Branagh does. I think this implies that Tennant  Hamlet is a bit less aggressive and violent in his tendencies and is contemplating his suicide more than he is the murder of Claudius.

Due to some health problems, I wasn't able to attend our last class (Wednesday, April 4) and I was wondering if anyone could briefly explain what we talked about either here, or during our next class meeting, or if I could see their notes or something. I'd really appreciate any sort of help :)

This American Life--ACT V Hamlet

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/218/act-v

This was my second exposure to Hamlet--Hamlet performed by inmates at a high security prison in Missouri.  A reporter visited the prison for 6 months and watched the inamtes practice. The segment consists of interviews with the inmates about their interpretations of Hamlet as well as recordings of their performances. This was incredibly interesting because these men have all committed serious criminal acts (murder, rape, armed robberies), and  at the core of Hamlet is a man contemplating a criminal act. The reporter found that these men knew much more about Hamlet than he ever thought he did. He says:  "This is a play about a man pondering about a violent crime and its consequences performed by violent criminals living out those consequences".

One inmate had a very interesting insight into Hamlet's situation. He says, "Hamlet's dilemma is not really dilemma".  He rationalizes that if someone wronged him in some way, he would know that he would have to "do him" or basically, get his revenge--there would be no hesitation or contemplation.
He also provides a very interesting comment on Hamlet's delay on killing his uncle. He says that "If I'm strong enough to believe in ghosts, then I'm strong enough to believe what the ghost tells me".


All in all, it is a very interesting and different take on Hamlet and I encourage you all to listen!

Hamlet Blogger's, Post #2

Hi Hamlet Bloggers,
For your second post, I want you to
1) select a short scene from Hamlet that interests you
2) view the performance of this scene in at least 2 different productions (if you have trouble finding recorded versions of Hamlet let me know)
3) compare these performances and post about your conclusions.
Note: if you are able to upload your clips for the rest of us to view, that would be great!

The 15 Minute Hamlet

Out of all the many Shakespeare plays that I have had to read in high school and college, Hamlet has always held a special place in my heart. Maybe it's because my high school teacher was smart enough to give my class plenty of interesting adaptations and spin-offs to examine along with Shakespeare's original work. Upon closer examination, I have come to realize that my relationship with Hamlet began with the understanding that adaptations of 'classic works' can be admired and respected- I find it both funny and ironic that four years later from that class, I'm approaching Hamlet once more with adaptation and change in mind.

When I found out that I would be doing blog posts for the Hamlet portion of our class, I immediately began thinking about what I could talk about and put up here for people to discuss. And then I remembered this video that my English teacher had showed us long ago called "15 Minute Hamlet". It was based on a play written by Tom Stoppard, and it portrays Shakespeare as a director attempting to capture Hamlet in 15 consecutively rolling minutes on film.

Links (separated into Part I and II) can be found here:

Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSDUnc9Qbts

Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KaARdL-10c

I found it interesting that the short movie, after showing the viewers Hamlet as captured in 15 minutes, then brings our perspective to Shakespeare and two other men, one of which seems to dislike it and tells him to change it. After this, we watch as Shakespeare cuts and sews the bits and pieces of film reel back together for an even shorter version of what was previously filmed; this new editing seems to delight the two men upon it's showing. And as the camera slowly closes in on Shakespeare's face while the two men clap, the viewers are transitioned once more into a theatre full of people giving Shakespeare a huge round of applause. It got me thinking about how many layers there are in this short film. It feels as if it's a story inside a story, inside yet another story. It's true, the manner in which "15 Minute Hamlet" is filmed brings to light certain humorous elements that make it really hard to take the overall work seriously. The shortened version that Shakespeare produces the second time around really brings that to light- the way that Ophelia dies is fantastic! But if you think about it- even though they do use all of Shakespeare's lines within the filming, it's adaptation once more. By applying new elements (such as the changes that film might introduce to this play), a person's idea of Hamlet is irrevocably altered. That doesn't mean that "15 Minute Hamlet" could change a person's idea of what Hamlet is about- but it can definitely help one to see it in a completely different light.

Hamlet's Watch

The opening scene of Shakespeare's Hamlet introduces Hamlet's father--his ghost that is. King Hamlet's ghost appears to a group guarding the castle (Marcellus, Bernardo and Francisco) and to the previously disbelieving Horatio, Hamlet's good friend.Similar to many of Shakespeare's other plays, the first scene of Hamlet appears random and features mainly irrelevant characters, however this first scene provides an insight into the action yet to come.

Throughout the entire opening scene, mentions of time are almost unbelievably frequent. I did say that the opening scene sets the scene for the rest of the play, so you might be thinking to yourself "Time? What's time got to do with it? This is Hamlet, right--isn't it like The Lion King, but with people in it?" If that is indeed what you are thinking, you have reason to think it. Even if you've never read Hamlet before, you are likely to know what its about-- a king is secretly killed by his brother, who then takes over the crown while the king's son tries to plot his revenge. It is in this revenge part that the idea of time kicks in. Hamlet spends half of the play (and this is a long play, folks!) debating whether he should kill Claudius, and if so, when, where, and how. This whole play is about time-- specifically, the right time. The longer Hamlet waits, the harder it is for him to decide, and the harder it is to decide, the longer he waits.

Time is brought up by all the characters present in the first scene:

Francisco

You come most carefully upon your hour.(i.i.iv)

 

Barnardo 

'Tis now struck twelve. (i.i.v)

 

There are constant mentions of their "watch"-- though in this context they are referring to their guard shift, it is no coincidence that they use a word so intertwined with the idea of time.