Jasmine and Lauren's Creative Project! Hamlet, A First Folio

Hi guys!

I thought it would be a good idea to post my creative project now and get it out of the way (: What you see here is my part of a creative project that I'm working on with Lauren K (minus the quarto part, we'll be finishing that shortly). Since I'm computer illiterate and can't figure out how to attach the PDF to my post, I've just copied it directly in. Enjoy!

The Mother Goose-ification of Hamlet

By Jasmine Foo

Adapted from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet

  

I tell you that all their battering can’t deface my beauties, nor their wise pratings equal my wiser prattling; and all imitators of my refreshing songs might as well write a new Billy Shakespeare as another Mother Goose- we two poets were born together, and we shall go out of the world together.

No, no my Melodies will never die,

While nurses sing, or babies cry.

-Mother Goose

An Introduction

Let us wade through the ‘Once-upon-a-time’s

Read by parents while saying good night-

To the fairies and mermaids we will wave goodbye

As we leave these tales with a tear in our eye,

And look forward to stories wrapped up quite neatly-

Not in storybook form, but still done rather sweetly.

I speak of the ones that can be read in a flash;

They rhyme and have rhythm and are not at all rash.

Let us go to these poems, from a fair-feathered friend,

Whose characters and stories we all greatly commend.

And take from another, who is extremely renowned;

Those who read his works find him rather profound.

While most would ponder at the mixture of these two,

I humbly ask that you see the story through-

Shakespeare is here, I can promise you that.

But you’ll only see him if you first give it a chance.

If we were to think about the stories of our youth

One would find that there is inexplicable truth

Found in the words of dear Mother Goose

Though, while silly, did wisdom produce.

----

There once were two good fellows

Who owned two very grand cellos.

Named in our tale as MarCat and BerFiddle,

They found themselves in a troublesome diddle.

Striding the top of the castle one night

They saw a spectre that put their wits to flight:

The dead king in good form,

Yet opaque enough to look out of the norm.

Our tale continues with the calling of

Little Boy Horatio, who said:

“It’s Prince Hamlet who must see this apparition

If only he weren’t right now playing badminton!”

As the following morning dawned bright and true,

King ClauDish set about to knock the truth askew.

“The death of King Hamlet deserves a tribute-

And that is why I’m marrying Queen GerSpoon!”

Queen GerSpoon smiled and let out a wave;

The courtiers, enchanted, let out a hooray-

All except one.

Prince Hamlet Black Sheep stood glaring in a corner,

While the court discussed Denmark’s borders.

When the queen and the king and the court left the room,

Hamlet’s suicide rant let off a discernible gloom.

While Hamlet ranted about death and despair,

Little Boy Horatio came in without any fanfare.

“My angelic prince,” he cried, “Please don’t delay!”

“We saw your dead father at 3 a.m. on Tuesday!”

“What now?” cried Black Sheep, drawn out of his reverie,

“My good father, dead, seen at the top of tower thirteen?”

He let out a roar, and proclaimed straightaway,

“There’s something amiss; I must investigate!”

And as Prince Black Sheep walked away,

Little Boy Horatio whispered:

“Yes, there’s something amiss in the state of Denmark.”

Meanwhile, Leartes be Nimble was saying goodbye

To Little Bophelia, with Father Humpty Dumpty Polonius nearby.

“Bophelia,” he warned, “Please try to behave.

Don’t fall for Prince Hamlet while I am away.”

Humpty Dumpty Polonius tried to give knowledge

To his son of how to survive in college.

He then turned to his daughter and sternly told her

Not a word of love to Hamlet could she utter.

“I will obey,” said Little Bophelia.

“I will obey.”

That night, Prince Hamlet Black Sheep saw his dead father

Who went on to tell him of his unnatural slaughter.

“My son,” the king said, ‘you have been deceived.”

“Your newlywed uncle has killed me for greed.”

Then the cock crowed and the sun came up as it must,

And the ghost of King Hamlet disappeared into the dust.

“My father,” Black Sheep vowed, “Do not dismay!”

“I will avenge; from this promise I will not sway!”

The next day, Little Bophelia rushed to her father in despair.

“The lord Hamlet,” she cried, “seems to be losing his hair!”

“Just today I passed by him while he was yanking it off;

He grabbed me, bleated mournfully, and went off without a cough.”

Humpty Dumpty Polonius rushed to the throne room

Where RosenJack and GuildenJill were introduced by the broom.

“King ClauDish!” he cried, “Hamlet’s source of madness is now revealed;

It is love for my daughter that he feels!”

“How now!” cried ClauDish, “I must know if it’s true!”

“RosenJack! GuildenJill! Haunt Hamlet and find something new.”

The two of them bowed and promised to obey;

they left the room and found Hamlet astray.

“My lord!” they both cried, “It is so good to see you!”

Of their second agenda, Black Sheep was sure that he knew.

And thus, the questions could barely leave their lips

As Hamlet spun word games that left them speechless.

RosenJack and GuildenJill told Hamlet of the approaching players;

And the players came forward, acting like mayors.

“My players!” Hamlet cried, “Today I don’t need mayors,

But rather something akin to a slayer.”

Then Black Sheep discussed his plan rather moodily;

And the eager players agreed to do it quite crudely.

They put the play on and shocked the pants off the king,

Who thought, “Oh my goodness! Someone’s on to me!”

However, the king had been closely watching the prince

And decided that something was easily amiss.

Between the “To be’s” and the ‘To a nunnery with you!”

He sensed there was some sanity in the words that rang true.

Troubled, the king talked to ‘Jack and ‘Jill

And told them make haste to England.

“Bring the poor Prince-to-be unfettered;

Maybe that will make him feel better.”

When the pair left the room, ClauDish thought himself alone;

He fell to his knees, feeling the need to atone.

And while he prayed by himself and made up excuses,

The Prince Black Sheep crept in, ready to deliver abuses.

But he soon decided that now was not the right time

To kill Uncle ClauDish for his terrible crime.

Black Sheep mused, “To kill him now would send him to heaven!

That is not revenge- ClauDish must remain unforgiven.”

At this same time, Queen GerSpoon and Humpty were conspiring

To find the reason why Hamlet had become so unadmiring.

“You lure him in, GerSpoon, and talk to him freely.

I’ll be behind this arras, so call if you need me.”

Our Black Sheep waltzed in, quite suspectful of Queenie;

They yelled at each other and acted quite obscenely.

Polonius cried out, “Don’t worry, I’ll save you!”

And Hamlet cried as he stabbed through the arras: “I bid you adieu!”

It was easily seen

That all the king’s horses

And all the king’s men

Weren’t able to put Polonius together again.

Hamlet was thus escorted by ‘Jack and ‘Jill

To England, where he was to be killed.

But the letter that sentenced dear Black Sheep to death,

Was taken and rewritten all in one breath.

This is how the story goes:

RosenJack and GuildenJill went up the hill

To fetch a Black Sheep who was 'mentally ill’.

But the cost was too much,

And the pair did rush:

‘Jack fell down and broke his dear crown,

And ‘Jill came soon tumbling after.

While Hamlet was gallivanting across the high seas,

Little Bophelia was fighting for her sanity.

For she had lost her father and brother and dear Black Sheep;

And couldn’t tell where to find them.

Her mind was falling fast asleep,

While around the halls of Elsinore did she creep.

And she sang:

“There was a mad man,

And he had a mad wife,

And they lived all in a mad lane!

They had three children all at a birth,

And they too were mad every one.

The father was mad,

The mother was mad,

The children all mad beside;

And upon a mad horse they all of them got,

And madly away did ride.”

So Hamlet hitched a ride back

And found his dear ‘Phelia dead.

“She went bonkers, insane!” everyone claimed.

“After her father she was never the same.”

Laertes Be Nimble came back to Elsinore

To avenge his father with a great big roar.

“My father and sister, dead and gone!

Hamlet’s to blame! I’m gonna mow his lawn!”

“Don’t beat him just yet!” King ClauDish said hastily.

“How about we poison him? He’ll find it tasty.”

Laertes thought hard and finally agreed.

“We’ll poison him thoroughly!” ‘Be Nimble decreed.

“Not only the drink, but the sword as well!

I have a fancy poison from France that will work swell.”

They both shook hands and settled on the morrow;

Nobody could predict all the soon coming sorrow.

The next day came and the fight was announced.

Lil’ Boy Horatio said, “I’m not too sure of this joust.

I have a bad feeling. It rings a bad bell.”

But Hamlet assured him, “If I need you, I’ll yell.”

When Black Sheep strode in, his opponent stood waiting.

Someone shouted “Go!” and then they were scraping.

A One hit a Two hit a Three hit a Four!

Just one more will do, just one more to score.

A tap on the shoulder, and Laertes fell.

“A drink to Hamlet,” cried the king, meaning not well.

But Hamlet refused, and Queen GerSpoon was thirsty.

“Just a drink from the goblet!” she cried out quite blithely.

Another round came just as fast as the first,

And ended with Hamlet again without thirst.

Laertes, enraged, jumped to stab the sheep’s wool

Only to find himself used as a tool.

The two boys wrestled, and the swords were switched.

Laertes be nimble, Laertes be quick.

But this time he’s not jumping over a candlestick.

Too slow was he, and he ended up stabbed.

Realizing his error, at Hamlet he grabbed.

“I’m poison, I’m poisoned!” cried Laertes Be Nimble.

“Queen GerSpoon is too, now were all in a diddle!”

GerSpoon gasped, and fell down with a clatter.

Laertes fell too, and make such a big splatter.

In this story, the Dish did run away with the Spoon,

But in the end the Spoon’s life was ended by noon,

And the Dish was cracked beyond any repair:

Stabbed and poisoned through, was this dishware.

And then Hamlet Black Sheep gave a cry of despair.

“I’m finished! I’m done!” he shouted up in the air.

“I’m joining Bophelia up in the stars; oh my!

This is it. Now I die, die, die, die!”

This Hamlet Black Sheep had a lot of wool,

Yes he did; he had three bags full.

Unfortunately these bags did him no good.

And that is why Black Sheep ended up dead too.

The only person left was Little Boy Horatio.

The black sheep was dead in the meadow,

But Horatio wasn’t to blame.

Still he mournfully thought, “Is this the way you mind your sheep,

Under the haycock fast asleep?”

With this mindset in place,

He tried to reconcile by helping Hamlet to fame.

Horatio told the world the story

Of the woeful times in Elsinore.

He mentioned the events that divided family more,

And ultimately created a family war.

For there were two brothers who shared the same queen-

Being both son and nephew, Black Sheep felt the need to intervene.

He spoke of the supposed glory and fame-

And the dysfunctional family that could not keep sane.

-----

An Author’s Note:

Mother Goose has always played an integral part in my childhood memories. I always remember her nursery rhymes alongside the colorful children’s books written by Richard Scarry and Dr. Seuss, other prime contributors to my reading at a younger age. Nursery rhymes appeal not only to children, but to adults as well- the simple cadence of words are both easy to understand and interesting to listen to. Nursery rhymes tell us stories that engage our ears and our minds. What better medium for something like Hamlet, which is one of Shakespeare’s longest plays? Most people think of his works as complicated and hard to read- I can only hope that I’ve helped to change that a little in an entertaining manner.

And one more thing- I found the most perfect Mother Goose rhyme to fit in as Ophelia’s song (found on page 7). I couldn’t bring myself to change anything about it, as I felt that no change was needed. The rhyme can be found here:

http://mothergoose.com/Rhymes/RhymesmerryMelodie.htm         

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.