Also known as a response to course materials.
Really, almost all we've done recently has been Hamlet. Read Hamlet, talk about Hamlet, watch Hamlet, listen to Hamlet things, read about more Hamlet things. I now understand why this course was described as "American Dream stuff, HAMLET HAMLET HAMLET HAMLET, a few other things, AP test." If the entire test is on Hamlet, I'm going to ace it. Give me a quote and I'll list the act, scene and line number, as well as all the hidden meanings or alternate interpretations you want.
Of course, as assigned literature seems to work, I hate Hamlet. Admittedly, Romeo and Juliet still takes the cake as the worst Shakespeare I've ever read, but Hamlet comes in close second. I suppose I just have issues with main characters who act like entitled, narcissistic, brooding idiots. His situation is pitiable, don't get me wrong; I'd be far from cheerful if my father had just died, and my parents wanted me to move on like it was nothing. The problem with Hamlet is that he revels in this. He considers himself the saddest of all the sad, the only one entitled to true misery because clearly he's the only one to be in a bad situation. His family has problems? Laertes just had his father killed in cold blood, has no mother to turn to, his sister was driven insane and killed herself, and oh right, he can't just kill Hamlet and get his revenge. And Hamlet says Laertes has no right to be sad...
Right, moving on to what we've actually done in class. Reading Hamlet out loud was... painful. It's never fun to read out loud text that hasn't been pre-read, and it only gets worse when that text happens to be in Shakespearian english. I like reading out loud, and I could barely struggle through it, even after abandoning all emotion. To make matters worse, Shakespearian english isn't only hard to read, it's hard to understand. That means that while struggling to keep up, we could hardly be expected to understand anything that was going on.
The films were a step up at times, but could be frustrating. I disliked the first and second versions and the third I had my issues with. The first was just boring, and the plain sets, while an understandable reach back to old times, didn't help me see the play as a world so much as... a play. The characters, too, seemed a bit flat to me, though Ophelia had her moments. Hamlet, in that version, had the creepiest voice I'd ever heard, so I couldn't take him seriously at all. The second version was a step down, for me. I didn't like the characterization of Hamlet, who was too self-preening for my tastes. The ghost made me laugh and I couldn't take anything it said (whispered? Hissed?) seriously, especially after it spat "unnatural" for the fortieth time. The fight scene at the end was... legendary. So incredibly over-dramatic, exaggerated and unrealistic that I was shocked they called it fencing. If you want a theatric sword fight, that's fine, but don't try to make it fencing!
In most respects, I found the third film a great improvement. The shift to modern times was fairly elegant, the palace was a neat and interesting choice, and Tennant played Hamlet well. Admittedly, it's a different take on the character than I had expected, adding more wild and often more realistic emotion. I was pleasantly surprised by the Hamlet/Gertrude scene, and his lounging about on the throne captured how I imagined he'd act with his faux insanity and superior language letting him get away with anything. It helped that Tennant was clearly having fun with his role (and that I'm probably more of a Tennant fangirl than I previously believed). Plus, the fight scene was an absolute blessing. Real fencing! Real, actual fencing! Hardly a single block or parry- that's how real bouts go.
It's been interesting talking about the different interpretations of Hamlet, if anything. Our discussions about how insane Hamlet is and how the relationships work have been one of the more amusing things we've done, though some of the critic interpretations made me writhe. I suppose that's just how Hamlet is going to go for me.
Your entry was easy to read and gave me a different perspective on Hamlet. You explained why you felt the way that you did and gave evidence for those explanations. Like when you talked about how Hamlet acts self centered and feels that Laertes shouldn't be sad. You supported your thoughts with evidence about why Laertes has a right to be sad: his father was killed,etc. Was there anything about the films that you liked? Most people don't know what a real fencing fight looks like: so its hard for viewers to critique that aspect of the film. It was interesting to learn that most of the films we watched did not accurately portray a fencing math.
ReplyDeleteReading your response gave me a different take on Hamlet. While I had noticed his rudeness, it did not stand out to me. Hamlet is inconsiderate toward Laertes and he is self absorbed. He doesn't think much about others' feelings; it is all about his and how he is going to make himself feel better.
ReplyDeleteI would add some reprocessing in this post. For example instead of just giving your opinion on the movies you could compare them and talk about why the directors made the decisions they did.
I think you covered Hamlet's narcissism well. As he's the protagonist, the audience often sympathizes with him for no other reason than that, well, he's the protagonist! If we look at the play objectively, however, we can see that Hamlet doesn't even have the worst of it, like you talked aboutt.
ReplyDeleteAbout the movies: I hated the first and third one, but loved the second. I found that the second one had much better acting than the other two, was more dramatic overall, and less off-putting (see creepy Hamlet in movie 1 for an example).
The reason I didn't like the first movie was because
a) it was slow
b) Hamlet was, as you said, creepy
I didn't like the third movie because I think that they overdid it trying to modernize (Hamlet's shirt...) and I just don't like Tennant in the role of Hamlet. At all.