Week XII: Insanity!

The question of the genuinely of Hamlet's madness is a puzzling conundrum. It has been my opinion that the answer depends on the version of Hamlet you are watching. In the Branagh version, Hamlet's madness was simulated. In his moments of sanity, judging from his expressions, he appears to be an intelligent, scheming, sane man. Now, if you are watching the Gibson or Tennant version, Hamlet's madness is real. In his moments of "sanity" we see an intelligent, scheming, madman, brooding over the destruction of himself and others.

Week XII: The Tennant Hamlet

I watched the David Tennant Hamlet because I love David Tennant, he is, and always shall be, the Doctor. It was directed by Chris Seager, and was produced by John Wyver and Sebastian Grant. David Tennant (duh) and Patrick Stewart starred. Its setting was very strange for Hamlet, being in the 20th century Denmark. The palace was very dark and gloomy, and seemed like three quarters of the movie was in one room. The camera work was strange, consisting of anything from strange overhead, black and white security camera shots, to dramatic first person.
This version has been my favorite, and here is why.
Tennant plays the best Hamlet. His emotion appears real and his madness genuine. His exchanges with Polonius are priceless. It is also my opinion that this version had best Polonius. You should know that Polonius, besides Hamlet, is my favorite character; I'm actually a bit sad when he dies. He has the best senior moment in the scene where he is giving instructions to his spy Reynaldo, "What was I about to say?".
        
           

Week XI: Review and Thought Questions 5

       Hamlet's purpose for the performance of the play was twofold.
For one, he used it to prove that the ghost was telling the truth. Also to threaten his uncle, for in the play "The Murder of Gonzalo", it was the nephew who killed the king, not the brother, and in real life, Hamlet is the nephew of Claudius.    
     
      During the play scene, Hamlet's treatment of Ophelia was much kinder than in the previous scene.
In the scene previous, he had spurned her saying that there shall be no more marriage. But during the play scene, he asked to lie in her lap and spoke most cordially to her. 

Week X: Branagh vs. Gibson

After watching both versions of Hamlet and careful deliberation, I have decided that, while the Gibson version was very good, I liked the Branagh version better. Here's why.

Gibson: Pros: Firstly, it had Mel Gibson in it, that's a pretty big pro. I thought he was a better Hamlet. Secondly, the castle was way cooler, it was a proper castle, not a frilly palace. Thirdly, the Ophelia did a much better job being mad. And lastly, in the part where Gertrude and Hamlet were talking, it actually seemed like Hamlet was "speaking daggers" into Gertrude's ears.        

Gibson: Cons: Firstly, and the biggest, the lines went through a blender, they were all out of order and they cut so much! To me, accuracy is big. Second, they left out Fortinbras entirely, who played a major part of the irony at the end of the play. Lastly, the Ghost was way less scary. When he said "SWEAR!", it was more of a "swear".

Branagh: Pros: Firstly, The accuracy was nearly perfect. The only thing they did was move the line order a bit for affect. Once again, accuracy is huge. Secondly, it was looong. I for one, like long movies, so to me, this is a pro. Lastly, the cinematography was amazing. That shot near the beginning, with Hamlet standing in the middle of the empty throne room was brilliant. 

Branagh: Cons: Firstly, It was looong. to other people, this can be tiresome. Who wants to see a four hour movie? Secondly, I did not like this version's Hamlet as much as the Gibson version. That's it. 

So, this is my opinion. The Gibson Hamlet was better for the more casual movie-watcher, but the Branagh version was much more practical for someone studying Hamlet, like me. That is why I liked the Branagh Hamlet better.       

Week X: "What a piece of work is man!"

Hamlet appears to have a very high option of men. According to Hamlet, man is almost godlike, having the "...apprehension...", understanding, "...of a god!" To him, man is "The paragon of animals." even "The beauty of the world." Yet in the same soliloquy, Hamlet says that we are the "quintessence of dust". This is why men and women do not interest him, they are dust. This has fragments of a christian worldview. We are the "quintessence of dust", God created us from dust, and to dust we return when we die. We are "The paragon of animals." No animal can match our skill and intellect. But the understanding of a god? Not quite. All in all, Hamlet has some good points, but falls short on many issues.

Week IX: Life is an "unweeded garden"

At the beginning of the play Hamlet was sad, and sane. He was sad because his father had died and his mother had married Hamlet' uncle with "most wicked speed". Hamlet is sane because after seeing and talking with his father's ghost, he decides to put on an "antic dispossession", showing that the whole time he is only pretending to be insane. Hamlet's feelings for the world around him were very gloomy. He described Denmark as an "unweeded garden", and time as being "out of joint". Because of his mother's hasty marriage, Hamlet sees the world as "weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable". So we see that Hamlet, at the beginning of the play, is very melancholy, decides to feign madness, and has a very gloomy outlook on the world around him.   

Week VIII: Political Figure Analysis

Caesar is most similar to Napoleon Bonaparte. This is because, like Napoleon, Caesar was a great conqueror. Also like Napoleon, Caesar's rule was brought to a premature end.
Brutus is most like Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell wanted what he thought was best for his country, the overthrow of the king, but unlike what happened with Brutus, Cromwell won. But after a short five year reign as "Lord Procter" of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, he died. Two years after, the Royalists regained power. Vice President Biden and Cassius have a lot in common. They both are power-hungry individuals They are very aggressive and aren't afraid to enhance the truth.Sometimes they say the wrong things, and later on their words come back and hurt them. They are also bulling and rude.
Mark Antony is akin to Ronald Reagan for these reasons. When Mark Antony spoke he was very direct and to the point, not overly flowering his speeches, Reagan did the same. When Mark Antony said he would do something, it was done, the same with Reagan.

Cool Beans

Saw this today, I thought it was cool.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/137505-us-air-forces-1950s-supersonic-flying-saucer-declassified

Week VII: Brutus's "Favor"

After killing Caesar, Brutus says that he did Caesar a favor by shortening his life for, as Cassius said, a man who cuts off twenty years of life also cuts off as meany years of fearing death. But back in Act II, Scene 2, Caesar says that he thinks it strange that men should fear death, being that it is the necessary end of all things. What Caesar is saying here is that he does not fear death. Therefore Brutus's "favor" is more of a curse.   

Week VII: Posh! Caesar is a god!

Near the very beginning of Act III, Scene 1, Artemidorus asked Caesar to read his petition first before Decius's letter. He reasoned that his letter was of greater importance because it "...touches Caesar nearer."
To Caesar on the other hand, things pertaining to himself were of less importance because, as we all know, Caesar is invincible! This fits very well with what we have already seen of Caesar's character, the way he views himself as a god, and just a little later, as unmovable as the northern star.

Week VI: Only "a woman's might".

It appears to me that Portia's reaction to being told what troubled Brutus was that she was struggling under the hefty secret, having only "...a woman's might."
Before Brutus told Portia his secret, she asked him if she dwelt "...but in the suburbs of your great pleasure?" I think what she meant was this: was she lower on the scale of his affections than the great quandary that troubled him? Do you love it more than me? I think this was really troubling Portia because she was used to having such a close confidence with her husband.     

Week VI: Truth, or Flattery?

In Scenes 1-2 of Act II, the structure suggests that Shakespeare is trying to show that the two men are similar. Caesar has begun to believe his own propaganda that he is a god, saying he is more powerful than he really is, and in regards to danger, "Caesar is more dangerous than he". Cassius has been telling Brutus how great and noble he is, and Brutus has started believing him Over all, both men's options of themselves are much greater than what they are in reality.   

Week V: A Weak Man, Or A God?

When Caesar was offered the crown for the third time, and refused it, according to Casca, the crowd "...uttered such a deal of stinking breath..." which caused Caesar to swoon. This supports Cassius's option that Caesar is a weak man, not a god like the people say. Caesar being offered the crown, and then him falling, foreshadows what is to come later in the play; he is offered a crown, then he falls to the ground in a seizure, the people make him dictator for life, then he gets assassinated.
Cassius says that Caesar does not have the "falling sickness" but they (Cassius, Brutus, and Casca) do.
I, like Casca, "...know not what you mean by that..."       

Week V: Friend and Adviser

Antony's relationship with Caesar seems to me a close one. He appears to be one of Caesar's top men, as well as a close friend. Caesar comes to him for advice on Cassius, and Antony's opinion was "He's not dangerous." and "He is a noble Roman..." 

Peace Through Submission

Henry's method for France's acquisition of peace was to "...buy that peace with full accord to all our just demands...", an answer in step with his threatening statements subsequently in the Scene.

Mirror of all Christian kings? Or Mirror of all Christian kings?

In the prologue of Act II, the Chorus calls Henry "...the mirror of all christian kings...", but does Henry live up to this statement? Firstly, "the mirror of all christian kings" has a double meaning. What exactly does this mean? It can mean Henry is either the mirror image of all christian kings, the opposite, or, it can convey Henry as a prime example of a christian king.
Now, in order to better answer the question let us look at some of the things Henry did during the play.
In Act I, Canterbury convenes Henry to invade France by bending the laws, and by the promise of  a substantial bribe from the church, a bribe Henry accepts. When Henry gets to France, his army is outnumbered five to one. He encourages his discouraged men by walking among them "...and calls them brothers, friends, and countrymen." He gives them rousing speeches, and declares a greater share of honor for every man fighting in the battle because there are so few.
During the course of the battle, some of the french solders break off from the main battle, go into the English camp and proceed to slaughter all the pages. Henry, on hearing this, orders his men to "...cut the throats of those we have, and not a man of them that we shall take shall taste our mercy." But very soon after that, when Henry learned that he controlled the battlefield, he immediately praised God for the victory. When Henry returned to England, the Chorus states that he refused to "...have borne his bruisèd helmet and his bended sword before him through the city." Instead: "Giving full trophy, signal, and ostent quite from himself, to God." But when he returned to France to marry the french princess Katherine, Henry threatened to sack more french towns if the king did not allow him to marry Katherine.
Judging from Henry's actions and deeds, he seems to at times a prime example of a christian king, and at others more like "Alexander the Pig".
It is my conclusion that Henry, though coming close at times, is not the mirror of all christian kings in the sense of being a prime example of a christian king, and neither is he the opposite, but falls squarely in between.    

The Ignorance of Pistol

Pistol's lack of french is quite apparent when reading through Act IV, Scene IV. He mistakes the french word moi for a unit of currency and makes feeble attempts to speak french; "Owy, cuppele gorge, permafoy..." This scene helps to reinforce the feeling of confusion in a battle between two peoples who speak different languages. It is interesting to note that Pistol's way of treating his french prisoner is surprisingly more merciful than Henry's; for while Pistol made threats, Henry really did kill his prisoners, all of them in fact.

A Horse Among Beasts

The Dauphin's attitude toward his horse was an enthusiastic one, comparing him to Pegasus, and calling him
"... a horse, and all other jades you may call beasts." The Dauphin loves his horse, but his fellow French men seem to grow weary of his constant stream of praise for his horse. When the Dauphin joined their  conversation saying, "My lord of Orleans, and my Lord High Constable, you talk of horse and armor?" you can almost hear the sigh in the lord Orleans's reply, "You are as well provided of both as any prince." Despite this, Orleans seems to have some respect for Dauphin, for he calls him "...a gallant prince." and "the most active gentleman in France." Whereas the Constable appears to comparing the Dauphin to the devil when he said, "...there stands your friend for the devil."   

Henry V Lesson II, Thought Question 7

The Boy wished to leave the company of Nym, Bardolf, and Pistol because they were to have him picking other people's pockets, "which makes much against my manhood". Also, "There villainy goes against my weak stomach, and therefore I must cast it up." It is my opinion that these are very good reasons for which to leave you present company. 

This Boy's character reminds me of William Wallace, the Boy was brave like Wallace, as well as loyal to his country. 

Henry V Thought Question 2:

"The imagination of the thoughts of man's heart are only evil evil continually." So states Genesis 6, is there any
place, therefor, for imagination in the Christian life, or should it be shunned?
It is my option that imagination is amoral, it can be used for good, or for evil. Henry V demonstrates the use of the imagination for things of the less honorable sort. In Act I, Scene I, The archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely use their imagination to devise a scheme to stop the passing of a certain bill. For, if it were to pass, the Church would be striped of over half of their possessions. To prevent this, Canterbury decides to distract Henry from the bill by encouraging war with France, agreeing to take up a collection for the war effort.
The bishop's motives a clearly selfish, he being unwilling to allow the king to "drink deep" of the Church's funds.
While Canterbury uses his imagination for selfish reasons, there are many Christians who have used their imagination for good: C.S. Lewis, Galileo, J.R.R. Tolkien, Sir Isaac Newton, to name a few. Their works are prime examples of how a Christian should use his or her imagination.
So, should  imagination be a part of a Christian life? I certainly think so. Is Shakespeare's view of imagination
a Christian one? I doubt it.

PS, Sorry this is a bit late. :)