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.