Monday, March 19, 2012
Hamlet Assignment
Review the script for the Hamlet production we will be viewing on Thursday, March 22nd. Select a change made to the script and comment on the anticipated impact it will have on the overall production. Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and must include quotes from the script. No two students can comment on the exact same topic. (Students can discuss the same change to the script, but only if they anticipate and discuss different impacts on the overall production.) Students do not need to comment on other students' blogs. Blogs must be posted by 7:30am on Thursday, March, 22.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A main difference between the original text and the modified version is that the modified version has a less archaic wording for some of the phrases. “His garters lagging down, his shoes untied,” is used in place of, “ungartered and down-gyvéd to his ankle”. Also differing, are the names of many characters. Polonius becomes Corambis, Reynaldo becomes Montano, Rosencrantz becomes Rossencraft, and Guildenstern becomes Gilderstone, and other names are changed. They seem to be in part due to adapting the roles to the genders of the actors portraying them. Most obvious is the placement of the famous “To be, or not to be” soliloquy far earlier in the work than is in the original text. Also, the scene between Polonius and Hamlet in the castle passages is replaced with the scene between Hamlet and Ophelia that follows the soliloquy in the original work.
ReplyDeleteThe shift of the famous soliloquy most likely is to reduce the length of the play. The shift will also likely increase the interest of the audience when they hear a famous line so early and keep their attention if it starts to wane. If anything it will captivate the audience and allow for the more low key parts of the play to be displayed before the audience without needing to put in more effort for them. Based on this inference, I predict that the play will be winding down a bit before the “To be, or not to be” after which the play will probably begin to wind down again until the next memorable or famous scene.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe difference I found to be significant is the exposition during Hamlet’s conversation, in this play, with Gilderstone and Rossencraft. Hamlet blatantly reveals that he does not find any meaning in his life and the world in which he lives. Hamlet says that "this great world you see contents me not, no, nor the spangled heavens, nor earth nor sea; no, nor man that is so glorious a creature, contents not me-no, nor woman too" this was a deviation from the original play where Hamlet expresses the same loss of appreciation towards the world, but in the original text it is not that he is not contented or is dissatisfied with the world, he says that he lost the perception of the beauty around him. Hamlet in the original script lost his mirth not his will and spirit. The depression of Hamlet is the first reason he is not happy. Although in deep sorrow over the death of his father he does no act out of the expected reaction of people today. In Hamlet's eyes and as well as the any eye who experienced a terrible loss, the view of the world is distorted and negative. The use of the world content in the current script implies that he seeks something out of this world. It also leans toward the answer not to be in Hamlet's soliloquy. The question of whether Hamlet would live if not for the poison that killed him is also answered. Since Hamlet finds that nothing in the world can satisfy him it shows a more depressed and melancholy Hamlet compared to the original play where Hamlet seeks to satisfy himself by cleaning the world of evil and living happily ever after. Hamlet in the original play seeks earthly goal that he needed to accomplish before the great equalizer reduces him to the equivalent of nothing, therefore there is still something that can satisfy him in the world. The new script portrays him as a person who completely loss will to live on ; a man seeking for something greater, something not within the scope of human existence.
ReplyDeleteSelect a change made to the script and comment on the anticipated impact it will have on the overall production.
ReplyDeleteI chose the lines above because I thought that they were the most important when it comes to impacting the audience and the relationship between Hamlet, Gertrude and Claudius. If you had not read the play in the original words you would think that there was no conflict between Hamlet, his mother and Claudius. In this version I also noticed that Claudius says that he is going to celebrate Hamlet and his decision to obey his mother. This will impact the production because the audience will almost be expected to think that Claudius is fond of Hamlet but following the theme of Appearance versus Reality we as an informed audience are supposed to know otherwise. I think that although the script was changed/ modernized it still gets the idea across and I think that the way that it is performed is what will impact the audience more so because the actors will be interpreting body language and facial expressions based on their own interpretations of how the script should be read and acted out.
GERTRUDE
Let not thy mother lose her prayers, Hamlet.
¶
Stay here with us, go not to Wittenberg.
¶
HAMLET
I shall in all my best obey you, madam.
¶
CLAUDIUS
Spoke like a kind and a most loving son;
¶
And there's no health the King shall drink today
¶
But the great cannon to the clouds shall tell
310
The rouse the King shall drink unto Prince Hamlet.
- Jasmine Berrios : D
Original Text:
ReplyDeleteHAMLET
Ay, truly; for the power of beauty will sooner
transform honesty from what it is to a bawd than the
force of honesty can translate beauty into his
likeness: this was sometime a paradox, but now the
time gives it proof. I did love you once.
OPHELIA
Indeed, my lord, you made me believe so.
GHAA Script
HAMLET
Yea, marry, may it; for beauty may [sooner] transform
honesty from what she was into a bawd than honesty can transform beauty.
This was sometimes a paradox, but now the time gives it scope.
I never gave you nothing.
OPHELIA
My lord, you know right will you did,
And with them such earnest vows of love
as would have moved the stoniest breast alive
But now too true I find:
Rich gifts wax poor when givers grow unkind.
HAMLET
I never loved you.
OPHELIA
You made me believe you did.
HAMLET
Oh, thou shouldst not ha' believed me!
One significant change in the script is during ACT III scene I, where Hamlet reveals to Ophelia that he does not love her. In the original text, Hamlet explicitly says “I did love you once”, while in the script, he says “I never gave you nothing” in its place. In addition, there is an added section where he says “I never loved you”. This is a complete contradiction to what Shakespeare writes, but it also can be seen as a separate interpretation to Hamlet’s feelings for Ophelia. From his reaction to Ophelia’s funeral, it can be interpreted that Hamlet had always loved Ophelia. This would make Hamlet’s line a lie to Ophelia, or to himself. The difference in saying that he never loved her is essentially that it removes the emotion Hamlet had for Ophelia. “I never gave you nothing” is awkward in its own right, since it is a double negative. The grammatically correct interpretation of this would be “I always gave you something”, but it could just as easily be interpreted as “I gave you nothing”, which suggests that Hamlet’s gifts were lifeless, and perhaps meaningless to him. This supports the change from loving Ophelia once and having never loved her. It is possible that the change in wording was done in order to strengthen the emotion Hamlet shows later in the play, when discovering Ophelia’s grave. It also strengthens Hamlet’s distrust of women after witnessing Gertrude’s betrayal from King Hamlet to Claudius. Evidently, this makes the passage much more powerful, due to a greater shift in emotion from the different events in the play.
The change made to the script that I think will have a significant impact on the play is the first introduction of Claudius. In the original text when Claudius is first introduced he remarks on the recent death of his brother, the king before him. There he says “through yet of Hamlet our dear brother’s death the memory be green, and that it us befitted to bear our hearts in grief, and our whole kingdom to be contracted in one brow of woe”. Here Claudius first acknowledges that Hamlet has died and that mourning was an appropriate thing to do. I think this is significant to Claudius’ characterization because when he first addresses Hamlet later in the scene the first thing he asks is why he is still depressed. This makes it seem as if Claudius only touched upon mourning because it would have been a kingly thing to say not something he believes. In this version by not addressing the mourning period when Claudius goes to talk to Hamlet there is no contradiction, one of the people who should be morning the king’s death the most is Claudius who should understand Hamlets distress over losing his father because he just lost his brother. Also in the original text Claudius states that while he was mourning he also had to think about his own well-being, so he married the queen. This make Claudius character to be very pompous because in a time when he should have been mourning his brother he instead married his wife. By missing out on this part and having Claudius jump right into the affairs of others the audience will get a sense for a different Claudius. I think that all those pieces in the original act make the remorse Claudius feels for killing his brother seem more like a lie because not understanding Hamlets depression after saying it was okay to mourn and him marrying Gertrude for his own well-being make him seem like a worse person.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare’s Original Script:
ReplyDeleteOPHELIA
My lord, as I was sewing in my closet,
Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbraced;
No hat upon his head; his stockings fouled,
Ungartered, and down-gyvèd to his ankle;
Pale as his shirt; his knees knocking each other;
And with a look so piteous in purport
As if he had been loosèd out of hell
To speak of horrors—he comes before me.
CREC SCRIPT:
OPHELIA
Oh, young Prince Hamlet, the only flower of Denmark,
He is bereft of all the wealth he had!
The jewel that adorned his feature most
Is filched and stol'n away: his wit's bereft him.
He found me walking in the gallery all alone.
There comes he to me, with a distracted look,
His garters lagging down, his shoes untied,
And fixed his eyes so steadfast on my face
As if they had vowed this is their latest object.
Small while he stood, but grips me by the wrist,
And there he holds my pulse till, with a sigh,
He doth unclasp his hold and parts away
Silent as is the mid time of the night.
And as he went, his eye was still on me,
For thus his head over his shoulder looked.
He seemed to find the way without his eyes,
For out of doors he went without their help,
And so did leave me.
When I had read Ophelia’s dialogue (quoted above) from GHAA’s Script, I felt a different tone coming from Ophelia (as opposed to her dialogue in the original dialogue) as if she felt more force and passion from Hamlet, at first rape-like (with, “but grips me by the wrist, And there he holds my pulse till, with a sigh…”) then at the end lovingly (with, “Silent as is the mid time of the night. And as he went, his eye was still on me, “For thus his head over his shoulder looked. He seemed to find the way without his eyes…”). In the original script, Ophelia seems a bit more pitiful in her description of their brief questionably sexual encounter. She details, “…his knees knocking each other;
And with a look so piteous in purport…” making the reader observe her tone as if she was disgusted by his apparent anxiety. From this dialogue I believe that Ophelia will be more sensitive to Hamlet’s actions/dialogue in the play because she is more susceptible to his desperate gesture in this scene. This heightened sensitivity should prove to make a more passionate relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia opposed to Shakespeare’s rendition of their relationship (which in my opinion, seemed a bit more removed). Also, it might affect the relationship between Polonius (“Corambis”), since it seems she has more of an allegiance to Hamlet by telling “Corambis” that, “For out of doors he went without their help, And so did leave me,” which sounds to me like she is confessing to Corambis that she did not want him to leave.
The most significant change I can see in this version of Hamlet is it's vernacular: that is, the minimization of archaic language. When one thinks of Hamlet, the sound of complex old English comes to mind, followed by the subsequent headache. It appears clear that those organizing this play sought to make Hamlet more accessible to a larger audience, and avoid repelling those who would rather not sit through hours of Shakespeare. As Adrian pointed out in a previous post, several names have also been changed in this version of the script. For example, Polonius is changed to Corambis, Rosencrantz is changed to Rossencraft, and Guildenstern is changed to Gilderstone. It seems like an arbitrary change, but may have more significance than it appears to have. This may have been done to make pronouncing names easier for the actors, or it may have been done so the names match with the adjusted language of the script. New names may also have been adopted so that the play is original and unique, since Hamlet is performed so frequently. Another change that was implemented was a shift in when the famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy occurs in the play. It was moved to a far earlier point in the play, which may have been due to time constraints and the desire to keep the audience interested. I suspect what we will be seeing on Thursday will not be the full Hamlet as we know it, but rather, a thorough summary. We will just have to wait and see.
ReplyDelete-Josh Pelton
The CREC Hamlet, has made some major changes to the dialogue. Such changes to the play cause the appearance of the characters. The adjustment is clear, especially in relation to the role of Gertrude. In the entire script, Gertrude is only awarded with a few five lines. This is odd given the wealth of lines that the original Hamlet had, although this change may have created a deeper meaning in the plot of the play. Gertrude was given such few lines to be put in a better light, as though she was not a part of the plans so that conspiring with Claudius and his cronies was not possible. With such few lines, she remains uninvolved and she becomes a victim of her loyalty to her people.
ReplyDeleteIf we are correct about her noninvolvement in the plot to kill King Hamlet, then we can assume that she married Claudius to ensure a peaceful transition as if it was a way for the former queen to publicly endorse the new government, bringing ease of mind to the people. This allows us to question what affect this change has on the audience member. The audience member believes that Gertrude is just a victim and is a helpful and trustworthy character in which the audience can trust making her harmless. In a script where she is a malicious figure however, Hamlet’s becomes much lonelier, being isolated from everyone he knows and loves. The change in this script allows Hamlet to feel that not everyone is against him and that some still believe in him, even if she has been misled, it is not in a malicious nature toward Hamlet.
--Brandon Harris
My first observation after reading this passage was the condensation of the old English used in the original play. This ploy isn’t just used to make the piece a contemporary one but it is also used to manipulate the script. It seems like the new script removed all of the sections that the interpreter of the play believed was not needed and to accentuate the parts of the play that he or she believed to be important. This brings to my next point that after reading the CREC variation of Hamlet, I found that Gertrude’s role in the play seemed to be very passive. Just from observation, I noticed that her lines were reduced to a significant point and it seems like Ophelia’s role is elevated in the play. After reading, I noticed that she was not as aggressively involved in the discussion when Claudius deceives Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on Hamlet. Also, in the original play, Gertrude was portrayed as an ambiguous character in terms of supporting Hamlet or not but in CREC’s variation of Hamlet, she seemed to want to keep Hamlet in Denmark and seemed very kind hearted. For example she said, “With all my heart” and “Let not thy mother lose her prayers, Hamlet” which indicate that she is gentler in tone and is in support of Hamlet. Due to her weak nature in the play, other characters seemed to be more shone on spot light than others like Ophelia where she seems to have a disgusted view on Hamlet when she says, “Help him, good God” when Hamlet was trying to explain his situation to the love of his life.
ReplyDeleteThe largest difference I would like to discuss is not a specific noticeable change to a character but a change in the entirety of the script itself, specifically the "watered-down Shakespearean English". I fear that due to the lose of iambic pentameter employed by Shakespeare in his original piece, the emphasis placed on scenes in which Shakespeare used prose will be lost in the refurnished edition.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nabeel that the watered down language can be associated with an attempt to modernize the piece, and manipulate the piece, however I am still discouraged by the lose of the classic element to the piece. I guess its just a personal preference at the level though, so i guess I should not dwell on that subject.
-Keye
The CREC Hamlet play is more concise and is clearly shorter than the actual play. The CREC Hamlet play leaves out the fluff of the play and gives the necessary material to obtain a general understanding of the overall play. However, several key parts that are left out are Gertrude’s lines; specifically her role in King Hamlet’s death. Gertrude is portrayed as an innocent benevolent character as she responded to Corambis, “With all my heart.” However, Gertrude’s lines take away the ambiguity of her characterization. The audience is not able to obtain a concrete understanding of her character and of her morals. Initially Gertrude is seen as compassionate towards Hamlet when she states, “Let not thy mother lose her prayers, Hamlet. Stay here with us, go not to Wittenberg.” These lines cause the audience to see Gertrude as caring and loving towards Hamlet. However, towards the end of the CREC Hamlet play Gertrude’s lines are left out and you do not see her comfort Hamlet when he is in need of help. This causes the audience to see Gertrude as just a character and not as a mother. Thus, by leaving out Gertrude’s lines her character is portrayed as a passive neglectful individual. In addition, I feel that the physical age of the actors will also create a new perspective for the audience members. Due to the fact that the characters are played by high school students I feel that the play will take on a more innocent persona. I also feel that certain parts such as Hamlet’s famous line, “To be, or not to be, ay, there's the point” will not have the same effect on the audience because in the actual play Hamlet is a depressed hopeless 30 year old man. In the end, I feel that the specific characterization of the characters in the CREC play will be less intense and will take on a more innocent personality.
ReplyDelete-Russell
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree on the fact that the Shakespearean English is diluted, however, it is still there, which gives the play a classic feel, even if it's not completely there. The whole point of the play is to modernize the play to manipulate it infinitely, while still holding onto.the beloved Shakespearean version. The diluted and Americanized version.of this play is supposed to appeal to a much larger target audience. While to some, this may seem trite and unnecessary, it allows people of all ages and most mental capacities to enjoy the classic play. It's important to expose many peeople to different types of literature, and sometimes, the best way to do that is through an adapted performance. All in all, the edited English still provides strong meaning to convey messages to all sorts of people.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the script it is obvious that there are some significant changes in the play of Hamlet as compared to the original. One of the main changes that I would like to focus on that I believe will create an important impact on the overall plot of the play is the language of the script. In the original the type of language was more difficult to interpret because of the time that it was created. Now while reading the play the vernacular seems more direct and easier to understand. While this may be easier to grasp the overall plot of the play, it does take away from the interpretation that was to be created from speculation of the language from the script. An example of this would be in the famous “to be or not to be” section it was up to interpretation as to the exact feeling of Hamlet. Hamlet, in the original during this section, is interpreted to have a loss of beauty for what it around him seeming of a more suicidal thought. However, with the more direct language in this new script when Hamlet states that "this great world you see contents me not, no, nor the spangled heavens, nor earth nor sea; no, nor man that is so glorious a creature, contents not me-no, nor woman too" it seems that now Hamlet is stating that it is not the beauty around his that is of loss, but however, it is the loss of appreciation for the world. If simple changes like this continue to take place then eventually the overall interpretation of the play is going to change for better or worse.
ReplyDelete-Brandon Simone
Something was very different was obvious, which was that its modernized so the language is different since it has been modified and you can tell by reading the first couple of sentences of the script.
ReplyDeleteFIRST SENTINEL
Stand! Who is that?
¶
BARNARDO
'Tis I.
10
FIRST SENTINEL
Oh, you come most carefully upon your watch.
The way this is written, and if you read any other plays by Shakespeare, you would already know this isn't how he writes. Some people like myself sometimes have trouble with reading Shakespeare so I initially saw that the language was modernized. The script has been modified for the specific audience which in this case is us.
What I also noticed was that Polonious wasn't in the play which in the original play Polonious was obviously in it. I'm not entirely sure if the script took him out because he was a subordinate character or not which isn't because he's an very important character but I was wondering why he wasn't in the play. I was thinking that they delibaretely took out the character that babbles everytime he talks to people which can be important since in the actual play polonius is an important character in at least one speech.
I also wanted to point out that I definitely agree with what Nabeel said, which was he didn't think this script was written for a contemporary reason but rather it was written to manipulate the original play itself. By taking out one of the important characters you can safely assume that whoever wrote this play believed that somethings were not needed and eliminated the parts of the play that the author of this believed not to be important.
- Marc Cortes :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through the script of the CREC version of Hamlet, I discovered that there was a major change in the Shakespearian English. The English used in the script is more modern than the original text. In addition, the English used in the CREC version is a lot easier to understand. The English in the play could have been changed to let everyone in the audience understand what is going on in the play since everyone in the audience speaks and understands modern English. The type of English used in the play affects the interpretation and impact of the play. Also, the CREC play leaves out some of the details that are present in the original. I believe that this change in the play will affect the overall characterization of each character because some elements of the play are missing. For example, the character Polonius is not present within this play. The reason for this could be because Polonius does not have any major impact in the play. However, he does provide some insight about Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship. In addition, Gertrude’s character is portrayed as more passive because she is missing important lines that are only present in the original. The lack of lines also changes the relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude because her lovingness toward hamlet is missing and this contributes to Gertrude as being portrayed as a character that is vain and unloving.
ReplyDeleteIn the script, the scene where Hamlet first reveals truly how deep his depression is, Gerturde is supposed to ask why the death of his father is so particular with him, and why he is still mourning. She asks him to “cast thy knighted color off and let thyne eye look like a fried on Denmark”. However in the GHAA adaptation of the play, the only dialogue between Gertrude and Hamlet is this scene is:
ReplyDeleteGERTRUDE
Let not thy mother lose her prayers, Hamlet.
¶
Stay here with us, go not to Wittenberg.
¶
HAMLET
I shall in all my best obey you, madam.
Without Gertrude specifically asking why Hamlet is still mourning, the character in the GHAA adaptation looses some of her ambiguity. There is less of an argument that she might be a pretty little fool, naïve to what is going on around her. In the GHAA adaptation of the play, Gertrude might be portrayed as a Queen who knew where her loyalties were, but chose to give in to her desires regardless. It would be very difficult to make the argument that she didn’t realize or understand her loyalties because she could understand Hamlet’s filial loyalty. This would also have in impact on how she will react to the play within a play. If the GHAA version of Gertrude is not as naïve as she may be perceived to be in the full version of the play, will she see the hidden meaning of the play within a play? Was she an alias to the death of King Hamlet, in order to marry his brother? Does she carry as much responsibility as King Claudius does for the death of Hamlet’s father? If so, it is interesting that the ghost of Hamlet asked Prince Hamlet not to take vengeance on Gertrude. While Hamlet may consider women to be untrue and pure (having to cover the only face God gave them with that of a painted mask) the ghost of Hamlet still views his former wife as virtuous and maybe even redeemable.