Hamlet- Post viewing task
Whether it is, " To be or not to be that is the question" or "What a piece of work is man?", Hamlet, just like Shakespeare's other works, especially his four tragedies, is known for its universal appeal and therefore has been adapted to films, abridged books, and a lot more, through which its message can reach the common populace. And one of the very popular mediums to do so, as mentioned earlier, is films. Since the beginning of cinema, it has been a common practice to make films based on classical texts of literature of any language. So, the reason for the existence and popularity of so many versions and adaptations of Shakespeare's works, and especially his tragedies, becomes quiet clear. It is a common practice, therefore for critics, scholars as well as readers or students to analyze or determine the level at which a specific film version of a classical text remains faithful to the original. A clear answer to this question, in my opinion, is that, though a film includes all the elements of a play or a novel, it is impossible to portray the work, the same way in which it was written. Every film maker has to add at some point, his or her personal touch, to the original form or idea of the work. If we take Kenneth Branagh's film Hamlet, we see that, he has included the dialogues of the original play as they are, so has he also portrayed the plot as it is. However, the costumes, settings, characters are not the same as Shakespeare's original. Shakespeare's Hamlet is not middle aged, he is a young man, probably in his 20s who has just completed his studies from Wittenberg and has been thrown into such horribly difficult circumstances. Other instances such as the costumes as well as the newspaper reading scene point towards a time quiet after the death of Shakespeare's, forget the time when the play was written. But, this can't veil the fact that Branagh's movie still has its own view to present to the audience (for example, its symbolic beginning and end).
I can't say, with utmost surety, that my perspectives about the play have changed after watching the movie. Rather, it has strengthened them. One habit which I've always cultivated is to read the original text, if possible, while watching its film version. Which has always helped me to identify the filmmaker's personal rendering of the text. So, when it came to Hamlet, I read the dialogues and settings of the play, while watching the movie. Branagh's portrayal of the opening and closing scenes of the play, provides a lot of space for his viewers to interpret the play in a new light. And the later discussion on how the falling of the statue of Claudius at the end refers to the consequences of revenge (an example of intertextuality) added new perspectives to the earlier ones after watching the movie, which helped getting a better understanding of the work.
The meaning of aesthetic as something concerning beauty is a very modern understanding of the term. Etymologically, Aesthetic meant perception of a thing through our senses. So, when it comes to perceiving a literary work in terms of beauty, the kind of delight which the reader gets differs in every color of a painting, in every scene of a movie or a play or a novel and so on and so forth. When it comes to Hamlet and its cinematic rendering, we can easily observe that with every scene as well as his eventual death, our sympathy for the protagonist rises. This can be considered a kind of aesthetic delight where we can relate ourselves to the protagonist of the movie as well as of the play.
As far as catharsis is concerned, in my opinion, the movie failed to achieve, whereas the dramatic rendering would have achieved during the time of its performance. There can be many reasons for this, for example, the movie being set during the Victorian or a much modern era than its original Elizabethan time frame. Other reason can be personal and cultural as well. That is, for a post modern reader and viewer, it often becomes difficult to feel or understand the kind of mental condition of Hamlet or to imagine the kind of atmosphere that would have been created when the Elizabethan audience would have known the political, emotional and psychological turmoil being created after the hasty marriage of Gertrude. Their understanding of Ophelia's madness would have been completely different than what we as readers feel after reading or viewing it. The movie especially, though tried its best to do so, failed to achieve this, because of obvious reasons already stated.
The movie obviously, does provide a better understanding of the play. I've already stated the reasons for it in my answer on the point of perspective. Another reason is visualization of the written material. The movie, though not completely, tried to portray the way things would have been if the play were to be performed in a different time frame.
I think Ophelia's madness scene is one which I'll remember forever. Because, the way the director, focuses on the consequences of her father's sudden death, and that too without her knowledge of the situations is something which I think is really interesting.
Well, if I was a director, I would have made a lot of changes to the play. I would have portrayed Ophelia and Gertrude more vocal about their thoughts. I would have kept the ending open ended just like Branagh, but, apart from Horatio, I would also like Ophelia to be alive to narrate Hamlet's tragedy.
It is the beginning and end of the movie that makes it so unique and interesting to study.As I have mentioned earlier, intertextuality is one of the major element of this movie. The reference to Paradise Lost would lead a person to think that it was King Hamlet's ambition to avenge his death which lead to the tragic deaths of so many people. However, the interesting thing is, in Milton's Paradise Lost, Satan's ambition to avenge his fall into hell, is treated in a negative light. Whereas, for Hamlet, it becomes somewhat of a moral duty to avenge his father's death. So, we might not praise Satan for his feeling of revengeful ambition but we would definitely praise Hamlet when he successfully avenges his father's murder. Also, we can observe that Satan is able to conclusively realize that revenge is bad and yet he consciously follows that path because of his jealousy. But, Hamlet is left wavering till the end, about whether he should take revenge or not, which is something that leads us to sympathize with Hamlet's character, than that of Satan.
I think the psychological approach would be more applicable to the play, than the rest, because, it will help us to better understand the psychic and emotional turmoils which all the major characters go through. Whether it is Hamlet's dilemma, Ophelia's madness, Gertrude's helplessness, Laertes' grief, Claudius' confession or King Hamlet's ambition, each character has a driving psychological motive behind their actions. Also, it is important to note here, that, this approach would help us understand the female characters better since their thoughts are for the most part not brought to light.
Three approaches were really appealing to me while studying them in context of Hamlet, and these were: 1) Textual Analysis, because, the example of "solid", "sullied" and "sallied" was very interesting and helped throw a new light on the one of the most quoted lines of the play. 2) Moral\Philosophical, because it helped understand the level of moral dilemma which goes on during the action of the play as well as how Hamlet, though being portrayed as a philosopher, stressing on morality on every stage, is subject to indecisiveness and overthinking. 3) Formalist approach where we discussed about the trap metaphor and imagery.
I can't say, with utmost surety, that my perspectives about the play have changed after watching the movie. Rather, it has strengthened them. One habit which I've always cultivated is to read the original text, if possible, while watching its film version. Which has always helped me to identify the filmmaker's personal rendering of the text. So, when it came to Hamlet, I read the dialogues and settings of the play, while watching the movie. Branagh's portrayal of the opening and closing scenes of the play, provides a lot of space for his viewers to interpret the play in a new light. And the later discussion on how the falling of the statue of Claudius at the end refers to the consequences of revenge (an example of intertextuality) added new perspectives to the earlier ones after watching the movie, which helped getting a better understanding of the work.
The meaning of aesthetic as something concerning beauty is a very modern understanding of the term. Etymologically, Aesthetic meant perception of a thing through our senses. So, when it comes to perceiving a literary work in terms of beauty, the kind of delight which the reader gets differs in every color of a painting, in every scene of a movie or a play or a novel and so on and so forth. When it comes to Hamlet and its cinematic rendering, we can easily observe that with every scene as well as his eventual death, our sympathy for the protagonist rises. This can be considered a kind of aesthetic delight where we can relate ourselves to the protagonist of the movie as well as of the play.
As far as catharsis is concerned, in my opinion, the movie failed to achieve, whereas the dramatic rendering would have achieved during the time of its performance. There can be many reasons for this, for example, the movie being set during the Victorian or a much modern era than its original Elizabethan time frame. Other reason can be personal and cultural as well. That is, for a post modern reader and viewer, it often becomes difficult to feel or understand the kind of mental condition of Hamlet or to imagine the kind of atmosphere that would have been created when the Elizabethan audience would have known the political, emotional and psychological turmoil being created after the hasty marriage of Gertrude. Their understanding of Ophelia's madness would have been completely different than what we as readers feel after reading or viewing it. The movie especially, though tried its best to do so, failed to achieve this, because of obvious reasons already stated.
The movie obviously, does provide a better understanding of the play. I've already stated the reasons for it in my answer on the point of perspective. Another reason is visualization of the written material. The movie, though not completely, tried to portray the way things would have been if the play were to be performed in a different time frame.
I think Ophelia's madness scene is one which I'll remember forever. Because, the way the director, focuses on the consequences of her father's sudden death, and that too without her knowledge of the situations is something which I think is really interesting.
Well, if I was a director, I would have made a lot of changes to the play. I would have portrayed Ophelia and Gertrude more vocal about their thoughts. I would have kept the ending open ended just like Branagh, but, apart from Horatio, I would also like Ophelia to be alive to narrate Hamlet's tragedy.
It is the beginning and end of the movie that makes it so unique and interesting to study.As I have mentioned earlier, intertextuality is one of the major element of this movie. The reference to Paradise Lost would lead a person to think that it was King Hamlet's ambition to avenge his death which lead to the tragic deaths of so many people. However, the interesting thing is, in Milton's Paradise Lost, Satan's ambition to avenge his fall into hell, is treated in a negative light. Whereas, for Hamlet, it becomes somewhat of a moral duty to avenge his father's death. So, we might not praise Satan for his feeling of revengeful ambition but we would definitely praise Hamlet when he successfully avenges his father's murder. Also, we can observe that Satan is able to conclusively realize that revenge is bad and yet he consciously follows that path because of his jealousy. But, Hamlet is left wavering till the end, about whether he should take revenge or not, which is something that leads us to sympathize with Hamlet's character, than that of Satan.
I think the psychological approach would be more applicable to the play, than the rest, because, it will help us to better understand the psychic and emotional turmoils which all the major characters go through. Whether it is Hamlet's dilemma, Ophelia's madness, Gertrude's helplessness, Laertes' grief, Claudius' confession or King Hamlet's ambition, each character has a driving psychological motive behind their actions. Also, it is important to note here, that, this approach would help us understand the female characters better since their thoughts are for the most part not brought to light.
Three approaches were really appealing to me while studying them in context of Hamlet, and these were: 1) Textual Analysis, because, the example of "solid", "sullied" and "sallied" was very interesting and helped throw a new light on the one of the most quoted lines of the play. 2) Moral\Philosophical, because it helped understand the level of moral dilemma which goes on during the action of the play as well as how Hamlet, though being portrayed as a philosopher, stressing on morality on every stage, is subject to indecisiveness and overthinking. 3) Formalist approach where we discussed about the trap metaphor and imagery.
Comments
Post a Comment