OPHELIA .

In John Everett Millais painting, it’s interesting that he uses bright colors despite the fact that the painting is portraying a suicide. He also uses a variety of flowers. I think the painter is trying to portray Ophelia’s personality through the colors and the flowers. Also her face expression shows a very hopeless girl; almost as if she is clueless about her death.

Personally I think Shakespeare wanted to represent Ophelia as a very weak girl. She was meant to be a girl who is greatly influenced of what others think of her and she is rather fragile and somewhat pathetic. In the article Frailty Thy Name is Woman, Ophelia is said to be “frequently analyzed in relationship to Hamlet, and her motivation seems dominated by the characters with whom she interacts until she is spins free in her madness.” I completely agree with this statement. Ophelia was never really her own character. She was only related to Hamlet or Laertes or others. She never really had her own dependent role being that she relied on the other characters for her role. Also the article mentions how the play doesn’t discuss Ophelia’s past in any way which is also true. The reader never knows about Ophelia’s mother or her everyday life.

I also think that Shakespeare wanted the reader to understand the idea that Ophelia purposely drowned herself. She’s gone absolutely mad over the fact that Hamlet has killed Polonius and I don’t blame her. She was in a tough spot being that Hamlet, the man she is in love with has killed her father. Although I don’t agree with her committing suicide, I can understand why she would go a little crazy. I felt very sorry for Ophelia.

Film Versions of Hamlet (My opinion)

I think there are so many versions of the play b.c Hamlet has a very engaging plot. Also, it includes various quotations that are universally used. Overall, all of Shakespeare's work have become popular over time.
In my opinion, Branaugh's Hamlet is the most intereting one. It captivates my attention with its intensity and dramatic scenery. I also enjoy Zefferilli's version of Hamlet. Although it is not as dramatic as Branaugh's, it does include a lot of emotion which can also captivate the audience attention. In the end, the emotion and drama portrayed in both movies is what makes them both attention-grabbing.

"To be or not to be" Speeches .

Olivier's Hamlet
In my opinion the best thing about this scene of the "To be or not to be" speech is the setting. The setting creates a feeling of uncertainty; whether or not it is it worth it to take your own life away. The actor ponders over a cliff which also gives you a dangerous feeling that this man might really kill himself. However, one thing I didnt like about this film is that there's no real emotion in the actor's face. His lips are barely moving and there's not much emotion in his eyes. The director does choose to zoom into the actor to emphasize certain parts. Such as when the actor was thinking, the director zoomed into the directors forehead trying convey to the audience how deeply he is thinking.

Zeffrelli's Hamlet
In this version, the director chooses a somewhat spooky setting for the 'To be or not to be' speech; a room filled with tombs. By this he is conveying the idea of death and giving off a feeling of being dead. The lighting is quite dark except for some light here and there. That scarce lighting reminded me of when people say 'I can see the light' when referring to dying. Once again, in this film, Mel Gibson portrays alot of emotion. He raises his voice in certain parts and then whispers in other parts making the audience sort of understand how hes feeling.

Branaugh's Hamlet
The "To be or not to be" speech in this film is also very dramatic and emotional but in another way. The actor portrays a lot of anger and pain in his eyes. He uses a knife as a prop which is really effective and makes the scene more suspenseful with the idea that hes going to kill himself. Also the fact that the actor is looking at himself in the mirror while making the speech was very compelling; it had a powerful effect on the audience. The audience could get a powerful feeling of the actor's monologue just by the way he looked into his reflection. However one thing I found very ineffective in this scene is the setting. It does not go along with the speech in any way because it is in the middle of the palace and the lights are very bright which does not go with what he is saying at all.

Almereyda's Hamlet
The director included many symbols in this scene. Hamlet is in Blockbuster when he makes the speech. He is walking down the action isle towards a television screen displaying a film of destruction as he speaks about suicide. This allows the audience to sort of interpret the However, despite the director's use of symbols, this setting didn't go with the speech very well either. Also, one of the things I strongly dislike about this version is that it is being spoken in old english even during modern times. I think the director should have translated the entire speech into modern english being that everything else is modern.

Critiques on Hamlet Films .

Franco Zeffirelli, Kenneth Branagh, and Michael Almereyda interpreted the play Hamlet very diferently as directors. In Zeffirelli's film, the actors portrayed their character in a very emotional way. Mel Gibson who plays Hamlet convinvingly portrays a very melancholy man who has suffered a great loss. As his father's ghost speaks to him, he weeps and shows pain in his eyes. The mood is also very spooky due to the dark setting and the wind blowing in the background. This first film left the audience feeling eerie which was really effective. Branagh uses other methods to make his film effective. He uses flashback to allow the audience to interpret Hamlet in different ways. For example, someone who has read the play might not have thought that Claudius and Gertrude were having an affair while King Hamlet was still alive. However Branagh hinted that in his film. Branagh's film is also creepy its own way. As the ghost speaks to Hamlet, the audience gets a sense of urgency for the yelling and the music. This film was much more dramatic than the other two. Lastly, Almereyda's film is extremely different. It takes place in modern times but the language is the same as the play which I find very ineffective. Also, the ghost does not resemble a ghost; it seems like a person having a conversation with another person. This is the only film where the ghost touches Hamlet which also makes the ghost seem less ghastly and spooky. The setting is not very spooky at all either. Therefore I don't like this last version of the film. In my opinion, the second version is the best one.

First Post for Act I (i know its late)

"Proctor: Abby, I may think of you from time to time. But I will cut off my hand before I'll ever reach for you again. Wipe it out of mind. We never touched, Abby." pg. 1246

Proctor wants nothing to do with Abby. Despite her strong obsession for him, he does not want to be with her. She means nothing to him. I think he strongly regrets his relationship with Abby especially now that its costing him so much trouble.