Hamlet's v Bennet's

I have two main ideas

Idea one: talk about how the Bennets and Hamlets both meet the specific characteristics of dysfunctionality. the most promising three are: "Lack of empathy, understanding, and sensitivity towards certain family members, while expressing extreme empathy towards one or more members (or even pets) who have real or perceived "special needs". In other words, one family member continuously receives far more than he or she deserves, while another is marginalized." "Extremes in conflict (either too much fighting or insufficient peaceful arguing between family members)" "Inadequate or missing boundaries for self (e.g., tolerating inappropriate treatment from others, failing to express what is acceptable and unacceptable treatment, tolerance of physical, emotional or sexual abuse.)" some other possibilities are: "Unequal or unfair treatment of one or more family members due to their birth order, gender, age, family role (mother, etc.), abilities, race, caste, etc. (may include frequent appeasement of one member at the expense of others, or an uneven enforcement of rules)" "Denial (refusal to acknowledge abusive behavior, possibly believing that the situation is normal or even beneficial; also known as the "elephant in the room."conflict, misbehavior, and often child neglect or abuse on the part of individual parents occur continually and regularly, leading other members to accommodate such actions. Children sometimes grow up in such families with the understanding that such an arrangement is normal."
Idea number two: I could talk about how they are both dysfunctional and meet the technical requirements but are dysfunctional in completely different ways. 

Hamlets have: "Abnormal sexual behavior such as adultery, promiscuity, or incest" "Disrespect;^[6] especially contempt" "Social dysfunction or isolation^[6] (for example, parents unwilling to reach out to other families—especially those with children of the same gender and approximate age, or do nothing to help their "friendless" child)"

Bennets have: "This occurs when a parent manipulates a child to achieve some negative result in the other parent, rather than communicating with them directly. Examples include verbal manipulation, gossip, trying to obtain information through the child (spying), or causing the child to dislike the other parent. There is no concern whatsoever for the damaging effects it has on children. While such manipulation is often prevalent in shared custody situations (due to separation or divorce), it can also take place in intact families, and is known as triangulation." "The Lost Child: the inconspicuous, quiet one, whose needs are usually ignored or hidden." "Lack of time spent together, especially in recreational activities and social events ("We never do anything as a family")"

these sound like they wont take too long and would be fun.

Videos-for real

We did the polonius scene for our video, and Zachary was very suck-upy and insincere. If I directed this scene of hamlet, I would tell polonius to be a huge, insincere suck-up, to emphasize all of the sibilance and consonance, and have him act like he believes the lines too much. I would tell him to be s suck-up because that polonius's character. I would tell him to be insincere because polonius only pursues his self-interest, but acts very servile. I would have him emphasize the sibilance and consonance because in reality polonius is a bad man who is messing with his kids' lives and trying to make life suck for Ophelia, Laertes, Hamlet, and im sure many others. I would have him be overly-sincere because Polonius is an insincere suck-up who doesnt follow his own advice, "to thine own self be true." I would also have my Polonius stand either like Golum (from lord of the rings) or a young schoolboy looking up to an adult. The former because he is an evil sidekick and the latter because he acts like that around others, but we know that is not his true nature. böser Hai! (bad shark)

Video

Hello world,
We were told not to blog for tonight (and I don't really understand the assignment), but I'm bored. Here is a picture of a pupy

Blogging

I don't think we have to blog anymore about hamlet or essays and whatever, so here's this blog about nothing

body paragraph 2

i feel like these posts should be in the "working on" tab. Whatever, I'm doing them so that should be enough.

Mel Gibson, in the 1990 film version of Hamlet, speaks in a slow and deliberate monotone, explains his sorrow to his mother, and allows her to grope him; this delivery brings to foray Hamlet’s sadness, but downplays his revulsion and anger. Gibson’s very first line, “a little more than kin and less than kind” illustrates this point perfectly. Gibson elongates, spaces-out, and enunciates the words in this first line to such an extent that the viewer stops thinking about the meanings of the words. Instead, one thinks of how morose he must be to be so dilatory, how well he enunciates in a fake British accent, and of when the scene will move on. This shift of focus detracts from the sarcasm, rage, repugnance, sass, and emotion Hamlet’s lines would otherwise express. Later in the scene, when Hamlet and Gertrude are left alone, Hamlet explains to Gertrude how his depression is not just an act, and in doing so shows viewers his seething emotions regarding his father’s murder and his mother’s hasty and incestuous marriage (and his sorrow, of course). But this is not present in the Gibson version. He speaks slowly, deliberately, and genuinely attempts to explain his emotions to his mother as an equal. Though it illuminates Hamlet’s anguish and argument, this delivery submerges the angry sarcasm and moral outrage in a sea of sorrow, sloth, explanations, and mutual respect (sibilance intentional). And, throughout the scene, Gertrude (actor) essentially feels Gibson up (need a less colloquial way of saying that), and Gibson allows it. Although Shakespeare never says it, it is just nonsensical for hamlet to be okay with his incestuous and betraying mother to fondle him, especially while he is so dejected and mournful. Maybe he accepts her touching because he is too sad to refuse, but that does not make up for the fury and moral repulsion his acting lacks. Mel Gibson’s portrayal of Hamlet (in Act I Scene II) brings Hamlet’s sorrow to life. But, in doing so, Gibson ignored Hamlet’s outrage (both moral and vengeful) with his mother and his new father.

this method of posting each paragraph is very good because if something goes wrong and you lose your essay on your computer, its still safe on the internet.

first body paragraph

In the 1980 BBC version of Hamlet, Derek Jacobi directs his Hamlet (I need to look up the actor’s name) to be sarcastic and speak cacophonously, but this distracts from Hamlet’s sorrow and moral disgust. The line that illustrates this most is one that wakes up the viewer and provides the scene with some humor. Hamlet says “seems, Madame? Nay it is: I know not seems.” Hamlet (actor), in this line shouts “seems,” changes tones wildly, emphasizes the repetition of the s, n, and t sounds, and uses all possible sarcasm. Although funny, this interpretation of the line allows the viewer to see only Hamlet’s anger, and distracts (via humor) from Hamlet’s sorrow about his father’s death and his outrage over his mother’s marriage of his uncle. Not to mention, his hyperbolic sarcasm makes the point he conveys regarding his sorrow less valid. Later, Hamlet says “Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother, nor customary suits of solemn black.” Hamlet (actor)’s delivery of this line fills the ear with a cacophonous whirlwind of k’s, s’s, m’s, and n’s, as well as an overdose of sarcasm. But this is not the point of the quote. This line is meant to show Gertrude and the viewers that Hamlet’s behavior is not just an act, rather a by-product of his abject sorrow and revulsion with his uncle (and mother). Instead, all the viewer hears is Hamlet’s anger. Similarly, Hamlet (actor) turns his back to his parents, makes ADJECTIVE faces, and gives the king and queen almost no respect throughout their conversation. While it does effectively show his anger and a portion of his repugnance (as shown by his disrespect), this delivery makes the scene less about Hamlet’s grief and troubles, and more about his almost teen-like anger towards his parents. These deliveries change the meaning of act I scene II dramatically. Instead of introducing viewers to a solemn, disgusted, and angry protagonist, Jacobi provides a comically sarcastic, and vehemently angry boy.

intro paragraph (with thesis)

In making film versions of Hamlet, directors have a tricky decision to make: how to interpret the lines. This is very apparent in Act I Scene II, when Hamlet delivers consonant lines that reveal his anger, moral disgust, and sorrow. Derek Jacobi, in the 1980 BBC version of Hamlet, had Hamlet deliver his lines in an entirely sarcastic way and emphasize the consonance, which distracts viewers from Hamlet’s sorrow and disgust. In the Mel Gibson version (1990), Hamlet delivers his lines in a slow, deliberate, solemn and dejected manner; this delivery highlighted Hamlet’s sorrow and disgust, while diminishing the prevalence anger. The delivery of Hamlet’s lines in Act I Scene II directly affect the viewers’ perception of Hamlet’s anger, moral disgust, and sorrow, and thus change the meaning of the scene.

Act five

Act five was interesting. It wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible. I was wrong in my prediction, but not very wrong. I think the best part of the Act was seeing my ex-character-to-follow, Horatio, rise to the occasion and become the hero of the play. After taking in all of the stories and plots of the other characters and seeing them all kill each other in front of him, he has the composure to know how to respond to the ambassadors. And, to make it even better, he makes a good decision. He decides to carry hamlet's body out in front of the palace (as a martyred hero) and explain what happened in full detail to the ambassadors and the people of Denmark. I don't know who was next in line to become king after all of those people died, but I think it should be Horatio because he acts in a responsible, adult, and kingly manner. When Hamlet dies (before seeing the ambassadors come in) Horatio says "Now cracks a noble heart.—Good night, sweet prince,
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!—" I thought that was awesome. I know I will be analyzing the meaning, syntax, and sounds of that sentence some time soon.
This act wasn't all sorrow and death, there was some comedy in it too. The part with Osric was funny because of the hat conversation and their exaggerated praise of Laertes. The part with the gravedigger (Kno calls him a clown) was funny too because of the singing, throwing skulls, deep assessments of life delivered by a gravedigger, and stupid sentimentality by Hamlet for the skulls.
I had one big problem with reading this act though: Kno. It glitched so much! every time I tried to turn the page it went white and then flipped back to the page I had just read. When i highlighted it often highlighted random lines in the text, and when i want to delete them Kno didnt register them as being highlighted. There are so many differences in the Kno version too! almost all of the stage directions have question marks, the lines are often cut down, and names are different which, to me, means that the Kno people don't know how to research one of the most famous plays ever. And, to make it all worse, i cant follow the links to see what the blue writing means or look up the meaning of words.
But Hamlet was great.

Thanksgiving

I assume there is no blog due tomorrow because tomorrow is thanksgiving. So, happy thanksgiving!

Post

Because I have finished act four and because I want to get the post due Wednesday out of the way and because I don't have to start reading act five until Thursday and because my character is dead I am going to blog about my predictions for the final act. Putting aside all that i know about the play, here's what I think will go down.
The king and Laertes will call hamlet to a grand hall in order to carry out their plan. Hamlet, the vengeful guy he is, will bring his sword so that he can kill the king. Hamlet, while talking with the king, will start alluding to killing his uncle in a dramatic irony sort of way (because that's what he does). He will swing at the king and miss (because that's how Shakespeare and tragedies work: the tragic hero never accomplishes his task directly). Laertes will swoop in and duel with hamlet. Meanwhile Horatio, who has been watching all along will come in and stab the king in the chest (because he's a good friend) the dying king will kill Horatio for a dose of irony. But, even more ironically, hamlet won't see this. Keep in mind, there will be eloquent conversation throughout all of this. Whole dueling, hamlet and Laertes' swords will dramatically fly away and that will switch swords. Then, hamlet will scratch Laertes with the sword that he himself poisoned (because Shakespeare loves irony and everybody has to die for this to be a true tragedy). Oh yeah, and before Laertes dies the captain guy will come in, see the dead king and be like "holy crap, that means we have the kingdom, I'm going to take his crown" but then hamlet will walk in and see all of these dead people and be sad. And then he's going to say "oh no you don't" and kill the captain and take the crown, which I think he wanted the whole time. He will then see the poison and be thirsty, drink it, and die ironically. Then Gertrude will walk in, see everybody dead, and pick up the kings sword and kill herself. This was based on the notion that shakespeare loves irony, everybody dies, and the setup provided in act four, hope this was long enough :)

Act IV

I read Act IV today. It was so good! Because my character died in the previous act, I will just summarize my favorite parts of the act. First of all, Ophelia goes nuts and says hilarious but somewhat true statements. Then, she jumps into a swamp (singing), gets tangled in the weeds (still singing), sinks, then floats up again, sings some more, and then sinks once more and drowns. I don't know why, but i found that hilarious! Laertes and the king plot a plan to kill hamlet and make it look like an accident, have laertes duel hamlet with a poison-tipped sword, and have a goblet of poison ready for hamlet to drink and have Laertes become king. Meanwhile, hamlet was sent to england but was stopped and turned around (and taken prisoner) by these soldiers who are going to meet with the king to have their promise of marching across the king's land fulfilled. Hamlet writes letters to a bunch of people saying whats going on and, in one of them, tries to set up a meeting with the king and himself (alone, or naked) so that he can kill him. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are still on their way to england, and probably won't come back. The queen is distraught but emotionally stable. She, i think, is either completely oblivious to all of the plans that have been set in motion or knows all of them and is playing naiive to protect her innocence in the matter. The whole act was a nice set up for Shakespeare to tear it all down, have everyone kill each other, and give the reader an overdose of irony.