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.