ok I've been itching to ask this question forever!!!
If Hamlet does love Ophelia as he states, then what does the nunnery scene REALLY mean?!
We spent about 3 days rehearsing and reenacting the famous nunnery scene in three of the many ways it could be interpreted
So we had:
-He knows
-He's an oblivious fool
-He figures out half way
But this was all before we knew for sure that he loved Ophelia. So now that we know he loved Ophelia how can we interpret that scene? How would it work out?
-If he knows the whole time then he's just being kind of a bastard to HER but at the same time warning her to go to a safe place? But then the nunnery was also a brothel? That's really what's confusing me.
-If he didn't know anything, then was he just mad at her? because he obviously didn't stop loving her, so that would mean he just wanted to break her heart by calling her a whore. But this approach just sounds very un-Hamlet like. Hamlet wouldn't be this shallow as to take such a blunt jab at her. So would he blame it on his version of maddness?
-Lastly if he figures out halfway as Branagh does[this is what makes most sense to me I suppose] then he is truly mad; at first just really really really pissed off but then he is feigning his insanity as he figures out that he is being spyed upon. Then nunnery also is used both ways. Because of his anger he indirectly calls her a whore to cause her pain as he is feeling, but as he figures it out he wants to warn her and ward her off from danger. This response make the most sense to me mostly because it's not "on the surface" type of response. It's really deep and really Hamlet-like...
Monday, February 22, 2010
1 day to breathe
I think we all need one day to just sit and do nothing school related. As nerdy as this may sound I think I would end up going to Barnes and Noble and just sitting there the whole day and reading. That or I would end up spending over $50 watching movies at the theaters. Either way, as an AP lit student I would end up finding random connections with everything that we've been reading and that I've read before.
In addition to Invisible Man, I have been trying to read Edith Wharton's Age of Innocence, not that I've managed to get very far.
In addition to Invisible Man, I have been trying to read Edith Wharton's Age of Innocence, not that I've managed to get very far.
Monday, January 25, 2010
All Buried in Post-It Notes
The Secrecy, the lies, the mystery of it all...what's the reality? What's really going on? Does anyone know the truth? No wonder Hamlet's going insane!! Or is he?
I think it's interesting that Hamlet is aware how his behavior is changing since the death of his father. At first he was just in mourning solely because of the death and marriage of his mother. But now there are so many other vague factors, like the ghost and Ophelia. Personally I think that the ghost is some type of portrayal of his subconscious or his unconscious mind. And it just comes in the form of a ghost in order to inform the audience of what turmoil is going on inside Hamlet's minds. However the evidence that goes against that theory is if the ghost is Hamlet's unconscious then how does Hamlet “know” how his father was killed? If he doesn't actually know perhaps he is just making it up as an excuse to kill Claudius, because the man was a heartless ass who married his mother. In this case Hamlet is really losing his mind. And his insanity can sort of be connected to the fact that “there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.”
In class today someone mentioned that whatever it is that is rotten is the syphilis, that Hamlet supposedly has. Which means that he and Ophelia really did have a genuine relationship. But then is he half going crazy because she cuts him off? This theory makes less sense to me because the way he is shown to treat her in that scene we read today it just seems more like he is trying to find someone who he could vent some of his insanity out onto. Her lack of recent communication doesn't seem to be the cause of anything...just perhaps something that adds to his discomfort. Otherwise I fell he would have yelled or said something to her. It just doesn't seem solid enough.
But that brings me to the fact that Polonius thinks that Ophelia is the heart of Hamlet's problem. It comes back to his stupid image. If Ophelia WAS the problem and he managed to “fix” it by letting Hamlet be with Ophelia again then he would be famous or he would be awarded and would have more acknowledgment. His tone seems to change completely when Ophelia reveals that Hamlet might love her..or that is what Polonius understood from her description. So to him it's all about “seeming” as well.
I think it's interesting that Hamlet is aware how his behavior is changing since the death of his father. At first he was just in mourning solely because of the death and marriage of his mother. But now there are so many other vague factors, like the ghost and Ophelia. Personally I think that the ghost is some type of portrayal of his subconscious or his unconscious mind. And it just comes in the form of a ghost in order to inform the audience of what turmoil is going on inside Hamlet's minds. However the evidence that goes against that theory is if the ghost is Hamlet's unconscious then how does Hamlet “know” how his father was killed? If he doesn't actually know perhaps he is just making it up as an excuse to kill Claudius, because the man was a heartless ass who married his mother. In this case Hamlet is really losing his mind. And his insanity can sort of be connected to the fact that “there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.”
In class today someone mentioned that whatever it is that is rotten is the syphilis, that Hamlet supposedly has. Which means that he and Ophelia really did have a genuine relationship. But then is he half going crazy because she cuts him off? This theory makes less sense to me because the way he is shown to treat her in that scene we read today it just seems more like he is trying to find someone who he could vent some of his insanity out onto. Her lack of recent communication doesn't seem to be the cause of anything...just perhaps something that adds to his discomfort. Otherwise I fell he would have yelled or said something to her. It just doesn't seem solid enough.
But that brings me to the fact that Polonius thinks that Ophelia is the heart of Hamlet's problem. It comes back to his stupid image. If Ophelia WAS the problem and he managed to “fix” it by letting Hamlet be with Ophelia again then he would be famous or he would be awarded and would have more acknowledgment. His tone seems to change completely when Ophelia reveals that Hamlet might love her..or that is what Polonius understood from her description. So to him it's all about “seeming” as well.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Back to Blogging!
First things first....that poem... I'm pretty sure is going to be my downfall. It was really hard to think of how everything would fit together to make sense, without just putting down words that rhymed. But somehow I managed to make my poem so long that I had trouble keeping it on one page... also having to analyze your own poem was interesting because then you're not actually guessing what the writer was thinking because you are the writer and you are ALIVE and therefore you know for a fact what you were thinking....hopefully anyways.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Trapped inside...
Has anyone heard of Le Petit Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupéry? Or The Little Prince in English? It’s about a Little Prince, whose real name is unknown, who travels from his asteroid home and lands in the middle of a dessert on planet earth. Here he meets an aviator whose plane has crashed there as well. The Little Prince starts talking about how children are much different than adults because adults focus too much on pragmatic topics instead of the important things in life. The Prince then proceeds to tell the aviator about his home sized asteroid planet, which is threatened by Baobab trees (that represent evil). That is why he has set out on a journey to find a sheep which is the only creature that can save his planet. He recalls his visits to other planets and how he has met foolish adults. There is a: King, vain man, drunkard, business man, lamplighter, and the geographer. I won’t bore you with the rest of the details.
Basically, my teacher assigned it to my class last year just so we would get accustomed to reading in French…little did we know that she would make it waaaaaaaaaayyyy more complicated than it seemed. But she explained to us that despite that this was SUPPOSED to be a kids’ book it contained complex philosophies such as existentialism. Of course she explained most of it in French, which means no one understood half of what she was saying. So when the term first came up in our lit class, I immediately thought of that book and referred to existentialism as EVIL! Her explanation went something like this: evil is all around us, and therefore we must do all in our power to prevent the evil from trapping us, and therefore, the children of the future are the key because they are the only ones who can make the choice of preventing the spread of evil…At least I think that was explanation, I might have lost something in that translation…:P…nevertheless, that was the moral of the story.
I know…heavy right? …And this was a KIDS’ book.
But I guess this kind of works with the explanation given in class, that the universe is meaningless, and the meaning is created by individuals, and their choices which die once you die… So it just boils down to the choices that are made in general. And perhaps Le Petit Prince (sorry it’s just embedded into my mind in French) has an existentialist philosophy because of that choice of preventing evil…and NOT letting that meaning die with you by passing it on to the children of the future.
But I’m still unsure where all this evil comes into play….
I'm not going to lie...i really didn't like that book, just because adding the dark element of existentialism just killed it...
Basically, my teacher assigned it to my class last year just so we would get accustomed to reading in French…little did we know that she would make it waaaaaaaaaayyyy more complicated than it seemed. But she explained to us that despite that this was SUPPOSED to be a kids’ book it contained complex philosophies such as existentialism. Of course she explained most of it in French, which means no one understood half of what she was saying. So when the term first came up in our lit class, I immediately thought of that book and referred to existentialism as EVIL! Her explanation went something like this: evil is all around us, and therefore we must do all in our power to prevent the evil from trapping us, and therefore, the children of the future are the key because they are the only ones who can make the choice of preventing the spread of evil…At least I think that was explanation, I might have lost something in that translation…:P…nevertheless, that was the moral of the story.
I know…heavy right? …And this was a KIDS’ book.
But I guess this kind of works with the explanation given in class, that the universe is meaningless, and the meaning is created by individuals, and their choices which die once you die… So it just boils down to the choices that are made in general. And perhaps Le Petit Prince (sorry it’s just embedded into my mind in French) has an existentialist philosophy because of that choice of preventing evil…and NOT letting that meaning die with you by passing it on to the children of the future.
But I’m still unsure where all this evil comes into play….
I'm not going to lie...i really didn't like that book, just because adding the dark element of existentialism just killed it...
Monday, October 19, 2009
hmmmmmm....could it be?
Previously on AP Lit, the class was watching A Doll's House, repulsed by the old and not at all fitting actress that plays Nora in the film.
"There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt." -Act I
"Because an atmosphere of lies like that infects and poisons the whole life of a home. In a house like that, every breath that the children take is filled with the germs of evil." -Act 1
"Nora, darling, you're dancing as if your life depended on it!" -Act 2
(I'm in a t.v soap opear mood today :P)
As we have been discussing this play I am repeatedly reminded of The Glass Menagerie, written by Tennessee Williams. It is Nora's character that makes the connection to both Amanda the mother, and Laura the daughter. The costume that Nora wears to the party is not only symbollic because it shows her metamorphasis but also because it symbollically represents her life which as she feels is hanging by the thread that the letter sent by Krogstad is threatening to cut. In Amanda's case in The Glass Menagerie, that beautiful yellow dress she always talks about just shows how she is so attached to the past and is unwilling to let it go. The play certainly depicts her as a character who completely lives in the past and is unable to take a firm grasp of reality. So the dresses or the costumes in both plays are a symbolic representation of each of the women's lives respectively. Also they both live their lives in some facade.
I feel Nora relates to Laura because they are both described as children in one way or another. Nora is a child in Torvald's eyes, and as for Laura, I can't quiet recall but Amanda always thought of her as a small child who was unable to be independant.
It's interesting the way those two plays relate.
"There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt." -Act I
"Because an atmosphere of lies like that infects and poisons the whole life of a home. In a house like that, every breath that the children take is filled with the germs of evil." -Act 1
"Nora, darling, you're dancing as if your life depended on it!" -Act 2
(I'm in a t.v soap opear mood today :P)
As we have been discussing this play I am repeatedly reminded of The Glass Menagerie, written by Tennessee Williams. It is Nora's character that makes the connection to both Amanda the mother, and Laura the daughter. The costume that Nora wears to the party is not only symbollic because it shows her metamorphasis but also because it symbollically represents her life which as she feels is hanging by the thread that the letter sent by Krogstad is threatening to cut. In Amanda's case in The Glass Menagerie, that beautiful yellow dress she always talks about just shows how she is so attached to the past and is unwilling to let it go. The play certainly depicts her as a character who completely lives in the past and is unable to take a firm grasp of reality. So the dresses or the costumes in both plays are a symbolic representation of each of the women's lives respectively. Also they both live their lives in some facade.
I feel Nora relates to Laura because they are both described as children in one way or another. Nora is a child in Torvald's eyes, and as for Laura, I can't quiet recall but Amanda always thought of her as a small child who was unable to be independant.
It's interesting the way those two plays relate.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
