SIMON RUSSELL BEALE

Dear Mr. Beale – or is it Mr. Russell Beale?

Dear Simon Russell Beale (SIR!),

In my English class, we read Hamlet while listening to the audio version in which you voiced the character of Hamlet. First of all, you should know that I was (and still am) very impressed by your ability to portray Hamlet’s character and emotions through only your voice. Through different class activities and related projects, we’ve had to try our hand at both acting and giving life to soliloquys with only our voices, and it definitely challenged me.

My favorite scene to listen to was act five, scene one (although I could be biased, because I really like that scene in general). I was impressed by the emotion shown later in the scene in Hamlet’s confrontation with Laertes, but earlier, I enjoyed listening to Hamlet play around with the gravedigger (and that is my understanding of that interchange, of course I could be wrong). Similarly, I really liked the performance with Claudius in act four, scene three. My interpretation of this little exchange is that Hamlet is playing around with Claudius, because they both know he (Hamlet) has the upper hand. I feel like Hamlet is in rare form, and seems here to be both clever and in control. Part of the reason I like the ‘version’ of Hamlet that we see in this scene is because I really don’t think Hamlet is crazy, so I really like when he looks to be in control.

It may seem like it’s contradictory to say that I like when Hamlet seems normal right after I say that I enjoyed his emotional outburst at Ophelia’s funeral, but I don’t think it is, because had he NOT freaked out the way he did, he would have seemed strangely detached, and definitely crazy.

Even though I liked many aspects of your performance as Hamlet, I must confess that I didn’t like everything. Some parts of it were extraordinary dramatic (the fight in act five, scene two, for example), and while I understand that’s necessary in an audio-only version of the play, it sometimes also took away from the language and mood. I was sometimes distracted by the exaggerated sounds and emphasis.

Of course at other times (Hamlet’s death for example), this emphasis and exaggeration gave me a clear image of what would be going on in the play were I to be watching it – so I guess it’s hard to criticize something when it can also be so useful.

All in all, I enjoyed listening to the audio version, and even though I sometimes didn’t agree with the way you portrayed Hamlet, no one can deny that your Hamlet was very real, and so I thank you for that!

Thanks!

Chloe W

« deeeear kenneth branagh,

deeeear kenneth branagh,

Hey Mr. Branagh!

You don’t know this (or me), but you introduced me to Hamlet! In my English class, we watched Act I of your film adaptation, and then listened to a recording of the rest of the play. First of all, I would like to make a point of saying that I am the furthest thing from experienced with any kind of drama/theater/acting/anything else like that, but in this unit of our class, we’ve had to do a little bit of both acting and “directing.” I am NOT very good at it, and I was reminded of how hard it is, so the fact that you did BOTH in your movie is really impressive.

That being said, I (respectfully) disagree with some of your artistic choices. Again though, I’ve only seen the first act, so if some of the things I didn’t understand come into play (ha! play!) later, please forgive me for my ignorance!

Let’s start with casting. I got used to it eventually, but I was startled at first by your role as Hamlet. I don’t know why- maybe it was that you looked as old as Claudius? Who knows. Speaking of Claudius though, GOOD JOB!! Talk about a creeper! I think seeing how obnoxious and creepy he was in your version affected my reading (and listening) of the rest of the play.

Okay, let’s move on to bigger and better (or not better) things- the ghost! I say bigger, because that guy was definitely larger than life, and I felt like I had to include the “or not better” bit because I still don’t know how I feel about that. In my opinion, the ghost was enormously unbelievable, even if we call it a hallucination of Hamlet’s. Given that I am not of the opinion that Hamlet is crazy, I didn’t particularly like this rendition of the ghost, because it, and Hamlet’s reaction to it was thoroughly NUTS! ..So while I wasn’t a big fan, I think this could be one of the things that affects the rest of the movie, which I did not see. So I am willing to cut you some slack on that, even though I do disagree.

Thank you, though, for creating a version of Hamlet that my English teacher deemed good enough to show us in class, because even if I didn’t agree with all of your choices, I did enjoy it!

Chloe W

SIMON RUSSELL BEALE »« one last RGAD!!!

one last RGAD!!!

Goodness gracious! What an end….I’m really glad that Rosy and Guil stayed true to form through the end! There was some self-reflexivity and playfulness and all that awesome stuff that IS R&G! And then there was LOTS of life and death, so I think it was all supposed to be leading up to their deaths.

Self-reflexivity:

p. 97: “You can feel, can’t you?” – p.101: “One is free on a boat. For a time. Relatively.” – p. 105: “Then that’s it-we’re finished.” “At a loose end?” “Yes.” – p. 108: “No, no, no – what you’ve been is not on boats.” – p. 125: “But somehow we missed it. [He looks round and sees he is alone.] Rosen-? Guil-?”

Life and Death:

p. 98: “How does it feel?” “Dead.” – p. 105: “Then that’s it-we’re finished.” “At a loose end?” “Yes.” – p. 108: “We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good’s a brick to a drowning man?” – p. 115: “Life is a gamble, at terrible odds-if it was a bet you wouldn’t take it.” – p. 119: “Yes, we were dead lucky there. If that’s the word I’m after.” “Dead?” – p. 121: “England! That’s a dead end. I never believed in it anyway.” – p. 124: “[activated, arms spread, the professional) Deaths for all ages and occasions! Deaths by suspension, convulsion, consumption,..." - p. 124: "No... no... not for us, no like that. Dying is not romantic, death is not a game which will soon be over..."

Playfulness:

p. 100: "I'll stretch them for you, if you like." - p. 103: "I asked you first." "I got the same as you." - p. 104: "Without mixing us up." - p. 121: "England! That's a dead end. I never believed in it anyway." - p. 124: "[activated, arms spread, the professional) Deaths for all ages and occasions! Deaths by suspension, convulsion, consumption,..."

OKAY this part makes me sad, but I don't know why!

p. 104: "[turning on him furiously] Why don’t you say something original! No wonder the whole thing is so stagnant! You don’t take me up on anything-you just repeat it in a different order.”     “I can’t think of anything original. I’m only good in support.”    “I’m sick of making the running.” – p. 110: death speech: “Assume, if you like, that they’re going to kill him. Well, he is a man, he is mortal, death comes to us all, etcetera, …”

p. 124: “No… no… not for us, no like that. Dying is not romantic, death is not a game which will soon be over…”

deeeear kenneth branagh, »« rhetorical analysis: Act III, Scene 1, “to be or not to be”

rhetorical analysis: Act III, Scene 1, “to be or not to be”

1. Exigence: What needs doing at this point? In other words, what is compelling Hamlet to speak at this moment in the play?

Hamlet’s father, the King, has been killed, and Hamlet has seen the King’s ghost. The ghost tells Hamlet that Hamlet’s uncle Claudius killed the King, and orders Hamlet to get revenge. Right now, though, Hamlet is about to have to deal with his lady friend, Ophelia, and try and convince her to get lost so that she won’t be around when Hamlet kills Claudius. He’s pretty emotional, considering his father’s death, his uncle’s plotting, and the up-and-coming split with his girlfriend, so he’s wondering if it’s all worth it. Or rather, wondering if the stresses of his life are making his life not worth living any more. Should he kill himself, and not have to deal with the turmoil of human affairs?

2. Audience: The audience is comprised of people who can in some way act on this exigence. Who is Hamlet’s primary audience and how does that influence his choices? Who is Hamlet’s secondary audience and how does that influence his choices? [Hint: they are not on the stage]

ANDDDDD here’s where we start guessing… I think Hamlet’s primary audience is himself. He is the main one affected by his father’s death, and he is the one who has been ordered to get revenge. This influences him by allowing him to say pretty much whatever he wants, with whatever logic (misguided or not) that he can think of. If he can somehow spin a thought so that it makes sense in HIS head, he has succeeded, since he is essentially talking to and arguing with HIMSELF.

I think his secondary audience is not necessarily a character within the play, but rather anyone who happens to hear him speak. (I know this isn’t Post Modern, but this seems very ‘outside’ of the actual play to me, and seems like he’s talking to the actual audience, which wouldn’t happen unless he knew he was in a play… I’m confusing myself..I’m going to stop now.) But basically, he wonders if life is worth living, through all the troubles and abuses of life, and basically just sounds very existential-y. It seems like he MUST be talking to someone more than just a fellow character, because he gives so many examples of life’s hardships – oppression, rudeness, unrequited love, flawed justice, idiocy of government officials, mistreatment of good people. Not all of this is shown IN Hamlet, so it seems to me that he must be speaking outside of the play itself.

3. Purpose: What is the purpose of Hamlet’s speech?

I don’t know when I heard this (I’m sure it was in class, either last year or this year), but someone said that a soliloquy was a character working out his or her issues, and I think that’s definitely the case here. But I am also thoroughly convinced that he’s talking to more than just himself, so that would probably affect the purpose too. Going with that thought, I think he is probably speaking to give voice to the thoughts that he shares with other people, and to reason with his thoughts of life’s pointlessness.

4. Appeals: Which appeal(s) does Hamlet use to convince and/or motivate his audience? Reference specific lines.

I really think he uses all three, actually, in this order…

Ethos: Appeal to the character of the speaker – He starts out by referring to his own specific circumstance (l. 65-66: “to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”), and his wondering about “whether ’tis nobler in the mind…” (l. 65-8), shows his character and his dilemma.

Pathos: Appeal to the emotions or interests of the audience – He then moves on to issues that the audience (himself, and anyone who happens to hear) would relate to: “For who would bear the whips and scorns of time…and the spurns That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes” (l. 78-82).

Logos: Appeal to logic – This one I think could go under Pathos as well, but I’m putting it here because Pathos already has an example… Hamlet then looks at the logical uncertainties of human nature regarding death: “But that the dread of something after death, …” (l. 86). He comes to this conclusion logically, but the questioning of existence after death is both an emotional issue and a reasonable one, so he is appealing to the audience’s logic and their natural uncertainties about death.

5. Figures of speech, imagery, diction, syntax: What literary devices does Hamlet employ? Where do you see him making comparisons? Which tropes – similes, metaphors, personification, hyperbole, etc. – does he use? How do these comparisons relate to his rhetorical purpose? What particularly vivid images stand out? What effect do these images have on Hamlet’s rhetorical purpose?

Anaphora = repetition of a word or phrase: l. 64 “to be” [emphasizes his question - how those are the only two options he has] – l. 68, 72 “to die, to sleep” [emphasizes the metaphor]

Metaphor: sleep for death [it suggests the peace that he thinks he might achieve through death]

Polyptoton = repetition of a word, but in a different form: ‘sleep,’ l. 68-9 “to sleep – no more – and by a sleep…” and l. 73-4 “To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub, For in that sleep of death…” [adds interest and clarifies his reasoning for the use of the word]

Enjambment = building suspense by postponing to the next line a significant word or words related to the previous line: l. 75-6 “When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,/Must give us pause.” – l. 83-4 “When he himself might his quietus make/With a bare bodkin? [creates subtle suspense]

Asyndeton = the omission of connectors: l. 78-82 “For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,…That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes” [makes the list seem longer than it is...even though it IS pretty long]

Apostrophe = a “turning away” from one subject to another: l. 96-8, “Soft you now, The fair Ophelia” [interrupts his speech, cuts it off]

6. Response: How do you respond to Hamlet’s soliloquy? In other words, what do you think of him right now?

I’m not gonna lie, when we first read/heard it in class, I thought it was pretty simple, and that all there could possibly be to it is Hamlet getting a little depressed and thinking about suicide. This analysis has OPENED my eyes! Hahah just kidding. But it HAS made it clear that there is LOT more going on here than I first thought. I think he is emotional, but honestly, it seems like he’s still got his emotions under control. He makes a clear and logical argument about some pretty heavy stuff – “Gahhh, what is the meaning/purpose of liiiiife?!?” – and really, he isn’t overly dramatic, considering the subject that he’s talking about. I mean seriously, give him a break, he’s pondering the meaning of life, he’s got to be at least a LITTLE dramatic, or else we would DEFINITELY think he was crazy.

one last RGAD!!! »« RGAD ^ 4

RGAD ^ 4

Starts out with some silliness between Rosy and Guillie, and then we see the Players doing their dress rehearsal, and the actual First Player talks a lot about actors, and how they do what is written. It was kind of strange, because in the dress rehearsal, the Players include things that they shouldn’t actually know… like a ton of people’s deaths and stuff! Ahh! Then Rosy and Guillie lay down in the same position as their dead acting counterparts, and then Claudius and Hamlet come back and the Act is over!

So basically, it’s growing on me. I know I’m missing some things, but I saw some more examples of metafiction, self-reflexivity, fate, life and death, playfulness, and pastiche and intertextuality.

POMO CHARACTERISTICS:

Metafiction – p. 74: “I can’t for the life of me see how we’re going to get into conversation.” – p. 80: “We’re tragedians, you see. We follow directions-there is no choice involved….” -p. 84: “Audiences know what to expect, and that is all that they are prepared to believe in.” – lines taken directly from Hamlet and used in RGAD as stage direction

Self-reflexivity – p. “95: “I like to know where I am. Even if I don’t know where I am, I like to know that. If we go there’s no knowing.”

Pastiche/Intertextuality: p. 78: Claudius’ plan

Playfulness – p. 79: “Between ‘just desserts’ and ‘tragic irony’ we are given quite a lot of scope for our particular talent.”

THEMES:

Fate – p. 80: “We’re tragedians, you see. We follow directions-there is no choice involved….” – p. 82: “Traitors hoist by their own petard?-or victims of the gods?- we shall never know!”

Life/Death – p. 83: “You die so many times; how can you expect them to believe in your death?”

rhetorical analysis: Act III, Scene 1, “to be or not to be” »« RGAD 3 … weeeelllll….I have some guesses…

RGAD 3 … weeeelllll….I have some guesses…

I’m kind of glad that at least in this version, R&G realize that their attempt to learn something from Hamlet was a complete waste. In the actual play, it doesn’t seem like they even understand that they don’t achieve their goal, but here they do, so I liked it.

Of course there was some craziness- but thanks to yesterday, I’m gonna take an educated guess about what they might ACTUALLY be about!

Direction (North and South) – maybe some self-reflexivity, subjectivity? I forget all the other categories, but it seems like this is very “who are we?” and “where do we fit in in this world?” …

Words (p. 62-63) – This seems very “metafiction”-esque, but I’m not positive about that, because I’m not sure about that because that’s kind of complicated.

Actors: identity (p. 64) – I thought this might have something to do with either more self-reflexivity or the talking about plays more.

And after we figured out that they’re obsessed with life and death, so on p. 71, I liked seeing that they were talking about eternity! I kind of liked all their banter in this section, probably because I actually understood it….hahah

Oh, and of course, the section ends with R&G talking to Gertrude, Claudius, and Polonius about how little they know about Hamlet’s issues. WOOHOOOOO

RGAD ^ 4 »« RGAD – our second encounter with the nonsense…

RGAD – our second encounter with the nonsense…

Nonsense. That’s what this is. Straight up nonsense. But- dare I say it?- I kinda like it. It’s funny, even if at times it doesn’t make any sense. Today Rosy and Guildy played a question game. Basically they have to go on as long as possible speaking only in questions, and when one of the fails, the other gets points (tennis-style!). It was thoroughly entertaining to see the ways that they found to answer a question with another.

Oops! Sorry- before this we got to see them interact with the King and Queen, which was TOTALLY SHOCKING! They were like….normal! It’s so strange! I don’t know how such a transformation is possible! Seriously, it was amazing. But anyway, their majesties ask that they find out what’s wrong with little Hammy, because they think he’s going nutso.

After their little question game, they see Hamlet for about a half a second, and are reminded of their ultimate goal. However, they want to be prepared for the first meeting, so they try to do a bit of role play – to see how the conversation with Hamlet might go. We get a bit more comic relief here, because our dear Rosy is apparently an idiot, and does not understand what Guildy is trying to accomplish. By the time they figure it out, Hamlet has come, and they start chatting it up.

And that’s where we stopped!

Apparently we’re supposed to talk about how this play is Post-Modern, and all I can say to answer THAT question is….did you READ what I wrote up there?! Do you REMEMBER all the nonsense? Because there’s your answer. From what I recall, PoMo was kind of cynical and sarcastic and mocking of Modernism. If I got no vibe from all the craziness between R and G in these first two sections, it’s that they’re sarcastic. So of course, I like them a lot…

RGAD 3 … weeeelllll….I have some guesses… »« RGAD! blog 1

RGAD! blog 1

I’m feeling good about this play. When I was reading this section, I happened to be in the car on the way to dinner (my sister was driving, don’t worry!). She asked what I was reading, and when she saw the title, she was SO EXCITED and exclaimed that she LOVED this play, and that it was one of her favorites of everything she read in high school. So I’m a little intrigued by that; my hopes are high, and so far I’m entertained.

Basically this entire thing is nonsense. But strangely enough, it’s enjoyable nonsense. I don’t usually like reading riddles when I’m trying to figure out what something is about, but Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s garbage about probability was funny, and I kinda liked it. I think this first section was just to get us introduced to the characters, and boy are we introduced. I think it’s safe to say that R and G may not be the sharpest tacks in box, although they could just be really goofy. Or maybe it’s all an act! Who knows. Either way, through all this craziness, we definitely got to see their characters.

We also saw them interact with the players. Let me tell you, I am thoroughly confused by these players. Do they actually perform plays? Or are they just glorified prostitutes? Or early porn stars? Or are they really actors, and the sexual business was just to amuse us? I don’t know, but as R and G picked them up on the way to visit Hamlet, I think we’ll be seeing more of them. WOO HOO!!

RGAD – our second encounter with the nonsense… »« 4:4 – freeeeee

4:4 – freeeeee

SHOOTER.

For the few of you who are not aware of the awesomeness that is Mark Wahlberg, you need to go rent Shooter. The movie is about sniper (aka, Gunnery Sergeant) Bob Lee Swagger, who in the beginning of the movie proves his skillz in Ethiopia, but when there’s unexpected retaliation, is left alone to fend for himself. He makes it out, but his spotter and BFF is killed. The movie then cuts to three years later, when we see Swagger living like a mountain man with only his dog as company, but clearly not letting sharp skillz get rusty. (Yes, I will say “skillz” every time… never “skills”). He is approached by a creepy guy with a posse, who asks him to plan an assassination of the President.

This creepy guy goes by “Colonel,” and he explains to Swagger that a threat has been made on the President’s life, and that the person threatened to shoot the President from over a mile away. Apparently little ol’ Bob Lee was one heck of a shot, because the Colonel and his cronies have decided that he is the only person who could make the shot, and to save the President, they need him to plan the assassination as if he were doing it, so that they can stop the person who really IS doing it.

Sounds pretty sneaky, and it turns out that it is. Don’t worry, if you have’t seen it, this isn’t much of a spoiler. Basically our boy Marky Mark is double crossed, and must defy the odds, kill a bunch of people, and generally kick bootayyy in order to fix this seemingly unfixable situation. But never fear! Mark Wahlberg is hardcore, and so is Bob Lee Swagger, so all is well!

Fo yo info, Shooter is based off an equally awesome book called Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter. The book features a slightly different Bob Lee, which I came to find out is a result of the casting of Mark Wahlberg. In the book, Swagger is a Vietnam war vet, and the story takes place in ’92, but because of Wahlberg’s age, they had to change his military career to be a little more recent.

SO! To anyone who has seen the movie, but not read the book, I definitely suggest reading it; it’s fast-paced and enjoyable, so I think most anyone would like it.

To anyone who has read the book, but not seen the movie, go watch it. It also is fast-paced and enjoyable, and I was not disappointed. And for the record, I can be VERY picky when it comes to movie adaptations of books. But be warned: there are some significant differences, but that’s to be expected.

RGAD! blog 1 »« Q4 – week ? – drama, drama, DRAMA!

Q4 – week ? – drama, drama, DRAMA!

(the title of this post is to be said as Jeannie (one of Andie’s BFF’s says it in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days)

—–

I learned everything I know about drama from Mrs. Duke last year….but then I realized that I also could have learned it from my extensive experience WATCHING dramas on TV. Between The OC and Grey’s Anatomy, we’ve got it all covered!

CHARACTERS – Okay. Well in my opinion, characters are the most important part of anything, whether it’s a play or a book or a movie or a short story or WHATEVER. That may not be completely true, but since I can’t enjoy ANYTHING unless I care at least a little bit about the characters, it’s kind of a big deal for me. I don’t really like Meredith from Grey’s, so I think that’s why I fall off the bandwagon with it sometimes… It’s not a big deal for me to miss an episode because I don’t absolutely LOVE any of the characters. On The OC, however, I ADORED pretty much every character except Marissa. I even grew to enjoy the train wreck that was Julie, because they got some depth in there and we found out why she was the way she was.

DIALOGUE – So how do we find out about characters? Through dialogue! WOOHOOO! Dialogue, slash the interaction between characters shows us the relationships between characters, which is of course, VERY important. Without dialogue and little hints dropped, we never would have found out that Kirsten and Jimmy used to have a thing, and that Jimmy wasn’t really over her. Scandal! And perhaps more importantly, without the lovely dialogue between Meredith and Christina, things like “seriously?” and “dark and twisty” would not have become commonplace in my vernacular. And we definitely couldn’t enjoy Seth Cohen’s witty banter without someone to banter WITH, so dialogue is DEFINITELY a big deal there.

STAGING – But what about those silent brooding characters? Our dear Ryan Atwood and Alex Karev (but more Ryan than Alex) are definitely important parts of the show, but they don’t always talk much. That’s where staging comes in! Just by standing a certain way, with a certain look on their faces, they can convey emotion much more realistically than if they had flat out told us how they felt.

PLOT – While there are sometimes episodes that don’t have much going on in them, we’re usually pretty quick to call those boring. I think that’s mostly because our society is so fast-paced; if nothing happens in forty minutes of TV, we would probably consider those forty minutes wasted. Ergo, plot is essential! At least in the larger sense, of course. There can be a scene or two without much happening and we don’t mind, but we wouldn’t last five minutes just watching someone drink a smoothie, because that’s BORING. B-O-R-I-N-G. We need Ryan’s fights, or Marissa’s indescretions, or Meredith’s bad decisions. Because without them, we wouldn’t have a show to watch.

THEME – While The OC rarely has themes (which suggests that we don’t always need them), Grey’s has a theme or some similar moral to most every episode. It’s pretty easy to recognize thanks to those voice-overs in the beginning and ends of the show, but it’s also pretty obvious throughout the entire thing. Even without those voiceovers, we realize what the theme might be through the action (or lack thereof) of the episode. Classic (and recent) example would be the episode of Grey’s where Derek goes nutso and cuts out half of a woman’s brain because he thinks he can save her. The whole point of his melt down was to show us that no one can play God, which I think is a pretty good lesson. But it took all of the elements listed above to make it into a theme! YAYYYY teamwork!!

Moving on to Hamlet and theatre and other such things, I have to confess that I don’t know much. I know Shakespeare wrote it, but knowing Shakespeare and his ability to rewrite existing stories and turn them into successful and surviving plays, I bet this one was based on something too. I know it takes place after King Hamlet dies, and it’s about his son, the Prince going crazayyyyy. Is this the one where he’s holding a skull at some point? I think I’ve seen pictures of that scene, but I don’t know why, or even know for sure that it’s from Hamlet. Aren’t there ghosts in this one, too? Ahh I don’t know! I get so confused!

It’s kind of sad, but I think that’s the extent of my knowledge on the subjects of drama and Hamlet!

4:4 – freeeeee »« Q4 – week 3 – CTales Study Guide