tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post3482778423175051504..comments2024-03-10T15:20:30.552-05:00Comments on stmhumanities: HammertimeMrs.Qhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17626503384057111894noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-30938476766541395092008-12-18T20:57:00.000-06:002008-12-18T20:57:00.000-06:00I thought the play with in a play was cool. It rem...I thought the play with in a play was cool. It reminded me of Velazques's paintings with the mirrors. It was a nice way to show to see the king's reaction who would not have been expecting it so wouldn't have been able to control his emotions. However, Hamlet seemed weak to me. So, far Shakespearse men haven't been very strong. Romeo kills himself instead of continuing on with his life, Macbeth needs reassurances from his taunting wife, and Hamlet just keeps on stalling. However, all three die at the end because they have taken an initiative, but they were still cowardly in the process. I don't think this made any sense. Sorry.Manalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09577647006575135181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-56978816935273000472008-12-02T14:07:00.000-06:002008-12-02T14:07:00.000-06:00I agree. I think he was definately trying to delay...I agree. I think he was definately trying to delay the killing too.Carolinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16728633377971167092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-49622320438781494382008-12-02T09:28:00.000-06:002008-12-02T09:28:00.000-06:00i think that the play within a play gave hamlet an...i think that the play within a play gave hamlet another excuse to delay killing the king. although he claims to want proof, he really already knew the king did it. i also think that he wanted the rest of the court to know that claudius killed king hamlet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-10828783303918686082008-12-01T21:48:00.000-06:002008-12-01T21:48:00.000-06:00yeah i agree with caroline on the part about makin...yeah i agree with caroline on the part about making the king feel guilty, because the king certainly had a reaction to it. If anything it just reassured Hamlet of what he already knew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-15090512346205731652008-12-01T08:34:00.000-06:002008-12-01T08:34:00.000-06:00I think the play within a play was Hamlet's way of...I think the play within a play was Hamlet's way of telling the king that he knew. I don't think there was truely any doubt in Hamlet's mind that the king had killed his father. I think he used the play to upset the king and make him feel guilty, not to see if he actually did it.Carolinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16728633377971167092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-6365527466649665382008-11-26T13:14:00.000-06:002008-11-26T13:14:00.000-06:00I think the play within a play was very neat. And ...I think the play within a play was very neat. And i agree with andrew because it would definitely cause a strong reaction if you witnessed your crimes being displayed in the form of a play , i thought that was brilliant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-49919151690370643602008-11-20T22:21:00.000-06:002008-11-20T22:21:00.000-06:00Yes! Andrew, I am wondering the same thing!Yes! Andrew, I am wondering the same thing!puddlewonderfulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493944663078566264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-1012078560926643602008-11-20T21:23:00.000-06:002008-11-20T21:23:00.000-06:00Dean - Say you murdered your little brother and to...Dean - Say you murdered your little brother and took his girlfriend. Your son (or in this case, say your cousin), who happens to be acting kind of crazy takes you to see a play - you have no idea what the play is about, but you're pretty excited because plays are always fun. As you're watching excitedly, you see a character murder his brother exactly the same way you murdered your brother. You're saying that you wouldn't even freak out a little bit?<BR/><BR/>I find no problem with the way Shakespeare uses the play within the play as a device. The only problem I have with the play is this: how did Claudius get the throne in the first place?El Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14898094029369562643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-24337911879332874542008-11-20T11:29:00.000-06:002008-11-20T11:29:00.000-06:00i think that the play within the play serves the f...i think that the play within the play serves the function of reassuring hamlet that claudius killed his father. it also gives hamlet a way to stall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-71809946619383733532008-11-20T09:09:00.000-06:002008-11-20T09:09:00.000-06:00I agree with caroline about the "play within a pla...I agree with caroline about the "play within a play" if they made it cheeky and meaningful it would have been much more enjoyable. I think the bluntness of it totally ruins the arguement that the king would be upset, maybe he would be upset at the graphic nature or just seeing a death played out so wickedly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-50259112865769720892008-11-19T23:12:00.000-06:002008-11-19T23:12:00.000-06:00John - I'm sorry, but I simply can't stand your ar...John - I'm sorry, but I simply can't stand your argument here. It's a <I>play.</I> If there wasn't super-perfect timing or exaggerated reactions, and it was completely realistic, it would be really really really boring. Ever watch Laguna Beach or The Hills? That's how boring it would be.El Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14898094029369562643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-86286420252598517972008-11-19T22:57:00.000-06:002008-11-19T22:57:00.000-06:00I think so, John. It definitely heightens the susp...I think so, John. It definitely heightens the suspense and the drama of everything-- and it is often used in conjunction with irony, which is always fun. You see the same thing, often, in comedies today-- one terrible thing after another just keeps happening to the protagonist. <BR/><BR/>Shakespeare's plays are, completely and utterly, <I>tragedies</I>. They are depressing and terrible (in the sense that the situations are terrible for the characters, not the plays themselves!). Shakespeare makes the most of the sadness by envisioning <I>the worst possible scenario</I>, so awful, in fact, that it would be unlikely to happen "in real life." But every twist and turn for the worst makes the play increasingly tragic, increasingly unfortunate and increasingly dooming for all the characters involved-- which is, I think, the point. The timing, the poor luck, the dramatic reactions of the dramatic, emotional characters-- all of these elements arouse the full sympathies of the audience, drawing them with their drama into the play, allowing the audience to experience deep emotions-- I hesitate to call it cathartic, but certainly, it is satisfying to be run through such heights and depths of feeling. The same happens in <I>Oedipus</I>, somewhat-- there are multiple ways the plot could turn, but things unfold so that he experiences the most shame, the worst fall, and Oedipus and everyone go into great detail, great, agonizing detail, about their misfortune.(Granted, Aristotle argued that <I>Oedipus</I> was perfect in its predictability and that the plot was excellent because it was so believable, but you could, I suppose, say that the plot of <I>Hamlet</I> is justified by the characters involved... there isn't any real, solid <I>deus ex machina</I>...).<BR/><BR/>Also, it must be remembered that these are plays, and plays for a different audience. Things are overdone on the stage-- far more overdone than in television or movies-- and for Shakespeare's audience (which was large, rowdy, and expected a REALLY entertaining show) I think they needed to be more overdone. <BR/><BR/>So yes, John. The nature of Shakespeare's plays-- all those seemingly over-the-top elements-- serve to make the play, as you said, "epic."puddlewonderfulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493944663078566264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-44062004952340008462008-11-19T12:12:00.000-06:002008-11-19T12:12:00.000-06:00Ehren -That's what I was talking about with the su...Ehren -<BR/><BR/>That's what I was talking about with the suspension of disbelief Wikipedia link above. From the article, using Superman as an example:<BR/><BR/><I>"Some find it strange that while some audience members took issue with the flimsiness of Superman's disguise, they didn't take issue with the idea of the existence of a superbeing whose only weakness was kryptonite. One arguing from the theory of suspension of disbelief would contend that while Superman's abilities and vulnerabilities are the foundational premises the audience accepted as their part of the initial deal; they did not accept a persistent inability for otherwise normal characters to recognize a close colleague solely because of changes in clothing."</I><BR/><BR/>The more I think about it, all of Shakespeare's plays seem to have critical best-possible or worst-possible luck and/or timing, somewhat convoluted plans to accomplish a seemingly simple goal, and exaggerated reactions from characters within the play - in <I>Romeo and Juliet</I> as I mentioned earlier, for example, all of these elements are present in one form or another. They are also in <I>A Midsummer Night's Dream</I> if I remember right.<BR/><BR/>I suppose these elements serve to heighten the drama in Shakespeare's world and make the climax of each of his plays all the more epic. Or something like that?jphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025877039575908373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-59768430952599408522008-11-18T10:37:00.000-06:002008-11-18T10:37:00.000-06:00I think what's "realistic" varies from story to st...I think what's "realistic" varies from story to story. For example, in Harry Potter it might perfectly realistic for someone to fly on a broomstick and no charcters within the story would question the plausability of that situation because that is realistic for the environment that has been established by the author. However, if the same thing happened in "No Exit" it would seem very incongruous with the established plot line.Ehrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00362383603936557316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-60008703934800551252008-11-18T10:28:00.000-06:002008-11-18T10:28:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ehrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00362383603936557316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-71072983957321547492008-11-17T13:02:00.000-06:002008-11-17T13:02:00.000-06:00I think that the play within a play aspect of Haml...I think that the play within a play aspect of Hamlet is interesting because it allows Hamlet a vessel in which he can portray his passiveness through an action which seems fairly ironic. It also represents an opposite action of Laertes who aggresively wants to kill his father's killer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-35791016991537306792008-11-17T11:00:00.000-06:002008-11-17T11:00:00.000-06:00I didn't like the whole "play within the play" thi...I didn't like the whole "play within the play" thing because I think Hamlet made the play so blatantly obvious that he knew about what the King did. I didn't think there wasn't really anything cunning or witty about it.Carolinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16728633377971167092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-5566564544745528402008-11-13T21:44:00.000-06:002008-11-13T21:44:00.000-06:00I wasn't bothered at all, but I tend to be very wi...I wasn't bothered at all, but I tend to be very willing to suspend <I>all</I> disbelief, sometimes to a fault. I at first assumed <I>The Tin Drum</I> was some brand of magical realism, instead of thinking that Oskar was crazy-- even though Stephanie <I>told me</I> after I read it that one could interpret Oskar to be crazy. <BR/><BR/>The play within a play didn't bother me. Staged, such things are much more fun that one realizes-- there is really so much that is lost in the reading of a Shakespeare play, a good stage version can make an infinite number of interesting bits out of it all. Also, I thought it was quite realistic. Am I the only one who started to feel guilty while reading <I>The Scarlet Letter</I>? I'm no adulteress-- nothing of the sort-- but I still felt a twinge of guilt for all my trespasses unatoned, for all the mean or wrong things I'd done. It's the same thing. Shakespeare's characters are always nervous about the murders they've committed. Unlike criminals portrayed today (who often remain calm during their trials), these are somewhat decent people who have just taken a wrong turn. They make terrible mistakes and feel guilty about them. They realize what they've done. They're very human, very easy to relate to. <BR/><BR/>Also, audiences took pleasure from different little tricks back then, i think. Today, we like postmodern bits, little moments of self-awareness, wherein an actor acknowledges that he or she is part of a play, breaking the fourth wall and the whole fantasy premise that what is going on is real action. I think. I enjoy it, anyway. I've seen audiences laugh quite liberally at such bits. Back then, besides puns, I think audiences enjoyed those little plays within plays, which mimicked the action of the first play-- the outside play-- the real play. Shakespeare certainly liked it; he uses it a lot. And it is kind of cool-- to see characters respond to what are basically their own actions.<BR/><BR/>I really think it is an issue of paradigm, John. Like you said-- today we like hyper-realism. It started with independent films-- movies that captured the awkwardness, the lack of grace in every day life, the clumsiness of it all, the way things don't always work out for the best, but how, sometimes, people manage anyway. And such movies have become quite popular (<I>Juno</I>, I think, is a good example). And we still have some "suspension of disbelief" (good old Coleridge!). For example, we know that the people in <I>Friends</I> could not have had such nice apartments with the jobs they possessed. Or that the characters in the O.C. can't possibly be in high school, firstly because they look like twenty-sometimes, and secondly, because they <I>have way too much time for people attending school</I> (from what I gleaned. I think I've seen a grand total of three episodes). And of course, you have comedies like <I>Pineapple Express</I>, but that's a different story altogether. <BR/><BR/>But I really wasn't bothered at all by the plot elements. His twisty, turny plots are fun, and I like the way he gets everything into a bit knot, then unravels it in the end-- either with lots of death (tragedy), or with marriages for all! (comedy)puddlewonderfulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493944663078566264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-43282593681671342732008-11-13T14:45:00.000-06:002008-11-13T14:45:00.000-06:00Of course not everything has to be super-realistic...Of course not everything has to be super-realistic. I don't mind the use of the ghost of Hamlet's father at all in the play, or the use of other supernatural things.<BR/><BR/>You know about the idea of "suspension of disbelief"?<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief<BR/><BR/>It's like in Superman - where nobody questions that Superman is an indestructible alien being from the planet Krypton, but they call BS when nobody recognizes Superman just because he puts on a suit and a pair of glasses and calls himself Clark Kent.<BR/><BR/>Shakespeare does tend to exaggerate things though, not just in <I>Hamlet</I> but in all his works - like at the end of Romeo and Juliet, when Romeo chooses to kill himself instead of go on with his life without Juliet. That's a little overdone too, I think, but I get to some extent that that's Shakespeare's thing.<BR/><BR/>Maybe the only reason his tenuous plot bothers me is because art today in the form of books and movies mostly try their best to emulate real life. I don't know. Am I the only one bothered by these plot elements?jphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025877039575908373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-61482954451588384302008-11-13T12:55:00.000-06:002008-11-13T12:55:00.000-06:00John are you kidding me? So everything has to be s...John are you kidding me? So everything has to be super-realistic or else it's just terrible?El Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14898094029369562643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-54160000865018555902008-11-13T10:55:00.000-06:002008-11-13T10:55:00.000-06:00I agree with Andrew that Hamlet is acting crazy on...I agree with Andrew that Hamlet is acting crazy on purpose at lease initially, however, I do not think he is acting crazy to divert attention away from himself. If anything, Hamlet's attitude throughout the play has caused Cladius to view him with suspicion and eventually order his execution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-79747473435365534652008-11-13T09:26:00.000-06:002008-11-13T09:26:00.000-06:00el paco said...Even if he did overreact, you have ...<I>el paco said...<BR/>Even if he did overreact, you have to take into account that this is a play. Hamlet has to somehow confirm that Claudius was guilty, and I can't really think of a better way.</I><BR/><BR/>That's weak. If there really is no good way for Hamlet to realistically know for sure that Claudius is guilty, then Shakespeare should've reworked the plot of <I>Hamlet</I> to make it more believable - "it had to be this way because all the other possible plot paths were even more farfetched" isn't a good explanation.<BR/><BR/>I guess I can sort of understand what Shakespeare was going for, but those plot elements still seem precarious to me. I feel like <I>Hamlet</I> doesn't have the flow and logical progression of events that some of the other works we've studied have had (<I>Oedipus?</I>)jphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025877039575908373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-58664950518478015212008-11-13T08:42:00.000-06:002008-11-13T08:42:00.000-06:00Maybe you guys are looking too far into this? Like...Maybe you guys are looking too far into this? Like we said in class, Hamlet is probably acting crazy to stall. It can't possibly be easy to just go and kill someone because a ghost told you to. Also, by acting crazy, Hamlet is trying to divert attention from himself. As for the play, try to put yourself in the king's position. If you had just killed someone in his sleep and a few months afterward you saw a movie about someone killing someone else in his sleep, wouldn't you at least have a mini-freak out? Even if he did overreact, you have to take into account that this is a <I>play</I>. Hamlet has to somehow confirm that Claudius was guilty, and I can't really think of a better way.El Pacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14898094029369562643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-72723952510646947482008-11-13T08:22:00.000-06:002008-11-13T08:22:00.000-06:00I think that hamlet wanted the biggest emotion fro...I think that hamlet wanted the biggest emotion from claudius, so they used the most obvious acts. if they did a subtle play then claudius wouldnt have felt so stronglyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3953690364532718935.post-61758270553984818752008-11-12T19:47:00.000-06:002008-11-12T19:47:00.000-06:00Yes, I was just going to ask that too (John) about...Yes, I was just going to ask that too (John) about the play within the play. Why did Shakespeare make the play within Hamlet almost identical to Hamlet Senior's death? Shakespeare seemed like a pretty clever guy, so why did he make the play so obvious? He didn't bother to just imply it, or use symbols/allegory, he just straight up reenacted the actual murder. Why did he make it so obvious?Ehrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00362383603936557316noreply@blogger.com