I'm not going to bother with actually replying to every single comment that I wish to because I'm having enough trouble trying to get my computer to post anything lately.
First I'd like to say that the lot of you are less mature than my Gr10 classmates who are mostly a bunch of rowdy, whiny, spoilt rotten, rich brats and hooligans. Where on earth do you people come from?
Yes, I am sixteen years old and a Shakespeare-nerd - I have been reading and watching Shakespeare from the age of three - and yes, I am able to spell words like PEDANTIC.
I also happen to like this version of Hamlet, as well as the older version and the written text (as well as its live performances) is one of my favourite plays by Shakespeare.
Why do people have to resort to personal insults over a difference of opinion? Do we have so little self-esteem, such crushed egos and such tiny self-worth that we have to validate ourselves by attacking others? Do we really think that little of ourselves? Surely if you have any self confidence at all you can recognise that someone with a different opinion isn't a threat - they simply have an alternative point of view. You don't have to agree with it, and they certainly don't have to agree with yours, but the pointless bickering about why the other side is wrong and stupid is exactly that. Wrong. Stupid. Pathetic even. I feel ashamed to be a human being when supposedly mature people are incappable of even behaving up to a three-year olds standards.
I apologise for the fact that this may upset you, and I regret that this may cause some people to react in a negative way which will inconvienience me, but sometimes I just have to share my feelings on the decline of the human state. So if this upsets you, either get over it or have a tantrum and pretend you feel better, because no matter what you do it will not change it what I havve said or the opinion I hold. I have my feelings and opinions and they are just as valid as yours. Deal with it, the rest of us have to.
Now that I have finished my comment on the behaviour of the users who previously posted - not nescessarily all, but a good majority - I can continue to post my thoughts on Hamlet.
I would like to point out that someone misquoted and thus also misinterpreted from the text and stated that Hamlet was infact thirty, which is incorrect.
The correct quote would be:
"First Clown:
Cannot you tell that? every fool can tell that: it/ was the very day that young Hamlet was born; he that/ is mad, and sent into England.
HAMLET
Ay, marry, why was he sent into England?
First Clown:
Why, because he was mad: he shall recover his wits/ there; or, if he do not, it's no great matter there.
HAMLET:
Why?
First Clown:
'Twill, a not be seen in him there; there the men/ are as mad as he.
HAMLET:
How came he mad?
First Clown:
Very strangely, they say.
HAMLET:
How strangely?
First Clown:
Faith, e'en with losing his wits.
HAMLET:
Upon what ground?
First Clown:
Why, here in Denmark: I have been sexton here, man/ and boy, thirty years."
Which would be the Clown stating his how long he has worked as a church official and not Hamlet's age.
Second, in these times it was customary for young men and women to marry at about 12 or 13 years of age (as we witness in Romeo & Juliet, she is not yet fourteen and yet late betrothed) and as Hamlet is a young man and a prince it would be quite reasonable to assume he is not yet twenty, and as unmarried I would not place his age over 17.
Shakespeare was a street-artist really. He wrote plays for the common audience (also the lords, ladies, royalty etc, but his plays where designed to be appreciated by the average-joe on the street) and so I doubt he was really considering his plays living on for centuries - especially since several of them weren't actually written until after his death after which many had to be taken from the memories of the actors who played in them.
However, the themes of his plays are universal, they key into human emotion and action, with some Elizabethan societal skews definitely, and not universal language but they still contain basic storylines which ANYONE can understand. That is where they're appeal lies.
Yet in regards to the language I must stand in its defense: there is so much double entendre and meaning to the words he uses and the way he does so that to change the way it is worded is to lose whole subplots, angles, foreshadowing and even humour and irony from the telling. Just like you cannot tell a pun in different phrasing or language.
Personally I feel that the themes of Hamlet are well portrayed, and in an intriguing and interesting manner. Not only does the movie question life, death, faithfulness, treachery and responsibility, but it also brings into the equation capitalism, modern day values, and commercialization all with plenty of symbolism and of course the psychological elements are very strong.
I think it is a movie that one has to pay attention to to catch some of the meanings, but its worth it, and personally I like thinking films.
I found the characters both believable and accurate representations of themselves. Infact I quite enjoy their performances.
To me the "to be or not to be" scene is perfectly played, as is Ophelia's entire role. Hamlet's dilemma is also excellently portrayed.
As for swapping a kingdom for a corporation, I think the kingdom might have gotten the short end - think about how powerful companies are these days, the really big ones: McDonalds, American Swiss, Starbucks, Microsoft... and countless others. There are so many multi-million, even billion dollar/pound/whatever-currency-you-favour businesses that the private owned ones are quite like kingdoms, if not more powerful.
I do think it would be nice to have all the scenes in the movie, but who wants to watch a screen for 4 hours with no break?
It would be brilliant if they could include all the excluded scenes as extras on the DVD.
At any rate, this film is just someone's INTERPRETATION of the play, it needn't be accurate to the letter, and considering that, they have kept very close to the truth of the thing.
reply
share
Darth_Tybalt
18 years ago
Wait,wait, wait!!!! First, you insult us, then you critize us for insulting each other, then you critize us again. Make up your friggin' mind.
As for your analysis of the play, especially the grave-digger scene (which by some unholy, unfathomable reasoning doesn't even make it into this version) where did you get that? Your flaming, single, depressed high school theater teacher "who hasn't done a single play since being laughed off the stage for doing a crappy one-man show" dictate that for you?
Who wants to sit and stare at a screen for 4 hours? I DO!!! If it's a choice between doing that and watching some unholy piece of crap that only the most horribly untalented director would dare excrete through his rectum, then yes, I'll get a bottle of wine, some cheese and relax for four hours.
I mean, George Lucas is famous for not spotting talent, not catching it when a line is delivered badly, and writing horrible dialouge (not an issue with an adaptation obviously) and he could have done a better job making "Hamlet: In Space" than what this turned into.
Oh what fools these mortals be!
reply
share
SnowLhite
18 years ago
I was not insulting you, I apologise if it seemed that way because of my harsh words, but infact I was trying to point out how immature it is that every single internet debate has to resort to personal insults. Indeed, you have just reinforced my point with your "theatre teacher" jab. Which I'm afraid fails to hit the mark: I do not, and never had a high school theatre teacher, so I watch the proffesionals at my local theatre - which happens to be quite well known for their skill in the performance arts, thank you very much.
And I'd like to inform you that it was not dictated from anyone but the textbook which just happens to be the script, and of course a little bit of understanding.
The note about my age and experience was simply to inform you that I'm not some retarded dweeb who "TypEs lyk DiS"
As for the rest, it is one of my pet peeves that people in their 30s, or at least 20s do not even compete with the good behaviour of a kindergartner. My 5 year old niece and my 3 year old nephew are able to have an arguement without having to insult each other - and yet here are so-called grown-ups that can't. It makes me wonder what society is coming to. How did it get like this? Is it because people feel safe enough behind their computer screens so as to not fear that they will have to suffer consequences for their ridiculous behaviour?
If this were a debate in real life, I'd wager it would either have been much more civil or someone would have hit someone by now.
The whole mindset just doesn't make sense to me, could someone please explain how calling someone stupid/ugly/gay/sonofa-----/anyotherinsultofyourchoice helps you prove your point? To me all I see is someone who is so unable to formulate a proper debate that they have to resort to what are essentially dirty tactics in the hopes of making the other person look foolish because they got upset. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm quite willing to accept the possibility, if only someone would explain the logic to me. As of yet I only see foolishness.
As regards to your wish to sitting infront of a screen for so long, I myself am not averse to long films, but most of the general public is, and aren't willing to sit still for such a time period. Therefore it makes sense that the time would be shortened to something most people can manage by removing anything they can spare - look at the Harry Potter films, fairly important storylines are completely left out. Personally I don't have a problem with the short version of Hamlet, it makes logical sense, but I would love to see a "directors cut" with all the stuff in it...
I think the main problem is that most audiences nowadays don't really understand that much of the dialogue which means that they need everything spelled out visually (there are those who understand the whole of the dialogue, but they are a minority) and this film does not do that - the dialogue is key, as it would have been when played in Shakespeare's day, and the visual cues are subtle, to complement the tone of the piece. This of course causes a problem for the majority of the adience in that they leave not understanding most of the film.
Also, most tend to have rather fixed views about Shakespeare, which would of course influence their tastes and opinions - this is but one way to read the script, there are still thousands more, many even Shakespeare himself couldn't have forseen: like this one.
Are there anymore things in this reply that upset you?
I would like to address them as quickly as possible and set your heart at ease - if that is possible.
reply
share
Darth_Tybalt
18 years ago
Calling people less mature than "Gr10 classmates who are mostly a bunch of rowdy, whiny, spoilt rotten, rich brats and hooligans" isn't insulting? If I said you were more pretentious than Kim Jong Il, would you find that insulting?
I'll admit, even the best and brightest can act childish on the net, but if you don't like it, LOG OFF! (And to think, that was the least offensive way I could have put it.)
OK, back to the movie; this was terrible! Ethan Hawke has done MUCH better work. Julia Styles has never impressed me in anything I've ever seen her. She's like a depressed Kirsten Dunst (who has gotten continually crappier since a shining performance in "Interview With a Vampire"). The adaptation of the fight scene left much to be desired, as did "The Mouse Trap," and all of that crap with Hamlet's monologues made me cringe. And when you cut the gravedigger scene altogether, you cut what you were talking about when you talked about Shakespeare writing for all people of the day. The whole point of the gravedigger scene is to keep the groundlings happy, which, let's face it, at this point in the play they're shuffling their feet. As Hamlet says of the previous comic relief, Polonius they're "for a jig, tale of bawdry, or [they] sleep." He put that in there to entertain the people in the cheap seats. (Not even seats actually).
I'm not a total purist. I really enjoyed Baz Lurhman's take on "Romeo and Juliet," even though they weren't 100% loyal to the script, but this rubbed me the wrong way so badly that I feel it my duty that any high school, college, or intellectual wannabe who wants to cheat his or her way through Hamlet should know NOT to watch this version. (Hell, even the Laurence Olivier was better, and not only is that one outdated, it's a self-righteous piece of manuer.) There, had to get that out there...
Oh what fools these mortals be!
reply
share
SnowLhite
18 years ago
I'm sorry it came across as insulting, but bluntness is one of my faults. y intent was to poit out the ridiculousness of the behaviour rather than the perpetrators. The insult was towards my classmates (who have deserved it in ways not thought possible I'm afraid) and I was really remarking that the general conversation had degenerated into something akin to their spiteful and malicious behaviour. Unfortunately my contempt for them often appears to spill over into other areas.
If what you where really refering to was the fact that I was acting like a pompous ass then no. I'd take it as you stating that I was behaving inappropriately for the situation.
The truth of the matter is one should not HAVE to log off. Is it so much to expect that reasonable, mature people can express their opinions without having to resort to dissing-matches?
Or am I just a bit too much of an idealist?
I cannot reply to your statement about their perfrmances in other films for I am not one who is good with actor/actress names and parts.
If we are going to consider who the audience is, I do agree in Shakespeare's day there would have been many a commoner watching, however nowadays so few people actually care for classics and they are unfortunately read mostly as setworks and academia. Therefore those who are watching would not so much be "common-folk" but those who are at least fairly well read and educated.
Students shouldn't have to cheat their way through school. Perhaps if children were taught properly from birth they'd actually understand what "fie" means and could instead UNDERSTAND their way through school, perhaps even learn.
I agree that this version was not exact to the script, and took some very different approaches too, but I believe it did what it set out to do. Even if that's not how Shakespeare, or many other readers envision it. It is a different look, and it is complete in its own envisionment.
reply
share
Darth_Tybalt
18 years ago
No, the truth of the matter is that some people (not you necessarily) are wayyyyyy to oversensetive. Case in point; my high school classmate whose aunt had a drinking problem and had killed someone in a D.U.I. case. While that's bad, they cringed anytime ANYONE mentioned alcohal in ANY context. That's over the line. I mean, I lost my mom at the age of 11 to brain cancer, but I don't freak out anytime someone mentions someone has cancer, or says that their star sign is cancer.
So yes, the answer is, if you are easily offended, go away. Turn off your computer, disconnect your internet and enjoy hours or hours of solitaire, word processors, and spread sheets. Go nuts on paintbrush if you must, but don't run around telling people what they can/cannot or should/should not say. If that's what you like doing, move to North Korea, China or Cuba.
Regarding the play, yes, few aside from intellectuals (or at the very least educated) will ever watch Shakespeare. (Those being 12-16 year-old girls looking at Leo "'cause he's soooooo hot." Wait, do you girls still use the word "dreamy?") One would think that the intellectuals watching the movie wouldn't want to be slapped across the face with these heavy translations that leave little to the imagination. I personally enjoy rememberring a time when I was reading the play, or thinking how I would have directed that fight scene, delivered that line, or envisioned it in my head.
Looking different is one thing. Being different, not for the sake of art, but just for the sake of being different is idiotic. So many kids have it wrapped around their heads that they have to be different, not because it's who they are, because it's cool not to be like anyone else, and as a result they end up doing the same thing as everyone else. It's the same retarded cycle over and over again until you wish that drugs were legal so they would all die before 21.
Oh what fools these mortals be!
reply
share
HardKnock
18 years ago
Liev Schreiber was amazing but the rest of the movie ran like a bizarre soap opera, I found all of the other characters immensely shallow and annoying.
...World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones ~ Albert Einstein
reply
share
JohnnyUpton12
17 years ago
In V,i, in the lines before he tells us he has been sexton for thirty years, he responds to Hamlet's "How long hast thou been gravemaker?" by telling us he "came to't that day that our last King Hamlet o'ercame Fortinbras...that very day that young Hamlet was born" (145-53). In essence, he tells us that he started as sexton on the day Hamlet was born, thirty years ago. Pretty strong proof of Hamlet's age.
Of course, the idea of a man engaged in study at or after the age of 30 is not unheard of these days, nor would it have been in the 17th century, but when Hamlet's lifestyle is contrasted with those of young Fortinbras and Laertes, an active warrior (warmonger) and an even more active fencer, gambler, "drabber" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drabbing), and hotheaded, riotous revenger, the "trust fund baby" image we get from Hawke still sort of works, even with the age difference. Perhaps I've seen Branagh's version too many times (English teacher), but his "mania" gets old after a while, as it does in every movie in which he appears. Not endorsing the modernized version over the (more) traditional version Branagh gave us, as I agree with many other posters' objections to culled scenes, but a different interpretation is not automatically bad. Remember that Branagh also plays with time to a lesser degree (miniature steam engines in Elizabethan-era Denmark?), and remember also that Shakespeare, deliberately or otherwise, wrote drama with very simple stage direction and set description, allowing us for four hundred years to do with his material what we will. Granted, we get the occasional _Ten Things I Hate About You_, but has anyone seen _Throne of Blood_, Kurasowa's take on Macbeth? Or, for that matter, _Strange Brew_, with Bob and Doug McKenzie as the donut-eating, beer-swilling Canadian Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? And finally, to posters in this strand on BOTH sides of whatever you guys are arguing about, name-calling is not the best way to make yourself look smater than anyone else. We should strive to accept, especially as pertains to art, that taste is subjective. Think, and let think.
reply
share
skyjedifx
16 years ago
Snow, I'm afraid you misinterpretted the line giving Hamlet's age by leaving out a couple of prior ones:
Hamlet: ...How long hast thou been a gravemaker?
1st Clown: Of all the days i' the year, I came to't that day that our last King Hamlet o'ercame Fortinbras.
Hamlet: How long is that since?
1st Clown: Cannot you tell that? Every fool can tell that. It was that very day that young Hamlet was born...
(and skip ahead)
1st Clown: I have been a sexton (i.e., gravemaker) here, man and boy, thirty years.
So, the Clown has been a sexton (gravemaker) for thirty years; and he became a sexton the day that young Hamlet was born. Therefore, Hamlet is thirty.
reply
share