Hamlet and Ophelia

Before moving on to Richard III, I wanted to reflect on Hamlet a little bit. This play, like Romeo and Juliet, leaves me feeling frustrated for many reasons. The biggest problem I have with it, however, is the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia and how unresolved the whole thing is. Did Hamlet truly love Ophelia? This is the question I wonder about the most, and it is one that I can't come up with an answer to. In the scene where Hamlet rejects Ophelia, I almost felt that he was doing it to protect her from himself. Hamlet knew he was dealing with some serious issues, and it is possible that he just wanted to keep her out of it. If you were to take that view, then surely Hamlet does love her. Even so, the scene at Ophelia's funeral is an entirely different matter. Hamlet and Laertes end up looking like fools because they are competing over who is most impacted by Ophelia's death. To me, this contradicted Hamlet's earlier appearance. Basically, I'm confused. Any thoughts?

Age and Shakespeare

Isn't it weird how as we age we can develop different opinions of the same thing?  I agree with Jay's post very much.  Everything that happens seems a bit ridiculous to me as a man in college.  Back in high school, 9th grade for me as well, this play seemed so innocent and lovey-dovey.  I can attribute this change in opinion to a simple change in maturity level since 9th grade.  We are now finding out that love doesn't quite work like it does in Romeo and Juliet.  Back in 9th grade, all we really knew about dating was this: step one: notice a cute girl/guy, step two: talk to them, step three: hold their hand in the hallway.  In a sense this is what is happening in Romeo and Juliet, and it makes sense because they are only 14!!!  Even stil, Romeo and Juliet still serves a purpose to us older college students and adults.  I haven't quite figured out exactly what lesson Bill is trying to teach is, but I know there is one.  Perhaps this is why Shakespeare has stood the test of time...His plays can mean different things to different aged people.  Everyone of all ages can take something away from Bill's work, and that is a rare find in any kind of theatre or literature.  

ARGH

There's so many points in R and J where I just grunt to myself and say, "why the hell are they doing this. its so illogical." Why is mercutio out to get into a fight? so that he can die and curse romeo and juliet and make the play a tragedy. Its like deus ex machina. The friar isn't very logical either, and follows the foolish train of thoughts of fourteen year olds. Juliet is threatened to be cast on the streets if she doesn't marry paris, and so instead she choses to run away to mantua with romeo via the potion fake death. Both options leave her disenfranchised to her family fortune, so why not just tell her parent's shes married to romeo. Why does the friar run away when he finds romeo dead and the noises of the guards scare him. Only so juliet can conveniently stab herself alone. When I first read this in high school in ninth grade I thought, "how touching". Now I read it and think, this is dumb, no one has to die. The Zeppereli version was on tv today and I found juliet's gestures and facial expressions amusing. 

Slow Motion

I believe that the concept of time is an interesting one as well, and there is an interesting view of this in the film which was shown on Monday. The movie had a lot of information that had to be condensed into a film, however only spanning three day's of actual time?? The movie was a frantic, fast paced, free for all which was tearing the audience in every which way...except for the times when Romeo and/or Juliet were on the screen. They seemed to be the calming influences and slowed the pace of every scene in which they were apart of to me. With use of language and speeches I believe that Baz Luhrmann, through Shakespeare is implying to us that even in the young love these two characters are beyond their years and that they know or think they know what they are doing to themselves. Even though they were the characters that were supposedly young, inexperienced, and naive they exhibited a calming influence and even a mature sense of being while on camera. However, this is just one interpretation of the play and it could have been done in many other ways this was an interesting way to separate Romeo and Juliet away from all of the other character's by almost putting the scene's which they are in into slow motion compared to the rest of the film. Just wondering if anybody caught this or was it just a figment of my imagination?

Time in Romeo and Juliet

Although we touched on it in discussion, the biggest confusion in Romeo and Juliet for me is the concept of time. The entire play takes place over a three-day span (possibly more, depending on how long we believe Romeo was away in Mantua). However short the time is, the characters of Romeo and Juliet develop a love that would take years to develop in reality. I wonder what Shakespeare is trying to accomplish by portraying their love in this way. When I first read the book, I thought it was the most romantic love story ever. However, this time around I think it could be something else. Either Romeo and Juliet are incredibly immature and Shakespeare wants to show his audience how naïve they are, or it is a parody on the concept of love. I can’t help but compare their love to present day Vegas weddings. Although crude, I feel that one could easily compare two people who meet in Vegas and have a shotgun wedding to Romeo and Juliet. It is spontaneous and there is not much thought that goes into the marriage. I would like to see what others think about this. Maybe I am completely out of line and “dumbing down” the romance that Shakespeare is trying to portray. Thoughts?

My OED word this week actually is quite relevant concerning Jay's post. I researched the term "spirit" in reference to the fairies. One of the dictionary entries for "spirit" was something along the lines of creatures that are unperceived by humans that meddle with their affairs. This, to me, was very applicable to the A Midsummer Night's Dream fairies. Also, the definition said that these "spirits" could make themselves visible at will, which accounts for Titania's appearance to Bottom as well as all the woodland fairies appearance to Theseus' court at his wedding in the final scene. This invisibility of the fairies didn't really dawn on me until Professor Britland showed us a couple clips from the Callista Flockhart/Michelle Pfieffer/Hollywood version. In a couple scenes from that film Oberon and Puck have multiple conversations from what seems like right in front humans (mostly the lovers). I wonder how the lovers overhear or at least see the two fairies. The possibility of the invisibility of the fairies to the humans gives me an entirely different impression of the play. If indeed the fairies are invisible, than they have a lot more control over the mortals than I originally perceived. Obviously they prove to be very controlling, as Oberon basically controls who ends up with who in the end.

One of my favorite characteristics of Bill's plays is their potential to have multiple meanings. I feel like A Midsummer Night's Dream does exceptionally well in this capacity. This comedy really surprised me; having read A Comedy of Errors I had a different expectation of what a "comedy" would be. A Comedy of Errors was a lot of blunders and physical comedy, but A Midsummer Night's Dream (despite it's ridiculousness) has quite a lot of depth, and I value that. I don't think a play has to be a hundred percent dreary and tragic to have some poignant points to it. Your thoughts?

Theseus and Hippolyta

I have not seen the 1981 version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, but earlier today I did watch the 1991 “Hollywood” version (as Professor Britland puts it) with Bale and Flockhart. I know she warned us about how horrible it was, and I completely agree considering it took such a shallow analysis of the play as a whole, but I did think that this particular version had some interesting input in its interpretation. For instance, instead of Hippolyta being completely under Theseus’ control and with no ability to say what she believes, she was portrayed as the one controlling him. I’m not necessarily a huge fan of admitting that Theseus has such absolute control over her throughout the play, even though that may certainly be the case, because it is simply too frustrating. I was able to appreciate then the fact that they had Hippolyta as the person standing up to Theseus and persuading him to excuse the lovers in the end of all they were accused of (even if it was in a sort of a pathetic pouty way that got on my nerves). So really, I was just wondering if anyone else had watched the horrid Hollywood version and if so, what they thought of it. The different ending was pretty thought provoking. As well I wanted to see if anyone else had any input on Theseus and Hippolyta’s relationship, whether it be another viewpoint or just something interesting.