Stephen Colbert certainly has a knack for putting a comedic twist on something that otherwise would not be very funny. During his interview with inaugural poet Elizabeth Alexander, he asked her questions pertaining to poetic style and literary techniques. Through her responses to these questions, a clear contrast becomes apparent between the literary outlook and style of Alexander, and that of the famous Gloucester poet Charles Olson. They differ in both their application of literary techniques, and their personal opinions about what makes these literary techniques important when used in poetry.
Towards the very beginning of Stephen Colbert’s interview with Elizabeth Alexander, he questions her views on poetry as a whole, asking “Poems aren’t true, are they?” While in the context of the interview this is interpreted as a humorous question, he does in fact pose a valid question. Alexander answered Colbert’s question by stating that poems are true in the sense that people “connect” with poems because it “feels true” to them, this would only be accomplished by utilizing a type of closed verse that could be interpreted in a variety of ways. A poem that utilizes a simple structure will be easily connected to by a variety of different people, allowing a variety of different personal connections to the poem. True to her personal beliefs, Alexander’s poem “Praise Song for the Day” uses a strict form with many 3-line stanzas, of about equal length. This allows for it to not only be interpreted on many different personal levels, but it also makes it fairly easy to comprehend. Had Olson been the one to answer this question, I believe that he would have stressed that a poem is ENTIRELY true, that a poem IS a wholly factual and true expression. In his essay “Projective Verse,” Olson states that a poem “is energy transferred . . . By way of the poem itself . . . To the reader.” (Olson) This transfer of energy, in the form of imagery, emotion, and phonetic qualities, is accomplished most accurately by the form of the poem, which the poem “declares, for itself.”(Olson) Olson would respond to Colbert’s question in stating that poems are inherently completely and utterly true, if written in his own personal style of projective verse, because the content and form of the poem is deliberately and precisely constructed to transfer the energy imbued by the poem by the poet. The poem, therefore, is a pure and completely “true” representation of the energy combined with the intent of the poet. These factors, present in Olson’s poetry, are meant to generate a SINGLE interpretation of the poem - the poem’s true meaning - for the reader to comprehend. On a more superficial level, Olson’s poetry centered greatly around the urbanization of Gloucester, and the way that this emotionally impacted him. He analyzed human society, culture, history, and his own personal views on said topics through his poetry. In this sense, his subject matter was entirely true and factual.
Another important question that Colbert asked Alexander was the humorous, but thought-provoking, “What’s the difference between a metaphor and a lie?” He elaborates by asking, “Why not just say what you mean instead of dressing things up in . . . flowery language?” According to Alexander, metaphors are simply modes of “comparison” that add more meaning to the text, or add multiple layers to an otherwise mundane text. Olson, on the other hand, would most likely have disagreed with this statement. According to Olson, “flowery” language impacts the reader through the interaction of the phonetics, the syllables of the words, with the breath of the spoken word when the poem is read aloud. Using flowery metaphors, for Olson, adds a whole new dimension to his poetry. He says in “Projective Verse” that syllables “juxtapose [words] in beauty,” and that the power of a specific verse of poetry is dependent on wether or not the poet “manages to register both the acquisitions of his ear and the pressures of his breath.” Instead of using mundane vocabulary, the introduction of flowery language can create splendid patterns of syllables, and can give the poem a wonderful feeling when read aloud by the musicality of the spoken words. This is referenced by Alexander earlier on in the interview, where she explains that the importance of language that is “de-centered enough” from the normal application of language that it makes you “stop and think” about the meaning behind the words.
Based on the difference between Olson’s and Alexander’s writing styles, it is safe to assume that had Olson been in Alexander’s place during this interview, there would have been a distinct difference in the way that he answered Colbert’s questions. His ornate but precise writing style would have shown through, as opposed to Alexander’s more mundane and freely-flowing style of poetry.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Senior Research Paper - Artist Choice Proposal
Emma
30 January 2009
Dear Mr. Gallagher,
I would love to do Chuck Close for my artist research paper project. I am very fond of the photorealism style of painting, and it is something that I have been working towards developing my skill in ever since I discovered it my sophomore year. Also, I have been personally experimenting with more abstract forms of artwork, and his realistic portraits of people, such as the hyperlinked Emma are extremely appealing to me because they are composed solely from abstractly-colored tiles. It is a style of painting that I aspire to develop over time.
www.whitecube.com states "Close’s method of painting is always indexical, an incremental process whereby associative colours and shapes build up a pictorial syntax and a recognisable figurative whole." This reminds me of specific types of abstract poetry or literature, where individual parts do not make sense, but the meaning becomes apparent when viewed as a whole. His use of conflicting colors (warm juxtaposed with cold) and shapes to create a unified portrait is extremely interesting, and would be fun to explore as a connection to literary writing style.
Sincerely,
Matthew Zunitch
30 January 2009
Dear Mr. Gallagher,
I would love to do Chuck Close for my artist research paper project. I am very fond of the photorealism style of painting, and it is something that I have been working towards developing my skill in ever since I discovered it my sophomore year. Also, I have been personally experimenting with more abstract forms of artwork, and his realistic portraits of people, such as the hyperlinked Emma are extremely appealing to me because they are composed solely from abstractly-colored tiles. It is a style of painting that I aspire to develop over time.
www.whitecube.com states "Close’s method of painting is always indexical, an incremental process whereby associative colours and shapes build up a pictorial syntax and a recognisable figurative whole." This reminds me of specific types of abstract poetry or literature, where individual parts do not make sense, but the meaning becomes apparent when viewed as a whole. His use of conflicting colors (warm juxtaposed with cold) and shapes to create a unified portrait is extremely interesting, and would be fun to explore as a connection to literary writing style.
Sincerely,
Matthew Zunitch
Hamlet 1:2 Video Analysis Blog
In comparing the two movie versions of Act 1 Scene 2 of Hamlet, I have come to the conclusion that the Laurence Oliveir version is superior both in accuracy of tone, and quality of acting. This part of the play deals with Hamlet’s recollection of his incestuous mother, and because of the secret subject matter of the soliloquy, I personally would expect the tone of any actor reading these lines to be contemplative and angst-ridden. I believe that the Laurence Oliveir version most accurately portrays the tone of Hamlet as I envisioned it, as well as the scene in general because it portrays these lines as being thoughts of Hamlet, not his spoken words.
The main reason that I do not think the Kenneth Branagh interpretation is the most accurate is because, to me, the tone of the performance is extremely off. When I personally read the Hamlet soliloquy, it seemed like an honest attack on his mother’s reputation. Because of this, I envisioned Hamlet to be extremely angry, bitter, and to have a caustic tone in his voice. When Branagh performed the soliloquy, he seems to be on the verge of tears throughout most of the performance. His portrayal was far more whiney than how I envisioned it to be, and it made Hamlet appear to be the victim of the situation instead of on the giving end of an insult. I read Hamlet’s lines as being more aggressive and deliberately hurtful, while to me Branagh’s portrayal of Hamlet made him seem like he is merely complaining about his mother. He seems on the verge of tears during parts where I would expect Hamlet to be angry. Yes, there were spurts of anger that were appropriate, but they would quickly (and oddly) switch back to a calm, almost whiney tone. This odd changeability of Hamlet’s emotions made the entire scene awkward to watch, and did not lend much credibility to the actor’s skill level.
On the other hand, I found the Oliveir version of the scene to be far more accurate to the way I envisioned the scene to play out. Because the majority of the soliloquy is spoken inside Laurence Oliveir’s head, and portrayed in the movie as Hamlet’s thoughts, it lacks the impact that the oral presentation has. It better captures the contemplative moments of the scene, such as the lines, “O God! God!/ How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable, / Seem to me all the uses of this world!” In the Oliveir scene, this is accomplished by showing the viewer a close-up of Hamlet’s face, while these lines play with a melancholy tone. Hamlet’s lips do not move, leading the viewer to assume that these are Hamlet’s thoughts, not his spoken words. I believe this version more accurately portrays the scene because the phrase simply sounds awkward when spoken aloud by Kenneth Branagh, both tone-wise and merely because they do not seem like words that would actually be spoken aloud. Throughout the scene, Branagh seems as if he is complaining about something instead of expressing his contempt for his mother’s incestuous behavior. On the contrary, they are received quite naturally by the audience when they are presented as the melancholy, contemplative thoughts of Hamlet, as in the Laurence Oliveir version.
Another advantage to having the scene performed as if they are the thoughts of Hamlet is that it amplifies the appearance of Hamlet imagining certain situations. During the time when the lines “'tis an unweeded garden, / That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature / Possess it merely.” are being spoken, Oliveir as Hamlet is slowly walking towards the edge of the frame, gazing off into the distance at some unknown object. Because of his location, in some great hall, it appears to the viewer that Hamlet is imagining this great hall, or even the entire kingdom, as the “unweeded garden” which he is speaking about. Also, at the very end of the scene, there is a dramatic moment where Hamlet reveals to the audience that the horrible actions of his mother that he has been talking about during the soliloquy can’t even be revealed to the general public. During the final lines of his soliloquy, Oliveir as Hamlet sits down into a chair, and gazes mournfully out into the distance as his thoughts speak “But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue.”
While both modernized interpretations of Hamlet, I believe that the Oliveir version of the performance is more accurate to the way that Shakespeare intended for it to be performed. Through the use of technology, Hamlet’s secret and angst-ridden thoughts about his incestuous mother are portrayed quite nicely, adding to the tone of the scene and maximizing the apparent internal conflict that Hamlet is experiencing.
The main reason that I do not think the Kenneth Branagh interpretation is the most accurate is because, to me, the tone of the performance is extremely off. When I personally read the Hamlet soliloquy, it seemed like an honest attack on his mother’s reputation. Because of this, I envisioned Hamlet to be extremely angry, bitter, and to have a caustic tone in his voice. When Branagh performed the soliloquy, he seems to be on the verge of tears throughout most of the performance. His portrayal was far more whiney than how I envisioned it to be, and it made Hamlet appear to be the victim of the situation instead of on the giving end of an insult. I read Hamlet’s lines as being more aggressive and deliberately hurtful, while to me Branagh’s portrayal of Hamlet made him seem like he is merely complaining about his mother. He seems on the verge of tears during parts where I would expect Hamlet to be angry. Yes, there were spurts of anger that were appropriate, but they would quickly (and oddly) switch back to a calm, almost whiney tone. This odd changeability of Hamlet’s emotions made the entire scene awkward to watch, and did not lend much credibility to the actor’s skill level.
On the other hand, I found the Oliveir version of the scene to be far more accurate to the way I envisioned the scene to play out. Because the majority of the soliloquy is spoken inside Laurence Oliveir’s head, and portrayed in the movie as Hamlet’s thoughts, it lacks the impact that the oral presentation has. It better captures the contemplative moments of the scene, such as the lines, “O God! God!/ How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable, / Seem to me all the uses of this world!” In the Oliveir scene, this is accomplished by showing the viewer a close-up of Hamlet’s face, while these lines play with a melancholy tone. Hamlet’s lips do not move, leading the viewer to assume that these are Hamlet’s thoughts, not his spoken words. I believe this version more accurately portrays the scene because the phrase simply sounds awkward when spoken aloud by Kenneth Branagh, both tone-wise and merely because they do not seem like words that would actually be spoken aloud. Throughout the scene, Branagh seems as if he is complaining about something instead of expressing his contempt for his mother’s incestuous behavior. On the contrary, they are received quite naturally by the audience when they are presented as the melancholy, contemplative thoughts of Hamlet, as in the Laurence Oliveir version.
Another advantage to having the scene performed as if they are the thoughts of Hamlet is that it amplifies the appearance of Hamlet imagining certain situations. During the time when the lines “'tis an unweeded garden, / That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature / Possess it merely.” are being spoken, Oliveir as Hamlet is slowly walking towards the edge of the frame, gazing off into the distance at some unknown object. Because of his location, in some great hall, it appears to the viewer that Hamlet is imagining this great hall, or even the entire kingdom, as the “unweeded garden” which he is speaking about. Also, at the very end of the scene, there is a dramatic moment where Hamlet reveals to the audience that the horrible actions of his mother that he has been talking about during the soliloquy can’t even be revealed to the general public. During the final lines of his soliloquy, Oliveir as Hamlet sits down into a chair, and gazes mournfully out into the distance as his thoughts speak “But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue.”
While both modernized interpretations of Hamlet, I believe that the Oliveir version of the performance is more accurate to the way that Shakespeare intended for it to be performed. Through the use of technology, Hamlet’s secret and angst-ridden thoughts about his incestuous mother are portrayed quite nicely, adding to the tone of the scene and maximizing the apparent internal conflict that Hamlet is experiencing.
Chuck Close Observational Free-Write - Emma
Emma
When I look at the painting of “Emma” by Chuck Close, I see a grid made up of diamond-shaped sections, very small sections, a diagonal grid - not a vertical grid; the squares are made up of tons of different colors that are indistinct when viewed up close but when the painting is viewed from far away all of the colors blend together and form a coherent and descriptive painting. The background, and especially the skin, is made up of colors that I would not necessarily imagine putting together. The entire painting is made up of diamonds that are filled with many many different layers of paints of different colors that when viewed from afar blend together to create the proper hue. The skin itself seems to be made primarily out of varying hues of red, orange, yellow, purple, green, peach, and other skin tones. There does not seem to be any brown used in the painting except in very small amounts and in shaded areas. The eyes themselves are made up of primarily blue, teal, and aqua colors but also include purples and pinks in order to provide contrast and to neutralize the blue tones. In order to create specific curvatures that are not easily apparent using the angular grid method, I see parts of the painting that contain many-layered ovals or banana-shaped sections. Up on the baby’s forehead, there appears to be parts that resemble an amoeba. I also see sparingly scattered across the background regions of color that resemble either boomerangs or capital L’s. In order to create white areas such as the whites of the baby’s eyes or the white stripes on the baby’s shirt, combinations of extremely light tints of varying hues are employed in the same concentric ring style used in the rest of the painting. My art teacher tells me that I’m not supposed to use pure black in any painting except for the pupils of the eyes but this baby seems to have black not only in the pupils of the eyes but also in various parts of the hair. The pupils of the eyes are the only object in the entire painting aside from the various oval and banana-shaped sections that are not strictly locked into the pre-set grid. These pupils are the only part of the entire painting that are perfectly circular all in themselves without any kind of grid around them. One of these pupils are located instead of a diamond box but the other is located at the nexus between four different diamonds. The highlights of the baby’s face are created from grid boxes that are filled with primarily layers of yellow tints, while the shadows on the baby’s face are created by primarily using tints of violet. This is interesting because violet and yellow are complimentary colors and the combined nature of the colors should cancel each other out and create a neutral tone such as grey or brown. Mid tones on the baby’s face are created using primarily green and orange, which is interesting because green and orange are more or less analogous to yellow on the color wheel and are both equidistant from both violet and yellow on the color wheel. Another thing that I noticed is that again, my art teacher told me to never use pure white in a composition or art piece while I am in her class but Chuck Close utilized a pure white hue, or at least one that registers as pure white to my eyes, in the whites of the baby’s eyes and the baby’s shirt. There are also small dots of what appears to be pure white in the baby’s eyes which serve as sources of reflected light. From far away the baby’s eyebrows are apparent but when viewed from up close they are almost indiscernible. By viewing the composition far away and marking the position of the eyebrows I have been able to deduce that they are formed from combining primarily hues of orange and violet, and that when viewed up close they seem to blend into the myriad of chaotic colors that fill up the grid. My analysis of the color composition of the portrait also leads me to observe that there is a general lack of shades of green, opposed to the many other colors used in the portrait. Although there is an abundance of red, blue, violet, and orange shades, the only location that I am able to see shades of green is in the upper left hand corner of the background and the darkest shadows under the baby’s chin on the viewer’s left side. Aside from that, the only other uses of green are in very light tints. These tints are almost pastel-colored, and seem to float towards the green-green-blue section of the color wheel. They are almost what some people would call “seafoam green”. I find it extremely interesting that within each gridded diamond or shape contained within this portrait, there is no less than three different rings of color that blend together to form a single hue when viewed from far away. From what I can observe, no single diamond-shaped region has any less than three different hues in it either. There does not appear to be any diamond that contains two or less layers of color, nor can I spot any regions that contain any less than three entirely different colors. It is my personal observation that there is often multiple tints or shades of the same hue within a single region, but they are never the exact same hue. Upon closer observation, I have found that there are regions on the face of the baby that have the exact same hue as their outermost layer of color, leading me to believe that the artist Chuck Close initially painted large solid regions of the same hue before going over these areas again with the concentric rings of different hues, shades, and tints.
When I look at the painting of “Emma” by Chuck Close, I see a grid made up of diamond-shaped sections, very small sections, a diagonal grid - not a vertical grid; the squares are made up of tons of different colors that are indistinct when viewed up close but when the painting is viewed from far away all of the colors blend together and form a coherent and descriptive painting. The background, and especially the skin, is made up of colors that I would not necessarily imagine putting together. The entire painting is made up of diamonds that are filled with many many different layers of paints of different colors that when viewed from afar blend together to create the proper hue. The skin itself seems to be made primarily out of varying hues of red, orange, yellow, purple, green, peach, and other skin tones. There does not seem to be any brown used in the painting except in very small amounts and in shaded areas. The eyes themselves are made up of primarily blue, teal, and aqua colors but also include purples and pinks in order to provide contrast and to neutralize the blue tones. In order to create specific curvatures that are not easily apparent using the angular grid method, I see parts of the painting that contain many-layered ovals or banana-shaped sections. Up on the baby’s forehead, there appears to be parts that resemble an amoeba. I also see sparingly scattered across the background regions of color that resemble either boomerangs or capital L’s. In order to create white areas such as the whites of the baby’s eyes or the white stripes on the baby’s shirt, combinations of extremely light tints of varying hues are employed in the same concentric ring style used in the rest of the painting. My art teacher tells me that I’m not supposed to use pure black in any painting except for the pupils of the eyes but this baby seems to have black not only in the pupils of the eyes but also in various parts of the hair. The pupils of the eyes are the only object in the entire painting aside from the various oval and banana-shaped sections that are not strictly locked into the pre-set grid. These pupils are the only part of the entire painting that are perfectly circular all in themselves without any kind of grid around them. One of these pupils are located instead of a diamond box but the other is located at the nexus between four different diamonds. The highlights of the baby’s face are created from grid boxes that are filled with primarily layers of yellow tints, while the shadows on the baby’s face are created by primarily using tints of violet. This is interesting because violet and yellow are complimentary colors and the combined nature of the colors should cancel each other out and create a neutral tone such as grey or brown. Mid tones on the baby’s face are created using primarily green and orange, which is interesting because green and orange are more or less analogous to yellow on the color wheel and are both equidistant from both violet and yellow on the color wheel. Another thing that I noticed is that again, my art teacher told me to never use pure white in a composition or art piece while I am in her class but Chuck Close utilized a pure white hue, or at least one that registers as pure white to my eyes, in the whites of the baby’s eyes and the baby’s shirt. There are also small dots of what appears to be pure white in the baby’s eyes which serve as sources of reflected light. From far away the baby’s eyebrows are apparent but when viewed from up close they are almost indiscernible. By viewing the composition far away and marking the position of the eyebrows I have been able to deduce that they are formed from combining primarily hues of orange and violet, and that when viewed up close they seem to blend into the myriad of chaotic colors that fill up the grid. My analysis of the color composition of the portrait also leads me to observe that there is a general lack of shades of green, opposed to the many other colors used in the portrait. Although there is an abundance of red, blue, violet, and orange shades, the only location that I am able to see shades of green is in the upper left hand corner of the background and the darkest shadows under the baby’s chin on the viewer’s left side. Aside from that, the only other uses of green are in very light tints. These tints are almost pastel-colored, and seem to float towards the green-green-blue section of the color wheel. They are almost what some people would call “seafoam green”. I find it extremely interesting that within each gridded diamond or shape contained within this portrait, there is no less than three different rings of color that blend together to form a single hue when viewed from far away. From what I can observe, no single diamond-shaped region has any less than three different hues in it either. There does not appear to be any diamond that contains two or less layers of color, nor can I spot any regions that contain any less than three entirely different colors. It is my personal observation that there is often multiple tints or shades of the same hue within a single region, but they are never the exact same hue. Upon closer observation, I have found that there are regions on the face of the baby that have the exact same hue as their outermost layer of color, leading me to believe that the artist Chuck Close initially painted large solid regions of the same hue before going over these areas again with the concentric rings of different hues, shades, and tints.
Hamlet 3:1 Video Analysis Blog
Out of the three movie versions of Hamlet, Act 3 - Scene 1, presented here, the Lawrence Olivier version best portrays Hamlet’s thoughts, emotions, and actions during his most famous soliloquy. The power of the scene is derived not from over-emotional portrayals, but by a combination of interesting cinematography, precisely-designed musical pieces, and the acting of Lawrence Olivier himself. While Olivier as Hamlet does not show the raging emotion that may be expected during such a climactic scene, the piece is masterfully crafted so that the actor is not the dominating force in the movie on purpose. It is the interaction between the implied emotions of Olivier as Hamlet, the cinematography, and the background music generate an exceedingly wholesome and powerful portrayal of Lord Hamlet’s philosophical battle with himself.
The cinematography of the Lawrence Olivier version of Hamlet’s soliloquy is phenomenal. At the exposition of the scene, the screen is dominated by a high and foreboding perspective, with the camera floating above Hamlet’s head, who is standing on the edge of the roof of a high tower. The camera slowly zooms in on the back of Hamlet’s skull, until all is darkness. This is a great symbolic act which represents the viewer of the movie merging into Hamlet’s dark psyche and tortured mind themselves. Emerging on the other side, the viewer is now seeing through the eyes of Hamlet, which are gazing down at the crashing waves below. This is greatly symbolic of Hamlet’s mind, which, like his physical body, is teetering on the edge of destruction, represented by the high cliff with tumultuous waves below.
Aside from the physical scenery present, Olivier’s portrayal of Hamlet is by far the most convincing, and the most accurate to proper interpretation of the play. Hamlet consistently stares off into the abstract distance throughout the majority of the scene, with a stoic face and steady, slow voice. His vacant expression seems quite natural upon a man who has been drawn to deep introversion by “a sea of troubles” (58) and supernatural horrors. When he moves, Olivier as Hamlet moves slowly, steadily, and deliberately as he reaches for the dagger strapped to his hip. This, too, is received by the viewer as extremely natural because Hamlet himself, through the verbal expression of this soliloquy, admits to being torn in two directions and towards two courses of action. He seems as if he is in a state of mystical stupor, possession, and bewilderment as his thoughts are played out for the audience to hear. He seems to be almost consoling himself by pondering what it means “to die, to sleep,” (59) and how it would put an end to the “heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks/ that flesh is heir to.” (61-62) While these thoughts are heard, the camera starts to zoom in on his face, and there appears to be a slight smirk across Hamlet’s face as he contemplates this release from his earthly demons. This parallels the slow, dreamy pace of the soliloquy at this point, where it truly depicts a state of confusion and conflicting thoughts ebbing and flowing against each other.
Aside from Olivier’s actual voice lending an eerie tone to the scene, the presence of music is also a great amplifier of the tone. During the beginning of Hamlet’s soliloquy, slow, drawn-out notes can be heard as he is speaking the words “To die, to sleep - / no more, and by a sleep to say we end / the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks / that flesh is heir to.” These low, melodic tones greatly accentuate the dreamy nature of this scene by lulling the audience the same way that these words seem to have a tranquilizing effect on Hamlet in the scene. This lullaby of sorts is suddenly and abruptly interrupted by shrill instrumental blasts and rhythmic beats of drums, which resemble a quickening human heartbeat. The music pieces are the auditory embodiments of the emotions felt by Hamlet in this scene, as he is apparently thrown off balance by a sudden burst of horror which accompanies the shrill musical blasts. The beating drums are left to be interpreted as the loud pounding of Hamlet’s own terrified heart.
Immediately following this outburst is a wider shot of Hamlet, who is now reclining awkwardly on a large stone upon the roof of what is presumably the castle. From this angle, Hamlet is seen as reclining with the clouds in the sky at his back. This has an interesting symbolic interpretation, because as he speaks the words “For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, / when we have shuffled off this mortal coil,” we can clearly see that his mind is metaphorically, as well as literally, in the clouds. As he contemplates the release of death, he gazes up at the cloud-covered sky with almost a sense of longing.
These frequent changes of emotion seem almost natural in Hamlet’s cloud-filled mind, and as he moves towards the end of the soliloquy the camera reverts back to a shot of the ocean tides moving far below. The rocky shore and frothy waves below signify both the literal rock bottom that Hamlet could hit (should he fall off the edge of the castle), as well as the metaphorical rock bottom that his madness could bring him to experience. As the scene ends, Hamlet curiously walks away from the camera, into the fog, and simultaneously down a flight of steps. This is directly representative of his deteriorating mental state- his descent into madness, and the clouding over of his reason.
The cinematography of the Lawrence Olivier version of Hamlet’s soliloquy is phenomenal. At the exposition of the scene, the screen is dominated by a high and foreboding perspective, with the camera floating above Hamlet’s head, who is standing on the edge of the roof of a high tower. The camera slowly zooms in on the back of Hamlet’s skull, until all is darkness. This is a great symbolic act which represents the viewer of the movie merging into Hamlet’s dark psyche and tortured mind themselves. Emerging on the other side, the viewer is now seeing through the eyes of Hamlet, which are gazing down at the crashing waves below. This is greatly symbolic of Hamlet’s mind, which, like his physical body, is teetering on the edge of destruction, represented by the high cliff with tumultuous waves below.
Aside from the physical scenery present, Olivier’s portrayal of Hamlet is by far the most convincing, and the most accurate to proper interpretation of the play. Hamlet consistently stares off into the abstract distance throughout the majority of the scene, with a stoic face and steady, slow voice. His vacant expression seems quite natural upon a man who has been drawn to deep introversion by “a sea of troubles” (58) and supernatural horrors. When he moves, Olivier as Hamlet moves slowly, steadily, and deliberately as he reaches for the dagger strapped to his hip. This, too, is received by the viewer as extremely natural because Hamlet himself, through the verbal expression of this soliloquy, admits to being torn in two directions and towards two courses of action. He seems as if he is in a state of mystical stupor, possession, and bewilderment as his thoughts are played out for the audience to hear. He seems to be almost consoling himself by pondering what it means “to die, to sleep,” (59) and how it would put an end to the “heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks/ that flesh is heir to.” (61-62) While these thoughts are heard, the camera starts to zoom in on his face, and there appears to be a slight smirk across Hamlet’s face as he contemplates this release from his earthly demons. This parallels the slow, dreamy pace of the soliloquy at this point, where it truly depicts a state of confusion and conflicting thoughts ebbing and flowing against each other.
Aside from Olivier’s actual voice lending an eerie tone to the scene, the presence of music is also a great amplifier of the tone. During the beginning of Hamlet’s soliloquy, slow, drawn-out notes can be heard as he is speaking the words “To die, to sleep - / no more, and by a sleep to say we end / the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks / that flesh is heir to.” These low, melodic tones greatly accentuate the dreamy nature of this scene by lulling the audience the same way that these words seem to have a tranquilizing effect on Hamlet in the scene. This lullaby of sorts is suddenly and abruptly interrupted by shrill instrumental blasts and rhythmic beats of drums, which resemble a quickening human heartbeat. The music pieces are the auditory embodiments of the emotions felt by Hamlet in this scene, as he is apparently thrown off balance by a sudden burst of horror which accompanies the shrill musical blasts. The beating drums are left to be interpreted as the loud pounding of Hamlet’s own terrified heart.
Immediately following this outburst is a wider shot of Hamlet, who is now reclining awkwardly on a large stone upon the roof of what is presumably the castle. From this angle, Hamlet is seen as reclining with the clouds in the sky at his back. This has an interesting symbolic interpretation, because as he speaks the words “For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, / when we have shuffled off this mortal coil,” we can clearly see that his mind is metaphorically, as well as literally, in the clouds. As he contemplates the release of death, he gazes up at the cloud-covered sky with almost a sense of longing.
These frequent changes of emotion seem almost natural in Hamlet’s cloud-filled mind, and as he moves towards the end of the soliloquy the camera reverts back to a shot of the ocean tides moving far below. The rocky shore and frothy waves below signify both the literal rock bottom that Hamlet could hit (should he fall off the edge of the castle), as well as the metaphorical rock bottom that his madness could bring him to experience. As the scene ends, Hamlet curiously walks away from the camera, into the fog, and simultaneously down a flight of steps. This is directly representative of his deteriorating mental state- his descent into madness, and the clouding over of his reason.
Hamlet - "Cast A Character" Assignment
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, one of the most mysterious and layered characters in the entire play is that of Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude. The Queen is gradually exposed over the course of the play to be a more and more evil character, as her incestuous and deceptive nature gradually begins to shine forth. I would plan to direct the play in movie form, in order to account for certain “special effects” such as flashbacks and multiple, changing points of view in order to portray her as the dark and brooding character that I interpreted her to be.
As I explored my memory for actresses that would best fit the role of Gertrude in my rendition of Hamlet, a single actress stood out among all others. I knew that in order to be the perfect match for the role, an actress would need to be able to satisfy a lot of different roles and display many different sides to the same person. For example, Queen Gertrude is portrayed in various parts of Hamlet as vulnerable, weak-willed, feminine, and seductive. She also is portrayed as strong, defiant, and is even portrayed at times to have a cunning and evil side. For this reason, I would need to hire an actress who’s face could easily assume all of these different roles perfectly. I would need someone with strong facial features, whose countenance could simultaneously appear to be both beautiful and feminine, as well as strong and cunning. I immediately resolved that Cate Blanchett would perfectly fill this role, as her face perfectly assumes many of these roles throughout the movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age.
For a costume, I would portray Queen Gertrude to have exceedingly regal and exquisite attire. The extremely flashy attire worn by the Queen would mirror her innate drive and addiction to power. These clothes, in addition to being ornate and beautiful, would also be quite revealing in my rendition of Hamlet. This would also attest to the Queen’s incestuous and sexually-charged character who runs to the “loving arms” of her murdered husband’s brother. A perfect example of such attire can be seen here, worn by Cate Blanchett herself on the set of the movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age. The dress she is wearing is regal, elegant, flashy, and also slightly revealing in comparison to the standard of attire of that age. As for the colors of her attire, I believe it would be the most interesting if the Queen were to wear clothing that was primarily red, brown, or black. This would be to symbolize through the use of color her darker passions, and her ability to cloud and muddy the truth. The color red, especially, may easily represent lust, passion, anger, and spilled blood- all things that would easily be associated with the Queen.
When delivering her lines, I would direct Cate Blanchett to not only administer the lines exactly as they are written in the play, but to have a sly, sensual, even seductive tone with them whenever possible. This would hint at the obvious and pronounced physical relationship between her and King Claudius, and the evil, incestuous nature of said relationship. When speaking to King Claudius, in particular, I would have her employ the use of this tempting and suggestive tone frequently in order to portray her as a sexually-charged and controlling woman. This tone’s secondary effect would cause the audience to more greatly sympathize with Hamlet, especially in Act 3, Scene 4 when he finally confronts the Queen about her incestuous and despicable behavior. If, up until this point in the play, Queen Gertrude had been consistently portrayed as a strong, controlling, and powerful woman, the audience would clearly interpret her cries of “O, speak to me no more! / These words like daggers enter in my ears.” (Act3:4, lines 94-95) as feigning weakness and helplessness. This would not be registered as a façade however in the ears of Polonious, who remains hidden behind a curtain. To an outside observer such as himself, this violent interaction between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude would appear as if Hamlet is properly insane, and verbally attacking the “helpless” Queen. To the audience, however, this would set up situational irony because observers, having extensive knowledge of the Queen’s personality and behavior up until this point, would know that this is a façade in order to facilitate sympathy. This would build on the Queen’s reputation for being a liar, a cheat, and a powerful antagonist of the play. The Queen’s strong and cunning personality would again come into play later on during this same scene when Hamlet begins to interact with the spirit of his murdered father. When the queen claims to not see the spirit, speaking the lines “[I see] nothing at all, yet all that is I see,” (Act3:4, line 133) we are expected to believe that she is deceiving Hamlet.
The second major scene in the play where Queen Gertrude’s dark side is displayed is when she bluntly throws upon Laertes the news of his sister’s death. Here, the stern face of Cate Blanchett would be ideal in showing the lack of sympathy obviously present in the written play. During this scene in particular, I would cast Queen Gertrude as wearing a primarily black dress, with red accents. I would identify this part in the play as being the pinnacle of the Queen’s evil action, and this would be reflected in her attire. The red accents on the black dress- perhaps long, flowing designs or ribbons of fabric down her sides or arms – would serve to symbolize blood flowing over her. This is because in this scene I would like to accentuate the theory that the Queen murdered Ophelia. This is based mostly on the fact that the Queen recounts such a detailed account of Ophelia’s drowning to Laertes, that it would mean that she either observed the drowning take place and neglected to help Ophelia, or the Queen murdered Ophelia herself and then passed the death off as an accidental suicide. As the queen spoke the lines, “When down her weedy trophies and herself / fell in the weeping brook… Till that her garments, heavy with their drink, / Pull’d the poor wretch from her melodious lay / To muddy death,” (Act5:1, lines 174 – 183) the movie would flash back to a dramatic scene where the queen herself is shown forcibly holding Ophelia underwater until she drowned, with a murderous glare in her eye. The juxtaposition between what the queen is describing in her speech to Laertes and what is being recounted in her flashback would further develop her character as an evil, deceptive, and power-hungry woman.
In my rendition of Hamelt, these qualities bestowed upon Queen Gertrude would not only develop her own character greatly, but they would help to develop the characters of those around her. Her deceptive nature would lend credibility to Hamlet’s visions of his deceased father, and her suggestive character would further back up Hamlet’s accusations of her being incestuous. Through her evil nature, she would inadvertently help gain the audience’s sympathy for Hamlet. She would also perfectly match the evil and dark nature of her husband, King Claudius, because in my version she would be blatantly exposed as a murderer. By doing this she and King Claudius would be further shown to be kindred spirits, joined by their evil inclinations, as the King also had murdered someone in the past.
As I explored my memory for actresses that would best fit the role of Gertrude in my rendition of Hamlet, a single actress stood out among all others. I knew that in order to be the perfect match for the role, an actress would need to be able to satisfy a lot of different roles and display many different sides to the same person. For example, Queen Gertrude is portrayed in various parts of Hamlet as vulnerable, weak-willed, feminine, and seductive. She also is portrayed as strong, defiant, and is even portrayed at times to have a cunning and evil side. For this reason, I would need to hire an actress who’s face could easily assume all of these different roles perfectly. I would need someone with strong facial features, whose countenance could simultaneously appear to be both beautiful and feminine, as well as strong and cunning. I immediately resolved that Cate Blanchett would perfectly fill this role, as her face perfectly assumes many of these roles throughout the movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age.
For a costume, I would portray Queen Gertrude to have exceedingly regal and exquisite attire. The extremely flashy attire worn by the Queen would mirror her innate drive and addiction to power. These clothes, in addition to being ornate and beautiful, would also be quite revealing in my rendition of Hamlet. This would also attest to the Queen’s incestuous and sexually-charged character who runs to the “loving arms” of her murdered husband’s brother. A perfect example of such attire can be seen here, worn by Cate Blanchett herself on the set of the movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age. The dress she is wearing is regal, elegant, flashy, and also slightly revealing in comparison to the standard of attire of that age. As for the colors of her attire, I believe it would be the most interesting if the Queen were to wear clothing that was primarily red, brown, or black. This would be to symbolize through the use of color her darker passions, and her ability to cloud and muddy the truth. The color red, especially, may easily represent lust, passion, anger, and spilled blood- all things that would easily be associated with the Queen.
When delivering her lines, I would direct Cate Blanchett to not only administer the lines exactly as they are written in the play, but to have a sly, sensual, even seductive tone with them whenever possible. This would hint at the obvious and pronounced physical relationship between her and King Claudius, and the evil, incestuous nature of said relationship. When speaking to King Claudius, in particular, I would have her employ the use of this tempting and suggestive tone frequently in order to portray her as a sexually-charged and controlling woman. This tone’s secondary effect would cause the audience to more greatly sympathize with Hamlet, especially in Act 3, Scene 4 when he finally confronts the Queen about her incestuous and despicable behavior. If, up until this point in the play, Queen Gertrude had been consistently portrayed as a strong, controlling, and powerful woman, the audience would clearly interpret her cries of “O, speak to me no more! / These words like daggers enter in my ears.” (Act3:4, lines 94-95) as feigning weakness and helplessness. This would not be registered as a façade however in the ears of Polonious, who remains hidden behind a curtain. To an outside observer such as himself, this violent interaction between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude would appear as if Hamlet is properly insane, and verbally attacking the “helpless” Queen. To the audience, however, this would set up situational irony because observers, having extensive knowledge of the Queen’s personality and behavior up until this point, would know that this is a façade in order to facilitate sympathy. This would build on the Queen’s reputation for being a liar, a cheat, and a powerful antagonist of the play. The Queen’s strong and cunning personality would again come into play later on during this same scene when Hamlet begins to interact with the spirit of his murdered father. When the queen claims to not see the spirit, speaking the lines “[I see] nothing at all, yet all that is I see,” (Act3:4, line 133) we are expected to believe that she is deceiving Hamlet.
The second major scene in the play where Queen Gertrude’s dark side is displayed is when she bluntly throws upon Laertes the news of his sister’s death. Here, the stern face of Cate Blanchett would be ideal in showing the lack of sympathy obviously present in the written play. During this scene in particular, I would cast Queen Gertrude as wearing a primarily black dress, with red accents. I would identify this part in the play as being the pinnacle of the Queen’s evil action, and this would be reflected in her attire. The red accents on the black dress- perhaps long, flowing designs or ribbons of fabric down her sides or arms – would serve to symbolize blood flowing over her. This is because in this scene I would like to accentuate the theory that the Queen murdered Ophelia. This is based mostly on the fact that the Queen recounts such a detailed account of Ophelia’s drowning to Laertes, that it would mean that she either observed the drowning take place and neglected to help Ophelia, or the Queen murdered Ophelia herself and then passed the death off as an accidental suicide. As the queen spoke the lines, “When down her weedy trophies and herself / fell in the weeping brook… Till that her garments, heavy with their drink, / Pull’d the poor wretch from her melodious lay / To muddy death,” (Act5:1, lines 174 – 183) the movie would flash back to a dramatic scene where the queen herself is shown forcibly holding Ophelia underwater until she drowned, with a murderous glare in her eye. The juxtaposition between what the queen is describing in her speech to Laertes and what is being recounted in her flashback would further develop her character as an evil, deceptive, and power-hungry woman.
In my rendition of Hamelt, these qualities bestowed upon Queen Gertrude would not only develop her own character greatly, but they would help to develop the characters of those around her. Her deceptive nature would lend credibility to Hamlet’s visions of his deceased father, and her suggestive character would further back up Hamlet’s accusations of her being incestuous. Through her evil nature, she would inadvertently help gain the audience’s sympathy for Hamlet. She would also perfectly match the evil and dark nature of her husband, King Claudius, because in my version she would be blatantly exposed as a murderer. By doing this she and King Claudius would be further shown to be kindred spirits, joined by their evil inclinations, as the King also had murdered someone in the past.
Jane Eyre Volume 1 Passage Explication
“The red-room was a spare chamber, very seldom slept in; I might say never, indeed; unless when a chance influx of visitors at Gateshead Hall rendered it necessary to turn to account all the accommodation it contained: yet it was one of the largest and stateliest chambers in the mansion. A bed supported on massive pillars of mahogany, hung with curtains of deep-red damask, stood out like a tabernacle in the centre; the two large windows, with their blinds always drawn down, were half shrouded in festoons and falls of similar drapery; the carpet was red; the table at the food of the bed was covered with a crimson cloth; the walls were a soft fawn colour, with a blush of pink in it’ the wardrobe, the toilet-table, the chairs were of darkly polished old mahogany. Out of these deep surrounding shades rose high, and glared white, the piled up mattresses and pillows of the bed, spread with a snowy Marseilles counterpane. Scarcely less prominent was an ample, cushioned easy-chair near the head of the bed, also white with a footstool before it and looking, as I thought, like a pale throne.”
(Volume 1, Chapter 2, pages 25-26)
The existence of the “red-room” in the novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte is a symbolic representation not only of Jane’s imprisonment within the hostile environment that is Gateshead Hall, but also of her enslavement to her own passions and the passions of others. The author uses extensive color imagery and descriptions of furniture in order to portray these vices, as well as foreshadow the entry of an extremely benevolent force into Jane’s life later on in the novel- her friend Helen.
Jane’s experience of isolation is first hinted in the very first sentence of the passage, as the “red-room” (25) is said to be a “spare” (25) room that was “very seldom slept in.” (25) Sleep is used in the passage to represent a restful, peaceful time that is in stark contrast to the fiery, active chaos that tends to permeate Jane’s life at Gateshead Hall. This mention of a “spare” (25) room that is hardly ever “slept in” (25) depicts a room that has been neglected and devoid of the comforts of life, much like Jane herself has been by her “benefactress,” Miss Reed. Being one of the “largest and stateliest chambers in the mansion,” (25-26), the red-room also is described as to contain furniture and structures such as windows that are described as “massive” (26) and “large.” (26) The author’s repetitious use of these words stands in stark contrast to Jane’s frail frame. Jane, being a little girl at the time, has just previously been overpowered by two house servants under orders from Miss Reed to be placed in the red-room as an undeserved punishment. The room’s windows are described as having blinds that are “always drawn down” (26) in a symbolic effort to further contain and oppress anyone who took up residence in the room. Juxtaposition is then set up between Jane’s defeated body and the foreboding yet imprisoning presence of the red-room, as if she were continuously being overpowered long after she had even been placed in the room.
Color imagery is carefully used in this passage in order to materialize one of Jane’s biggest vices- her passion. Prior to this moment, and long after it in the novel, Jane has demonstrated emotional volatility that has surprised not only the other characters in the book, but the readers themselves. This emphasis on powerful emotion is paralleled by the repetitious description of the color “red” (26) in its many forms. The bed is described as having “deep red” (26) curtains that flow down elegantly from its posts, reflecting on the flowing blood issuing from a wound on Jane’s head after her physical altercation with Miss Reed’s son, John. “Deep red” (26) also denotes the darker, more destructive side of passion because of its association with blood. Even the “red” (26) carpets on the floor of the room reflect on how the foundation of Jane’s personality itself is that of passion and energy. The walls of the room, however, are described as being “a soft fawn color, with a blush of pink in it.” (26) These colors, which are more closely related to love and compassion than passion or aggression, contain the room and the contents wherein. This foreshadows the future relationship that Jane will develop with a girl named Helen from her school, who embodies the Christian values of compassion and tolerance. Helen’s personality works to counteract and contain Jane’s warrior passion and aggression, just as the pink walls of the room contain the passionate red carpets and draperies. Helen’s role in Jane’s life is also foreshadowed by the description of the easy chair, the footstool, and the bed in the red-room, which “rose high, and glared white” (26) in blatant contrast with its crimson surroundings. The author chose to describe these items of furniture as “snowy” (26) and “white” (26) because these pieces of furniture are objects of rest and relaxation. The easy chair, bed, or footstool would all serve as a chance to rest for a weary traveler, just as Helen’s purity, symbolized by the color white, offers Jane rest and relief from her otherwise chaotic and passionate lifestyle.
(Volume 1, Chapter 2, pages 25-26)
The existence of the “red-room” in the novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte is a symbolic representation not only of Jane’s imprisonment within the hostile environment that is Gateshead Hall, but also of her enslavement to her own passions and the passions of others. The author uses extensive color imagery and descriptions of furniture in order to portray these vices, as well as foreshadow the entry of an extremely benevolent force into Jane’s life later on in the novel- her friend Helen.
Jane’s experience of isolation is first hinted in the very first sentence of the passage, as the “red-room” (25) is said to be a “spare” (25) room that was “very seldom slept in.” (25) Sleep is used in the passage to represent a restful, peaceful time that is in stark contrast to the fiery, active chaos that tends to permeate Jane’s life at Gateshead Hall. This mention of a “spare” (25) room that is hardly ever “slept in” (25) depicts a room that has been neglected and devoid of the comforts of life, much like Jane herself has been by her “benefactress,” Miss Reed. Being one of the “largest and stateliest chambers in the mansion,” (25-26), the red-room also is described as to contain furniture and structures such as windows that are described as “massive” (26) and “large.” (26) The author’s repetitious use of these words stands in stark contrast to Jane’s frail frame. Jane, being a little girl at the time, has just previously been overpowered by two house servants under orders from Miss Reed to be placed in the red-room as an undeserved punishment. The room’s windows are described as having blinds that are “always drawn down” (26) in a symbolic effort to further contain and oppress anyone who took up residence in the room. Juxtaposition is then set up between Jane’s defeated body and the foreboding yet imprisoning presence of the red-room, as if she were continuously being overpowered long after she had even been placed in the room.
Color imagery is carefully used in this passage in order to materialize one of Jane’s biggest vices- her passion. Prior to this moment, and long after it in the novel, Jane has demonstrated emotional volatility that has surprised not only the other characters in the book, but the readers themselves. This emphasis on powerful emotion is paralleled by the repetitious description of the color “red” (26) in its many forms. The bed is described as having “deep red” (26) curtains that flow down elegantly from its posts, reflecting on the flowing blood issuing from a wound on Jane’s head after her physical altercation with Miss Reed’s son, John. “Deep red” (26) also denotes the darker, more destructive side of passion because of its association with blood. Even the “red” (26) carpets on the floor of the room reflect on how the foundation of Jane’s personality itself is that of passion and energy. The walls of the room, however, are described as being “a soft fawn color, with a blush of pink in it.” (26) These colors, which are more closely related to love and compassion than passion or aggression, contain the room and the contents wherein. This foreshadows the future relationship that Jane will develop with a girl named Helen from her school, who embodies the Christian values of compassion and tolerance. Helen’s personality works to counteract and contain Jane’s warrior passion and aggression, just as the pink walls of the room contain the passionate red carpets and draperies. Helen’s role in Jane’s life is also foreshadowed by the description of the easy chair, the footstool, and the bed in the red-room, which “rose high, and glared white” (26) in blatant contrast with its crimson surroundings. The author chose to describe these items of furniture as “snowy” (26) and “white” (26) because these pieces of furniture are objects of rest and relaxation. The easy chair, bed, or footstool would all serve as a chance to rest for a weary traveler, just as Helen’s purity, symbolized by the color white, offers Jane rest and relief from her otherwise chaotic and passionate lifestyle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)