To be, or not to be: that is the question (3.1.64-98).
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer (65)
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks (70)
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, (75)
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, (80)
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life, (85)
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of? (90)
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry, (95)
And lose the name of action.-- Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer (65)
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks (70)
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, (75)
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, (80)
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life, (85)
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of? (90)
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry, (95)
And lose the name of action.-- Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
NOTES:
slings ] Some argue that "slings" is a misprint of
the intended word, "stings". "The stings of fortune" was a
common saying in the Renaissance. But in the context of the soliloquy,
"slings" likely means "sling-shot" or "missile".
This seems in keeping with the reference to "arrows" - both can do
great harm.
outrageous fortune ] Fortune is "outrageous" in that
it is brazenly defiant.
And by opposing end them ] If you cannot suffer the
"slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" then you must end your
troubles with suicide.
consummation ] Final settlement of all matters.
rub ] Impediment. The term comes from bowling, where the
"rub" is any obstacle the pushes the ball off course.
shuffled off this mortal coil ] To separate from one's body
(mortal coil = body).
respect ] Consideration.
of so long life ] So long-lived.
time ] Time = temporal life.
his quietus make ] Settle his own account.
bare bodkin ] A "mere dagger". Bodkin was a
Renaissance term used to describe many different sharp instruments, but it
makes the most sense here to assume Shakespeare means a dagger.
fardels ] Burdens.
No traveller returns ] Since Hamlet has already encountered his
father's ghost, and thus proof of the afterlife, this line has raised much
debate. There are four major current theories regarding this line: 1)
Shakespeare made an egregious error and simply failed to reconcile the appearance
of the ghost and Hamlet's belief that human beings do not return; 2) Hamlet has
earlier revealed that he doubts the authenticity of the ghost and, therefore,
he does not believe his father has truly returned; 3) Hamlet is referring only
to human beings returning in the flesh and not as mere shadows of their former
selves; 4) the entire soliloquy is misplaced and rightfully belongs before
Hamlet has met his father's ghost. In my estimation, theory #4 seems the most
plausible.
bourn ] Limit or boundary.
native hue of resolution ] Natural. Here Hamlet refers to the
"natural color of courage".
pale cast of thought ] Sickly tinge of contemplation.
great pitch and moment ] Of momentous significance. The
"pitch" was the name given to the highest point in a falcon's flight
before it dives down to catch its prey.
With this regard their currents turn awry ] A reference to the
sea and its tides: "Because of their thoughts, their currents become
unstable".
Soft you now ] "But hush!". Hamlet hears Ophelia
begin to pray and he must cut short his private ponderances.
Nymph ] See commentary below.
orisons ] Prayers.
Let's try the comparison again:
In the comment box address the following prompt: compare and contrast
how two versions of the soliloquy use different strategies to convey the
meaning of the soliloquy. Pay close attention to choices made the
actors and directors. Interpret the significance of those choices.
Note on compare/contrast structure: try to write a "shuttle" comparison. This means that you'll start with a bold, insightful assertion comparing and contrasting how the two versions convey meaning. Then you'll "shuttle" back and forth between the two versions comparing and contrasting. Use this method instead of writing about the two separately.
Note on dramatic strategies: Consider the actors' movements and the delivery of the lines. Consider the
directors' choices of props, setting and images, lighting, editing, music and
other sounds. Think, for example, about Branagh’s hall of mirrors (which
creates double meanings and makes the speech not a soliloquy),
Zeffirelli’s
catacombs (which seem to emphasize Hamlet’s meditations on death),
Olivier's water imagery, Doran's emphasis on Hamlet's face, and
Almereyda’s Blockbuster video store (which emphasizes--or
overemphasizes--Hamlet’s obsession with
action.).
Don't forget to use first name and last initial. This is due by class time on Tuesday, November 13.
Note: HannahEllis noticed that Branagh's version is no longer available on the page I've linked to above.
So here is another link to it.
Another note: The reason I've put a question mark after the word "soliloquy" in the title of this blog post is because in some versions (including Branagh's) the director chooses to have Polonius and Claudius listen to the speech, so in those versions the speech is not, strictly speaking, a soliloquy; it's a monologue. How is this choice significant? How do you think it should be played? Why?
Kelly F.
ReplyDeleteThe clever pauses that Branagh added throughout the soliloquy made his version stand out from the others, whereas the distracting direct eye contact by Tennant caused me to lose focus. However, both versions of Hamlet’s soliloquy have their strengths and weaknesses. The setting of Branagh’s speech was definitely one of the strengths in that version. He acted so serious while speaking to himself in the mirror. It reflects his image literally, and figuratively as a symbol of murder. He is looking at himself in the mirror like it is another person he is about to kill. It creates an image for what he is feeling. He points his dagger at himself, which represents his suicidal thoughts. In Gregory Doran’s scene, the setting matches the theme of the soliloquy because Hamlet's talking about death and its dark out, then in the soliloquy Hamlet compares sleeping to dying. I like that Tennant is looking out the window and the camera is focused on Hamlet the whole time. His tone presents Hamlet to be somewhat scared, his face expressions showed fear as well. In the beginning, Tennant closes his eyes, and it gives the depiction as if he is tired, just as Hamlet is tired with life. This is an interesting touch, as is how Tennant depicted Hamlet's anger towards the end of the clip. Emphasizing Hamlet's face can be somewhat distracting, but successfully portrays Hamlet's emotion.
In Branagh’s version of the soliloquy, he is being eavesdropped on. The fact that he is being watched not only makes this passage the defining moment of character development; but it also has a stronger meaning within the plot, instead of being Hamlet talking to himself and pondering the consequences/implications of suicide. Tennant’s version could have been the best of them, but the lack of weapon did give the whole suicide idea the feeling that he was not actually considering it that much, and that he always figured that he was going to continue on and kill his Uncle.
The fact that Branagh held the dagger in his hand and taps his reflection with it showed how simple it was to commit suicide and run from life’s hardships. Also, the way Branagh delivers the speech really conveys the thoughtful, melancholy tone of the speech. Tennant’s version also delivers the speech well, showing how tired his character is of the hardships life is throwing at him. However, he slightly falls short on the suicide and death part because he did not have a dagger at all, which really adds to the scene.
Overall, both Branagh and Doran’s versions of this soliloquy had good parts and bad, but the one I found the most consistent with the play was Branagh’s.
Branagh and Olivier’s versions of Hamlet’s “To be, or not to be” soliloquy both stood out because they were very different even though the words were the same. The beginning of Branagh’s started off by showing Ophelia, Polonius, and Claudius were all spying on Hamlet, while Olivier’s started with weird music and the camera was climbing up many flights of stairs. Branagh was speaking to himself in a mirror, which just so happened to be a one way mirror that Polonius and Claudius were using to watch him. Olivier was talking while looking down on the ocean as if he was about to jump. They both pull out a dagger, but at very different times. Olivier pulls it out while talking about dying and sleeping, like he wanted to end his life with that very dagger, while Branagh went with the more direct approach and pulled the dagger out while talking about the “bare bodkin”. The way each version used outside noises was very different as well, in Branagh he only had his voice and everything else was silent, while Olivier’s had weird music that didn’t really feel like it related to what was going on. Olivier’s version of this soliloquy didn't seem to work as well as Branagh’s did. The start of Olivier’s was weird and confusing and made you wonder if you were watching the correct video and he seemed very monotonous and barely moved around. Branagh’s version of the soliloquy went more smoothly because it gave more than just the soliloquy, it showed what had happened before by showing other characters, and he walked over to the mirror and instead of talking to air he talked to his reflection. His performance may have been better because it was newer and had better visuals, but it was also better because of the way he performed it.
ReplyDeleteEvidently, this soliloquy cannot be performed or revised the same by two different actors and directors. Not to mention, Olivier’s performance and directing decisions oppose many of Franco Zeffirelli’s directions and Gibson’s acting. Clearly, Olivier’s clip is primarily focusing on the ocean’s view, whereas Gibson’s clip is centered on the catacombs. Although, both of the clips focus around a specific image that depict an intentional metaphor. Olivier is surrounded by “a sea of troubles,” thus he is deliberately settled on a rock that is surrounded by an ocean full of stormy waves. While, Gibson is in the catacombs where his father was buried, thereby portraying the thought of death. Olivier’s clip began with a flight of stairs along with intense music that went faster as the number of stairs increased. This emphasized an overwhelming atmosphere. Mel Gibson walks down a flight of stairs as well, but into the catacombs, which demonstrates Hamlet’s questioning of death. Although, both Olivier and Gibson made similar pauses at specific lines such as “To be, or not to be: that is the question” and “To die: To sleep; To sleep…” Yet, Mel Gibson takes a long pause at “To sleep” and looks hesitantly down at the tombs. Further on, he continues with a sorrow tone and changes it to rage and after a while lowers his voice. Whereas, Olivier continues with his gloomy tone and makes a pause at “To die,” while anxiously looking down at his dagger. He takes the dagger as if to kill himself, though does not take the chance to do it. He then pauses and wonders what may be on the other side if he would actually kill himself. Moreover, both actors close their eyes when they refer to these lines. The camera in Olivier’s clip continuously centers on the ocean, while the camera in Gibson’s clip focuses on the dark spots and the catacombs. The lighting in Mel Gibson’s clips is very dark and at one point he looks at the light above him when he expresses, “Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought...” Whereas, Olivier’s clip is in black and white, portraying both light and dark colors. Furthermore, Olivier’s clip changes lighting as he walks out at the end because fog begins to appear and the lighting becomes dimmer. At the end of Mel Gibson’s clip the lighting becomes even darker. Overall, both clips interpret the soliloquy very differently in performance.
ReplyDeleteNicole B.
ReplyDeleteAlmereyda and Zeffirelli both represented Hamlet with remarkably loud and symbolic settings, however the two could never have been more different. Zeffirelli chose the more obvious route and surrounded Gibson in death, painting a very dark picture that added tremendous amount of grief to Hamlet’s words. Hamlet’s words are already depressing, but combined with such a dark background, the mood is brought down so much more, helping the audience further connect to what Gibson is saying. Almereyda chose to have Hawke wandering aimlessly in a movie store, filled with color and a busy background, showing us just how much the world can impose on us. Hawke is a dark figure, filled with dark emotions, surrounded by an oblivious setting that gets tiresome all too easily, like how life gets you so down with its constant nonsense that you want to give up. Hawke passed by shelves of the same movie over and over again; life over and over again goes bad. All of the images that were playing on the televisions were of destruction and death; further symbolism of what Hamlet is considering. Gibson, too, walks around the states and coffins. He was underground; feeling down and depressed.
Gibson and Hawke both spoke with melancholy and angry tones, though even these differed. Gibson wandered underground with a depressed face, getting angry when thinking about all of the “whips and scorns of time”. Life is hard and cold like the underground chamber he is in, and it is so unfair. It also makes him angry that everyone, including him, acts as a “coward” when in the face of choosing death, the unknown, or life. Hawke, however, walked through the aisles with more of a scorn than an angry face. Both actors are completely done with life. Hawke has a somewhat bitter that his life had to turn out this way. Of all the choices that, say, a movie can choose from, he gets this one. Hawke spoke mockingly at times; “The proud men contumely…” he makes fun of the different parts of life that we all have to deal with, rather than getting angry.
Both versions had extremely powerful backgrounds that spoke to the audience just as much the actors did. I preferred Hawke’s interpretation, for it was so unique compared to not just Gibson but all of the five versions.
Almereyda and Zeffirelli both represented Hamlet with remarkably loud and symbolic settings, however the two could never have been more different. Zeffirelli chose the more obvious route and surrounded Gibson in death, painting a very dark picture that added tremendous amount of grief to Hamlet’s words. Hamlet’s words are already depressing, but combined with such a dark background, the mood is brought down so much more, helping the audience further connect to what Gibson is saying. Almereyda chose to have Hawke wandering aimlessly in a movie store, filled with color and a busy background, showing us just how much the world can impose on us. Hawke is a dark figure, filled with dark emotions, surrounded by an oblivious setting that gets tiresome all too easily, like how life gets you so down with its constant nonsense that you want to give up. Hawke passed by shelves of the same movie over and over again; life over and over again goes bad. All of the images that were playing on the televisions were of destruction and death; further symbolism of what Hamlet is considering. Gibson, too, walks around the states and coffins. He was underground; feeling down and depressed.
Gibson and Hawke both spoke with melancholy and angry tones, though even these differed. Gibson wandered underground with a depressed face, getting angry when thinking about all of the “whips and scorns of time”. Life is hard and cold like the underground chamber he is in, and it is so unfair. It also makes him angry that everyone, including him, acts as a “coward” when in the face of choosing death, the unknown, or life. Hawke, however, walked through the aisles with more of a scorn than an angry face. Both actors are completely done with life. Hawke has a somewhat bitter that his life had to turn out this way. Of all the choices that, say, a movie can choose from, he gets this one. Hawke spoke mockingly at times; “The proud men contumely…” he makes fun of the different parts of life that we all have to deal with, rather than getting angry.
DeleteBoth versions had extremely powerful backgrounds that spoke to the audience just as much the actors did. I preferred Hawke’s interpretation, for it was so unique compared to not just Gibson but all of the five versions.
Corinne D.
ReplyDeleteEach rendition approached Hamlet's “to be or not to be” speech from a very different angle. I found it interesting to watch the many different ways the soliloquy could be delivered. However, the two versions that stuck out were Olivier's and Almereyda's. Of the two, I think that Olivier's did the best job. The director's choice to stick with the time period and a rather literal interpretation of the text, I think, benefited the clarity of the scene. There were aspects that I appreciated in Hawke's more modern take, though, as well.
Both versions had a notable music choice. Olivier's soundtrack was more prominent towards the beginning of the scene. Music that hinted at danger and confusion played loudly as the viewer watched a sequence of winding and twisting stairs fade to Hamlet standing on the edge of a cliff. One get's the sense that Hamlet's mental, as well as physical, being is in danger, and that he is standing on the very edge of something. In Almereyda's clip, the music plays throughout the speech. The music sounds very much like a soundtrack that you would hear playing during tense moments in a modern day action film. This matches not only the more modern theme of the film as a whole, but also that, in this clip, Hamlet is walking through the action section of a movie rental store.
One thing I noticed in Olivier's version that was not present in Almereyda's was the literal presence of a “bare bodkin.” Seeing the knife in Hamlet's hand really drives home the thoughts that are running through his mind. It accents his desire to not exist. When Olivier closes his eyes, talking about death and how it is like sleeping, we see that the dagger is moving closer to himself. Having his eyes closed shows the audience what a comfort he finds the idea of death to be, as well as how similar he believes it to be to sleeping. It's only when he is about to drive the knife home that he thinks of the “dreams” of death and his eyes flash open. He stops pointing the dagger, and sits staring over the cliff, pondering over what comes after death. Another aspect of having the dagger in the film is that you can then also have a visual representation of Hamlet deciding against suicide. When Hamlet drops the dagger down into the water, it illustrates how he doesn't exactly not want to be dead, but he certainly can't do the deed himself.
The two actor's speak with two very different tones, as well. Olivier's uses both a wistful, remorseful, and frightened tone to portray Hamlet's emotions. Hawke, in Almereyda's version, actually seems a bit bitter and scornful at parts. He's remorseful, but he's also mad. It seems as though Hawke's Hamlet is still looking to blame fate for the situation that he is in. He is angry, and laughs at his dire situation, which hints at madness. Between the two actors, Hawke is definitely the one who appears more insane. He talking to himself in a a Blockbuster for goodness sake! He is that creepy guy in the isle that parents usher their children away from. I actually really like that aspect of Almereyda's rendition, and it's the one thing that I think Olivier lacks. Hamlet is supposed to be a little crazy, and Olivier seems only mournful. By making Hamlet talk to himself in such a public setting, the viewer gets the feeling that something isn't quite right with him.
These versions are the two that I thought put the most creative twists on Hamlet and portrayed the character's emotions most clearly. I would love to see what a combination of the two would look like.
Alan D
ReplyDeleteWhile both Mel Gibson's and David Tennant's versions of Hamlet were both depressed and lamenting in their scene there were some major differences. In Gibson's he walked around, and moves during the soliloquy and he tries to "act out" the scene. By doing this he tries to show his emotions through the way he acts, by the way he kneels by the tombstone (which was a difference in the two variations), and he paces around the room. Tennant on the other hand tried to show this through by being so depressed he won't even move. By not moving all of his emotion is but into how depressed he is and how he doesn't want to do anything. His face seemed smashed against the wall. I'm both of these they are soliloquies and both Hamlet isn't angry or fired up, he just seems rather tired and upset about the events around him.
Branagh and Zeffirelli both had compelling representations displayed of the act three scene one soliloquy, in that they conveyed a strong sense of Hamlet’s upset and distraught emotions. Zeffirelli’s and Branagh’s version both show what is upsetting Hamlet so much, and that adds to the effect of the soliloquy. In Zeffirelli’s version Hamlet is in a tomb, where his father must be buried, and this seems appropriate seeing that Hamlet brings up death a lot throughout this soliloquy. The effect the setting had on me made me feel even worse for Hamlet, walking amongst his father’s dead body and speaking of suicide, and being a coward, a sense of empathy appeared. Branagh’s version also used the aspect of setting in its favor. This setting gave me sense of Hamlet’s loneliness that he feels, he is surrounded by mirrors, images of himself, and nobody else. Also the fact that his dad-uncle and Polonius are spying on Hamlet brings out his loneliness, in that they don’t care why Hamlet is upset or that he is speaking of death and suicide, and feeling like a coward, they just want to set him up with Ophelia, and see how he acts toward her. Another aspect of Branagh’s version I found added to the soliloquy was the dagger he took out when speaking of what I think is suicide (I could be wrong, but that is how I interpreted it) It kept me on my feet, what would Hamlet do with this dagger? Would anything come from it? The dagger shows Hamlet’s thoughts of suicide and adds to the audience’s understanding of just how upset hamlet is. Zeffirelli’s version seemed to lack the excitement that Branagh’s had. With all things considered I feel as though Branagh’s version did a better job using the setting and props to convey Hamlet’s emotions of sadness.
ReplyDeleteDavid Tennant 3.1 Soliloquy and Kenneth Branagh Mousetrap do not appear to work either...
ReplyDeleteYazmeen S.
ReplyDeleteFranco Zeffirelli’s version played by Mel Gibson and Michael Almereyda’s version played by Ethan Hawke were two very different adaptations of the Act 3 Scene 1 “To be, or not to be” Soliloquy. In the Mel Gibson version the director has Hamlet in the catacombs, where his father is buried, wandering around and looking at everything. This is very different than the Ethan Hawke version where the director has Hamlet wandering around a Blockbuster video store looking at all the different movies. The Gibson version is very dimly lit with light shining in which gives it a darker more ominous feel. The Hawke version on the other hand is very bright and colorful making it seem kind of eerie because it has happy lighting but his tone is dark and slow. Gibson’s tone is also dark and slow for the majority of the soliloquy in a similar way to Hawke’s tone. Another big difference between the two performances of the soliloquy is background noise and music. In the Gibson version there is not background music so the only noises are Hamlet walking around and him talking. In the Hawke version you can hear his footsteps and talking as well as background music which changes slightly throughout the scene. The music starts out dark and then changes to a subtler background symphony. In the end the two versions portray the soliloquy in very different ways but yet both somehow work to properly display its meaning.
In both Hawke and Gibson’s versions the actors are really pondering their thoughts, they both walk around their respective sets and seem to be thinking about their thoughts and nothing else. However I found it very interesting that in Hawke’s version a movie was playing in the background and that whenever there was a high point/ dramatic point in the speech the movie would be shown (with fire and dramatized effects) at that same point in the soliloquy Gibson would get very theatric. When Gibson emphasized pieces of the soliloquy, like the part about dreaming, he would be almost yelling and almost angry at the dead people who are all around him in the crypt. But in Hawke’s version there really is no one around, and without really listening to what the actor is saying being in a movie store and saying what he was saying doesn’t make sense. I think the director mad this choice to make sure that the audience is paying attention and really gets it, without all of the things happening in the movie and the way Hawke is delivering the soliloquy none of the words would actually make sense and matter.
ReplyDeleteBethany G.
ReplyDeleteK. Branagh’s version of the “To be, or not to be” soliloquy and D. Tennant’s versions were, for me, the strongest. In Branagh’s scene, he chose to use a two-way mirror – people could see him, but he could only see his reflection. I think this could be a metaphor for what Hamlet is feeling. The camera angle and position Branagh used was interesting; he started far away, but slowly, as the speech progressed, the image zoomed in; although, the camera angle stayed in one spot. In Tennant’s scene, the director chose to switch angles, which I thought was interesting. By switching angles, it could be a subtle metaphor for the two different things Hamlet is weighing – to be or not to be. Both soliloquies showed raw emotion, and inquiring. Tennant showed more depression, while Branagh showed more of what seemed to be determination. Either way, I thought both scenes conveyed the message of the soliloquy.
Zach S.
ReplyDeleteEthan Hawke and David Tennant showed a power and emotion through their soliloquy yet they had expressed this power through very different ways. Ethan Hawke wandered the store, looking blank and aimless. Tennant had a totally different approach where he did not move, just stared into the camera. Hawke's blocking gave him a philosophical feel, something that I feel is necessary in this famous soliloquy. Tennant's stare created an intensity that increased the feel of madness and passion that Hamlet has in this part of the tragedy. They both use the power of simplicity to actually reveal the complexity of the words. They allow the reader (or viewer in the case of videos like this) to focus on the message and not the entirety of the scene because the message becomes the entire scene. The power of simplicity, emotion, and the true message of the famous soliloquy is revealed through the acting of David Tennant and Ethan Hawke.
I believe that it is better to portray the "To Be or Not To Be" speech as a soliloquy and not a monologue. The difference is important because a soliloquy is more of the characters thoughts and thereby more intimate and powerful. They allow for a focus on the giver of the speech rather than a monologue. A monologue is really just a part of dialogue in which the speaker goes off on a tangent. This makes all the difference in how it is conveyed to the viewers.
Joshua D.
ReplyDeleteBoth the Laurence Oliver and Mel Gibson versions of the act three scenes 1 soliloquy effectively convey the meaning of the soliloquy. The setting of both Gibson’s and Oliver’s are both very symbolic of death and the transition from life to death. In the Oliver version hamlet is sitting on a Cliffside staring off into the raging waters below, he is quit literally siting at the precipice of death while considering if his life is worth living. While in the Mel Gibson version the scene is set in a crypt fell of tombs, bones can be seen in the walls, and there is very little light. The gloomy setting emphasizes the dark tone of the soliloquy and makes the whole scene very depressing. Gibson moves around throughout the soliloquy giving the viewer multiple images and metaphors related to death, coffins, bones, light transitioning into darkness, etc. The image in Oliver’s version is constant hamlet sitting on the edge of a cliff the raging sea below symbolizing death the land covered in fog symbolizing the certainty and uncertainty of life.
Oliver and Gibson delivered the soliloquy in two very distinct and contrasting methods. The hamlet portrayed by Gibson was very animated, he chose to move around and his words had much more passion and anguish then Oliver’s. When Gibson performed the questions in the soliloquy he chose to address an audience, sometimes looking up as if asking god, other times looking into the camera and addressing the viewing audience. That combined with taking the soliloquy out of the context of the play made the soliloquy fell like it was about the plights of the human experience rather than hamlets own refection on whether his life is worth continuing. Oliver’s character is much more subdued and melancholy, Oliver remains stationary and stares of with a deep reflective expression. In his performance Oliver seems to be verbalizing an internal conflict, and expressing just how defeated hamlet is by life, he can’t even bring himself to stand.
Overall I believe that each performance conveyed the meaning of the soliloquy very well. Although the directors and actors did so using two two very different interpretations of the soliloquy each used similar imagery and themes. I personally preferred the Gibson version I thought his passionate delivery of the text was more engaging than Oliver’s melancholy tone.
Both versions were proper soliloquys, which I believe is the better way to perform the text. When you change the performance to a monologue it has effects on the plot, if people see and hear hamlet deliver this articulate well-reasoned speech it ruins his crazy “act” and changes the future plot of the play.
Ivy G.
ReplyDeleteHamlet’s Act 3.1 soliloquy is more thoroughly convincing through Gibson’s performance than any of the other versions, especially Branagh’s. Gibson’s expressions and pitch in voice keeps the audience perceptive but Branagh doesn’t use as much variety in his tone or body language to manipulate the audience’s awareness. The use of catacombs in Gibson’s performance strongly grasps the concept of Hamlet’s dwelling desires to die; where as the stage in Branagh creates a not-so-private feeling as though Hamlet’s suffering isn’t as severe. The isolation Hamlet feels from the world is more successfully addressed through the presentation of him below ground with catacombs, as though being below ground is like being below earth in hell. Also, seeing Hamlet alone and negotiating with his own thoughts in the catacombs helps to illustrate his internal despair, but Branagh’s “soliloquy” includes three other actors that squelch the passion you feel for Hamlet’s private thoughts (because you can’t focus in solely on his reaction when you see the reactions of those watching him). Also, Hamlet being with his father’s catacomb in Gibson’s performance helps the audience to understand that much of the cause of his suffering and self loathing is from his father’s death; though, in Branagh’s monologue, it is stressed that his self loathing is induced by himself since he is talking to his reflection the whole time. Branagh’s portrayal of Hamlet wanting to kill himself with a dagger he pulls out contradicts Gibson’s portrayal of Hamlet wanting to just not exist “not be”. There is a significant difference between wanting to kill himself and wanting to just not be. After all, the original intention of this soliloquy was to develop Hamlet’s question of “to be or not to be?” and why people tolerate suffering so long instead of ending their life. Gibson’s performance is definitely a more successful soliloquy than Branagh’s (which cannot be perfectly defined as a soliloquy but rather a monologue), or any of the others. (Would make studying this play a lot easier if there were more stage directions…)
Anna G.
ReplyDeleteThe videos of the monologue that stood out to me were the Olivier and Gibson’s versions. They seemed almost completely opposite. Both portrayed the soliloquy in very different ways.
Olivier’s version was dramatic and loud. At the beginning the angles and music is complex and builds as it carries on. Music is a large part of what makes a scene unique. Although in this adaptation it sounds a little bit tacky (an older film), it still gives a certain crescendo effect that the director may have wanted. Gibson’s version did not have any music whatsoever. Sometimes, music helps to construct a scene and describes how the actor is feeling and thinking. The music is this particular video was loud and kept building until it showed Olivier, Hamlet, on the cliff looking over the water. During the soliloquy Olivier switches from speaking to having the over voice talk for him. The water is this version is something that the others did not have. It was distracting to me and detracted from the focus point, the monologue. The different sounds were too much, which is why Gibson’s scene gave off another vibe.
Gibson had a serene tone and his attitude was more melancholy. The entire video was simpler than Olivier’s and attentive. When watching it, all you heard was the monologue. There was not anything too distracting during the scene. Unlike Olivier’s, who had too many angles and effects, Gibson was straightforward. This could either help a viewer understand it more, or it could be too bland. The colors of the background and his clothes are very important to the play as a whole. The browns and earth tones suggest a depressed, confused state, which Hamlet is. I think the color choices of Gibson’s Hamlet scenes are believable and detailed. Although the color scheme is modern, it portrays the play well. The 1940’s film is not as detailed in the clothing or scenery area as the movies that were made in the 2000’s; it makes a difference.
Both videos characterized Hamlet and his speech in unique ways but in the end they give the same message.
Kacie Q.
ReplyDeleteBoth Branagh and Tennant have different portrayals of the character of Hamlet, and only together do they seem to encompass the whole of Hamlet's feelings and emotions. While Branagh has a much more eerily calm portrayal of Hamlet, Tennant seems more depressed and hopeless. I feel that while separately each video seemed to be missing something about Hamlet's true feelings, when I watched them together, the character made much more sense. Branagh's portrayal makes it seem as if Hamlet has simply given up, that he no longer wants to exist. He doesn't seem especially sad or angry during the course of the soliloquy. Tennant, however, portrays Hamlet in a much more forlorn manner. He seems disappointed with himself, and seems much more emotional than Branagh. While reading the soliloquy, I felt that Hamlet's emotions varied between these two actor's portrayals. Even though I understand why each actor had to choose a certain portrayal (otherwise it might seem unfocused), watching them together really helped me connect more with the character of Hamlet.
The two videos both had aspects that seemed to be deliberately unsettle viewers. While watching the two, I realized how similar these decisions were. Branagh stared directly at the mirror and rarely lost focus with his reflection. His unwavering focus was very uncomfortable and made me feel like he was going to snap at any moment. Tennant, on the other hand, often looked directly at the camera, which creates the illusion that he's looking directly at the viewers. This, too, is extremely unsettling, and makes it seem as if he is questioning each and every one of us. Another factor that is unsettling is the fact that Branagh and Tennant both remain very still throughout the course of the soliloquy They don't walk around the room as they had in the other scenes that we'd watched, and it makes it seem much more restricted and confined, kind of how Hamlet seems to feel at this point in the play.
Finally, there was the decision of the directors on how much to show of each actor. While Branagh usually had shot of his entire body, the Tennant clip merely showed his head. I think that, as with many of the other decisions made in these clips, these decisions were deliberately made to unsettle viewers. Tennant's head shot made it seem as if viewers were extremely close to him, and it made it all the more unsettling when he looked at the camera. With Branagh, the full-body shot made it unsettling as well. You can see his entire body as he stares at the mirror, and it almost makes viewers feel as if they're intruding on him. Overall, I think that these clips fit together very well and unsettled me in a way that I hope is intentional.
Kirsten S.
ReplyDeleteBoth David Tennant and Ethan Hawke's versions of Hamlet's “To be or not to be...” speech show the depth of Hamlet's own confusion with his thoughts on life and death. Although they do it in different yet similar ways. Both actors portray a side of Hamlet that they haven't shown much in their respective versions. For instance, Tennant's way of showing Hamlet was much more calm though full of tension in the words he spoke and the small movements he made. Hawke's version showed a more active Hamlet, for he was up out of his room, and walking around a video store. Hawke's Hamlet didn't look at the camera, although Tennant's did. It was almost creepy, him staring right at the camera, as if he was looking for an answer to his question. Hawke's character was slightly creepy as well. He began the speech in his head, although changed to speaking out loud and to himself. I really think his version makes Hamlet seem crazy, though not in an obvious way. His Hamlet would be the person I would avoid; the one that would make me cross to other side of the street and run away to avoid him. He seems introverted and lost, as if he has no one else to turn to except himself. Although Tennant's character, I wouldn't run from. He just seems emotionally drained and at a loss with his own thoughts. He makes Hamlet seem misunderstood.
Katie M.
ReplyDeleteGibson begins the scene by entering a catacomb; whereabouts his father and others were buried. This action portrays an eerie feeling that is floating around in the air. The setting is dark and gloomy, which adds to the interest of his own attitude becoming dark as well. On the other hand Hawke decides to enter a movie store, which is lit up sort of bright. The two settings give out totally different feelings. As the soliloquy begins, Gibson speaks with a voice that is calm but indulging; as if something important was on his mind dragging him off into a different place. His pattern of speaking is varied, going from very spaced out, taking big breathes in between, to all together giving out how it is. His reaction to some words show differences as well. When he speaks of the word death, it is as if he is having a hard time swallowing, and then when he says the word sleep, his voice wears out and his eyes close. Gibson’s body structure and tone wear off with the words as he says them. When the soliloquy starts for Hawke, he is not even physically saying it. The words are in the background, portraying it is coming from his thoughts. He walks down the isle, thinking about what the situation is. What I noticed was the isle was all action movies, and when he gets to the end towards the television, he watches someone die. Right at that moment it was like a turning point, because as he walks away and turns the corner into yet another action movie isle, his mouth starts to begin to move. The facial expressions are kind of bland, but as he says the word puzzles, he stops in his tracks. This draws attention to that statement, and brings the viewer in closer to what he will say next. Hawke's tone of voice was not as varied as Gibson’s was, but in a way it was better because he sounded more serious in my opinion. There was music in the background, which filled in for the lack of variation. All in all, I believe Gibson’s performance was best. The setting just made the whole situation right, and connected what was being said to the situation more easily, which made me understand what was going on clearer.
Diana D.
ReplyDeleteBoth the Kenneth Branagh and David Tennant versions of the “To be, or not to be” soliloquy were rather compelling. While the emotions of both actors were more toned down and sorrowful, there was a greater contrast between this soliloquy and Tenant’s previous performances than this soliloquy and Branagh’s previous performances. Because of these differences of the level of emotional contrast between soliloquies Tennant’s Hamlet came off as being more disheartened than Branagh’s Hamlet. The audience is shown that both Hamlets are in rather depressed states from both Tennant’s and Branagh’s lack of their usual body movement. Both Doran and Branagh directed the scene to show that the soliloquy was meant to have a direct audience, whether is be Polonius and Claudius or the audience itself. By having Polonius and Claudius witness the soliloquy unbeknownst to Hamlet, Branagh made it so that it was obvious Hamlet was directing his words at something. On the other hand Doran used a continuous close up of Tennant’s face as he spoke, having him look directly at the camera, to signify that Hamlet was speaking directly to the audience. By doing this, Doran made it clear that the purpose of the soliloquy was to address this idea of dealing one’s problems to the audience. Both directors gave the illusion that Hamlet was speaking to himself, Doran using the lack of a visible audience and Branagh using the mirror to separate Hamlet from his audience. In his performance the only real emotion we see Tennant show is despair, while Branagh began to become a bit angrier towards the end. These emotions show how both directors view Hamlet and his mental state; Doran pictures a more sorrowful Hamlet and Branagh pictures a more emotionally unstable Hamlet, though both can be very emotional. One of the most striking differences between the two is the part that listed the calamities of life, or lack of part. Branagh used this scene to spark the little anger Hamlet showed in this scene, as well as using it as a way to bring the knife into the scene. By pressing a knife to his face, Branagh made it seem that Hamlet was considering taking his life instead of merely musing about it. Doran omitted these lines, most likely to avoid any explicit indication of Hamlet deterring from his quest to avenge his father’s death. Through these different techniques Branagh and Doran hoped to convey both Hamlet’s despair and the purpose of the soliloquy.
Overall, I would have to say that Doran directed the best portrayal of the soliloquy. While I did enjoy Branagh’s version I preferred the soliloquy staying a soliloquy.
Christina S.
ReplyDeleteDavid Tennant’s performance of Hamlet’s “To be, or not to be” soliloquy captured Hamlet’s emotional state better than Ethan Hawke’s performance did. Throughout his version, Hawke’s voice is monotonous as he wanders aimlessly around Blockbuster. He sounds kind of bored as though he doesn’t really care if he lives or dies. Nothing in his performance really stood out. Tennant’s soliloquy, on the other hand, was full of emotion. He made Hamlet sound confused and scared. His eyes were closed during the beginning as if imagining the eternal sleep. He was really struggling with the question “to be or not to be” and seemed desperate to find the answer. There was dramatic music playing in the background of Hawke’s performance, which I think detracted from it. Tennant’s voice was the only sound in his version, and this made the pauses he took and his shaky breathing even more intense. The “To be, or not to be” speech is one of Shakespeare’s most quoted passages. It’s so far been an extremely important part of the play. Hawke’s version of this was altogether disappointing and lacked the strong emotions that Tennant conveyed in his performance.
Both Branagh and Olivier direct the movies they are in giving themselves immense freedoms that actors don’t have. While Branagh indulged in such fancies, Olivier constricted himself to the rocks overlooking the sea, limiting his props and surroundings to the ocean, the rocks and the dagger. The dagger of course appears with Branaghs version as well but is used much more readily. Branaghs Hamlet presses the dagger in the constant crescendo of his soliloquy, intense as he stares into the mirror at himself. Olivier on the other hand drifts in and out of sleep, slightly droning as he fiddles with the dagger he eventually drops into the water below him. Both use the dagger, albeit very differently. Olivier uses it more as a prop he happened to find in his belt, merely twiddling with it as he ponders life and life beyond death, if there is any. Branagh on the other hand, uses it to draw the attention to the glass, the people behind it and the level of concentration that he has on himself and the mirror.
ReplyDeleteCara O.
ReplyDelete*The video that involves Doran as Hamlet isn't working either.
Gibson and Hawke use similar hushed tones and dramatic pauses that depict the soliloquy as thoughtful but not quite passionate. There doesn't seem to be much excitement in their words because they are whispering. Gibson's crazed appearance leads one to believe he is in a state of shock, or not mentally stable. Hawke, however, appears casually browsing his local Blockbuster. Hawke's version seems slightly out of context which is distracting, but this feeling of distraction seems to reflect how Hamlet is feeling. Both clips involve the actor speaking the soliloquy, but Hawke's begins as a voiceover. I found the switch slightly awkward. His previous soliloquies have been voiceovers, and seemed more fitting, especially because Hawke was in a public setting. Gibson recited his soliloquy in a graveyard among his dead relatives. He is clearly grieving which may be the cause of his hushed tones and insane appearance. He is so grief stricken that he has become hollow and emotionless, and has lost a grip on his self control.
Sydney I.
ReplyDeleteI was interested mostly with the set choices. Hawke is in a video store, while Gibson is in the catacombs with the remains of his father. Hawke is walking through the “Action” section, showing that Hamlet wants to take action himself, as he contemplates suicide. At the same time, he’s searching for the key to revealing his uncle-father’s guilt. This shows how he is stuck between both actions- suicide or revenge. Gibson on the other hand, is showing a personal connection to his father by actually going and seeing death as he thinks of what suicide will bring him. Hawke is more detached, like a ghost himself as he wanders aimlessly through the aisles and blankly staring at the TV screens. He seems to have no emotions left, but contrastingly, Gibson has the weight of the world on his shoulders. He slouches and falls to his knees next to a grave while holding back tears. The setting alone brings two very different feelings. Had Hawke been in a cemetery, the tone would have been more melancholy. The director put music in the background to try and make the viewer a bit uneasy, but it takes away from what Hawke is saying. Gibson’s words stick in your head more without the music.
Jordan W.
ReplyDeleteHawke and Tennant's depiction of Hamlet's 3.1 soliloquy fought for my attention the most of the videos given, whether for better or worse. The first truly noticeable difference between the two is the setting. Hawke's at first was quite odd to me, being in Blockbuster, but I it took a short period for me to understand why the director chose that. All around Hawke was the word "action", a word chosen so cleverly that the listener sees it, but may not think much of it since he is in a movie shop. Tenant's takes place in his usual setting, some sort of castle with a camera. In Hawke's version, I liked how you could kind of see the evolution of his thoughts due to what was said out loud and what was in his head. If Tennant's had not been so amazing, I would have said that Hawke's was my favorite, but Tennant's actually gave me shivers it was so well portrayed. The reason for this probably being that as the watcher and listener, I could hear Tennant's need for change, whether death or something else. In Hawke's it was all quike monotonous, not so much feeling, but more simple words. It didn't have the same meaning, whereas I almost felt compelled by what Tennant was saying; he made me want to believe every word he was saying.
Seiken O'
ReplyDeleteWhile both keep their voices at a whisper, Gibson is moving about the lighted catacombs where Branagh is checking himself out in the mirror. For him it’s an internal battle. Gibson puts emphasis on “to sleep” and trails off as if that was what he was about to do whereas Branagh is more interested in “to die” and takes out his ever-present sword. Both portray Ham as mad, one for chilling in the Catacombs and the other for simply talking to himself. Gibson you can really see the conflict in his expressions and the whole light-dark contrasts. Especially at the “thus conscience” part where he looks up, that was very accurate, I think. But Branagh doesn’t do any of that. This makes Ham a very kind of composed character, which is not in keep with previous Branagh scenes, where he was lashing out at surrounding objects, for example. And besides, Ham is supposed to be trying to hide his real intentions from people, so it is not realistic that he should have his mind, if you will, overheard. So I vouch for Gibson
The scene of “To be or not to be” scenes by Gibson and Branagh stood out to me in the way that they focused on themes and also presented the soliloquy as is on text. However, they differed in more than one way. In the Branagh’s scene the theme was suicide and he used the dagger to represent it or make it standout. Also the mirror played a big part in presenting the soliloquy in the way that it made it look like Hamlet (Branagh) was talking to someone beyond the mirror and not just himself. However it weakened the soliloquy as it was not a soliloquy anymore because he was not really alone. However, it makes it easier for the actor to transition to the next part of Claudius and Polonius spying on Hamlet and Ophelia. On the other hand, Gibson moved around a lot, showing he was thinking deep. The catacombs as the setting supported and weakened Gibson’s performance. The catacombs really emphasized Gibson’s theme of death, and the performance of the soliloquy. Also the dark lighting helped strengthen the theme but with while strengthening the theme, the transition to the next scene would be awkward because Gibson would either have to walk and not say a word after a while or the rest of the character show up to the catacomb, either way this wouldn't it agree with the text. While Gibson’s transition would be a bit weak, Branagh’s was easy and almost flawless. Though director switched the action between Hamlet and Ophelia; in the text, Hamlet walked into the room and in the act, Ophelia walks into the room. While both acts had strengths and weaknesses, they both worked very well in conveying Hamlet’s emotion.
ReplyDeleteKevin R.
ReplyDeleteTo compare the old to the new, I take a closer look at the soliloquy performed by Hawke and Olivier. Specific director choices and quit but powerful performances from actors are what make these two videos so interesting. Both directors choose to put a certain emphasis on the action vs. inaction motif (my motif) but they succeed doing so in different ways. In Hawke’s version Hamlet is walking through the aisles of blockbuster, in the action section to be exact. Now this clear choice of having Hamlet in the action section is what I believe to be somewhat of a hidden message that Hamlet needs to take action it could also just be a bit of clever irony added in. In Olivier’s version when Hamlet says “to be” there is a shot of Hamlet and when he says “or not to be” he disappears. What I believe Olivier to be hinting at here is that when you act you are a man (that is why there is a screenshot of Hamlet) and when you are unable to act your manhood is taking away from you (that is why the screenshot of Hamlet disappears). During the soliloquy Hamlet says “or to take arm against a sea of troubles” to me Hamlets life and setting can be described as a “sea of troubles.” I believe both director try to convey this “sea of troubles” with their setting choices. To start with the more obvious one Olivier decides to make his setting for the soliloquy near the sea ironically representing Hamlet’s “sea of troubles.” Then in Hawke’s version he is in Blockbuster surrounded by movies with clips he will use to show and represent his “sea of troubles” (video he makes for mousetrap scene).
The acting performances by Hawke and Olivier were similar in that they were both quit and powerful. But Olivier chose to take longer pauses in between his lines compared to Hawke. What this does is it always audiences to reflect on what he just said making it more powerful in the minds of audiences, but at other times especially times like 2012 it can bore audiences who expect constant drama or action.
Logan H.
ReplyDeleteI felt that, though Gibson and Tennant’s version was intense in separate ways, Tennant’s version was more effective. I feel that Tennant was better at depicting the confusion and conflict going on in his head. With Mel Gibson, he just gets louder. Maybe it wasn’t necessarily worse then Tennant’s version in general, but in my opinion, I imagine Hamlet acting more the way Tennant acted then the way Gibson acted.
Sorry Its late I hand wrote it
ReplyDeleteJames K.
It seems that all of the different directors had a very different take on Hamlets to be or not to be speech. This variety of methods shows the soliloquy’s depth in it being so open to interpretations. Two versions of the soliloquy Olivier’s and Branagh’s version stood out to me as opposing and interweaving forces. Scene is key in both of these plays but is shown in very different ways. In Olivier’s version the scene is by the sea, this plays off of the Hamlets quote about the opposing and endless sea. The sea comes in to play again in Olivier’s version when Hamlet tosses the knife down into the sea. This is important as it signifies that Olivier’s Hamlet has given up trying to oppose the mighty sea. Branagh’s scene appears to be in Hamlets Hold but this is not the significant part, rather the mirror that Hamlet stand in front of. The mirror is signifying Hamlets looking into himself and beyond has humans as a whole. Another way that these tie the two versions together is reflection. A mirror reflects things and so does water but in Olivier’s version the sea is unclear and churned up. Because of the complexity and room for interpretation that this scene offers the plays grow in different manners but fundamental elements can still be identified in each.
Olivia P.
ReplyDeleteBoth Mel Gibson and David Tennant's "To be or Not to be" soliloquies share very powerful actions; the meaning and perception of the two soliloquies present two different effective points. Mel Gibson is moving about the catacombs, while Tenant is in his in his castle with a camera, speaking alone. As Gibson's soliloquy goes further into depth, his movement increases and his tone gets louder. Tennant lacks the body positions and movement, yet it is very clear to hear the depression within his tone of voice. Gibson also speaks as if talking to his father, and having a deep connection with death, and if he truly does value the life he lives, and who would? David Tennant however displayed a very emotional state that to me was how I saw Hamlet speaking. Lastly, David Tennant was constantly staring at the camera throughout his speech, and Gibson did not look at the camera what so ever. I personally found Gibson’s version to be the most dramatic, and effective.