Monday, December 8, 2008
Reflection on Blogging
My experience with blogging was delightful, considering it's my first time writing in this particular fashion or style. I welcomed and enjoyed the challenges which came. It's similar to how critics and journalist write. I would consider continuing to write blogs on my own time (but who will then read it?). Being that I enjoy writing, I saw the exercises as practice. It's easy for any writer to have writer's block but if you're giving a theme or subject to write on, the hard part is already done. I wasn't too thrill in reading other classmates' work as I was with writing my own. I didn't know what to respond at times and I didn't want to offend anyone with any comment of mine. There were definitely many great pieces which were written of the course of the twelve weeks. One of my favorite assignments was having to write on who I thought portrayed Othello best on the clips you shared with us. I really enjoyed the creative options you offered us, they were fun to write. Well I will recommend anyone who enjoys writing to try blogging. Thanks Prof. X for introducing me to another avenue of writing and for your input on my pieces. Take care. M
Monday, December 1, 2008
Macbeth 4&5: Lady Macbeth Sleep Walking
After viewing Jane Lepotaire, Judi Dench, and Shirley Verrett, all play Lady Macbeth in the scene in which she sleep walks, I would have to say that Judi's performance was by far the best.
When I first saw Jane walk on stage, she didn't look like she was sleep walking. She walked up a flight of stairs holding a candle holder without any stumbling. When she got to the top she gently placed the holder on the ground without fumbling it. Now who really is going to believe that she is sleep walking? She looked more like a person gone mad, someone who lost their sanity. Her performance lacked emotion and realism.
When I saw Judi walk out, again I had a problem with the actor holding a candle holder and nothing wrong happening (like her dropping it). Needless to say, when she started speaking I was captivated. I was moved by her characters grief and pain which Judi did such a great job of expressing it. It seemed genuine and believable.
Shirley on the other hand forgot that she was in a tragedy and not a musical. Someone ought to remind of it. I didn't like her performance as much as I did Judi's.
When I first saw Jane walk on stage, she didn't look like she was sleep walking. She walked up a flight of stairs holding a candle holder without any stumbling. When she got to the top she gently placed the holder on the ground without fumbling it. Now who really is going to believe that she is sleep walking? She looked more like a person gone mad, someone who lost their sanity. Her performance lacked emotion and realism.
When I saw Judi walk out, again I had a problem with the actor holding a candle holder and nothing wrong happening (like her dropping it). Needless to say, when she started speaking I was captivated. I was moved by her characters grief and pain which Judi did such a great job of expressing it. It seemed genuine and believable.
Shirley on the other hand forgot that she was in a tragedy and not a musical. Someone ought to remind of it. I didn't like her performance as much as I did Judi's.
Monday, November 24, 2008
"Acting The Horror"
Hmmm...How would I stage Macbeth's hallucination of a dagger in 2.1, when he kills Duncan? If I had to, it wouldn't be a stage production. I'd like to imagine it on film. More visual effects can be added to the scene.
For starters, I wouldn't have the actor playing Macbeth say his lines to the camera (which is how is done on stage and most film adaptations) but instead I would have a prerecording of the actor reading his lines playing as the scene takes place so as to make it seem as if we can hear what he is thinking. It's better this way because it seems realistic plus in real life if Macbeth said out loud everything he in the soliloquy, he might wake up Duncan or his guards.
Sound effects and scoring is important and I will only do it to heighten the emotions of a scene. As Macbeth is approaching Duncan's room and sees an imaginary dagger, I would have soft eerie music (produced by acoustic instruments) playing in the background. As the scene progresses, so will the music until the climax of the scene is reached (when Macbeth kills Duncan). The sound effects would be heard when Macbeth mentions of witchcraft celebrating, a wolf howling, and a ghost silently pacing. Each effect will be heard in unison and then finally hearing Macbeth dagger penetrating Duncan's flesh.
Towards the end of the soliloquy since we don't read about Macbeth actually killing Duncan, I would like to portray it by focusing on their shadows. I would have the camera set in front of Macbeth standing beside Duncan's bed (with a burning candle set on a table beside Duncan's bed opposite of Macbeth) and as the last words of the soliloquy are heard, the camera slowly moves away from the bed (on Macbeth's side), only showing Macbeth's shadow Standing over the shadow of Duncan on his bed and Macbeth thrusting his dagger in Duncan, but never seeing him pull it out (because at this point as the camera is moving away, the shot fades to black).
The lighting which is also key in my portrayal will be dim (being that it takes place at night). For certain, my version wouldn't be shot in HD only because I would want it to have a raw feel to it.
Finally, when Macbeth enters Duncan's room and begins to hallucinate I would shoot close ups of his eyes and what he sees before him. The shots would be done at a quick pace and I would have the room change colors and would mess with the focus of the camera to get viewers an idea of how screwed up Macbeth feels at this moment.
Damn...I wish I could do a shooting of this scene! M
For starters, I wouldn't have the actor playing Macbeth say his lines to the camera (which is how is done on stage and most film adaptations) but instead I would have a prerecording of the actor reading his lines playing as the scene takes place so as to make it seem as if we can hear what he is thinking. It's better this way because it seems realistic plus in real life if Macbeth said out loud everything he in the soliloquy, he might wake up Duncan or his guards.
Sound effects and scoring is important and I will only do it to heighten the emotions of a scene. As Macbeth is approaching Duncan's room and sees an imaginary dagger, I would have soft eerie music (produced by acoustic instruments) playing in the background. As the scene progresses, so will the music until the climax of the scene is reached (when Macbeth kills Duncan). The sound effects would be heard when Macbeth mentions of witchcraft celebrating, a wolf howling, and a ghost silently pacing. Each effect will be heard in unison and then finally hearing Macbeth dagger penetrating Duncan's flesh.
Towards the end of the soliloquy since we don't read about Macbeth actually killing Duncan, I would like to portray it by focusing on their shadows. I would have the camera set in front of Macbeth standing beside Duncan's bed (with a burning candle set on a table beside Duncan's bed opposite of Macbeth) and as the last words of the soliloquy are heard, the camera slowly moves away from the bed (on Macbeth's side), only showing Macbeth's shadow Standing over the shadow of Duncan on his bed and Macbeth thrusting his dagger in Duncan, but never seeing him pull it out (because at this point as the camera is moving away, the shot fades to black).
The lighting which is also key in my portrayal will be dim (being that it takes place at night). For certain, my version wouldn't be shot in HD only because I would want it to have a raw feel to it.
Finally, when Macbeth enters Duncan's room and begins to hallucinate I would shoot close ups of his eyes and what he sees before him. The shots would be done at a quick pace and I would have the room change colors and would mess with the focus of the camera to get viewers an idea of how screwed up Macbeth feels at this moment.
Damn...I wish I could do a shooting of this scene! M
Monday, November 17, 2008
"There's a divinity that shapes our ends"
"In his heart a man plans his course but the Lord determines his steps"-proverbs of Solomon
Proverbs 16:9
"I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I most leave them to the one who comes after me, /...someone who has not worked for it."-words of Solomon
Ecc.2:18, 21
It's difficult to say whether Hamlet's fate was shaped by a "divinity" but there are moments in the play that may lead one to think or argue that is was. For starters, the fact that his father's ghost appears to him, to tell him what had happened in hopes for his him to avenge his death is one factor which leans towards the idea of a "divinity" attempting to shape his fate. There is also the time Hamlet returns from England alive (when in fact Claudius arranged with the King of England to have him killed) to then die by Laertes poisoned sword in the last scene of the play, is another factor which one can argue about regarding his destiny being orchestrated. Later on there was the moment in which Hamlet spoke with a gravedigger who was tossing skulls out of a grave in order to make room for Ophelia's corpse. It was then that Hamlet holds up a skull and realizes how worthless humans really are. This understanding helped him to face life but most of all, death, without any fear. In reading about this, it can be said that perhaps a "divinity" was preparing him for his death which was soon to happen. Finally at the end of the play when everyone is found dead (Claudius, Gertrude, and Hamlet) young Fortinbras (who has been trying to recapture the land his father forfeited to Hamlet Sr.) is crowned the new King of Denmark without having to battle for it. After looking at the evidence shown throughout the play, I would agree that God did determine Hamlet's course.
I personally believe that God determines where my life will end up. Sure he gives us options to choose from but his choices co inside with his plan. For example, let's say you work as a host for a restaurant and there are four sections of tables in it (each having five). Each section is overseen by a server and each one wants to make money. What do you do? You try your best to seat each section evenly. Problem is, people are going to sit where they want to be not necessarily where you want them to. So, what do you do then? You give people the option to sit where they would like to but your options are restricted to the section you're trying to fill up. You see what I mean? You give people options only to make them think they have the freedom to choose but little do they know that in the grand scheme of things, it's only to suit your purpose. That brings me to this:
"The Lord works out everything for his own ends-even the wicked for a day of disaster"-proverbs of Solomon, Proverbs 16:4
Hamlet said, "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, /Rough-hew them how we will," which may or may not represent a development in his character but if you recall the events which occur later on after saying this, you would think it probably did. Throughout the play I clearly see a development in Hamlet's character from his encounter with his father's ghost to his conversation with a gravedigger. I see Hamlet as a play of one's man journey to reunite with his father and a father who longed to be with his son. In the process of the play, Hamlet learns about the value of man's life on earth, and God. That is probably why the play is entitled "Hamlet." M
Proverbs 16:9
"I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I most leave them to the one who comes after me, /...someone who has not worked for it."-words of Solomon
Ecc.2:18, 21
It's difficult to say whether Hamlet's fate was shaped by a "divinity" but there are moments in the play that may lead one to think or argue that is was. For starters, the fact that his father's ghost appears to him, to tell him what had happened in hopes for his him to avenge his death is one factor which leans towards the idea of a "divinity" attempting to shape his fate. There is also the time Hamlet returns from England alive (when in fact Claudius arranged with the King of England to have him killed) to then die by Laertes poisoned sword in the last scene of the play, is another factor which one can argue about regarding his destiny being orchestrated. Later on there was the moment in which Hamlet spoke with a gravedigger who was tossing skulls out of a grave in order to make room for Ophelia's corpse. It was then that Hamlet holds up a skull and realizes how worthless humans really are. This understanding helped him to face life but most of all, death, without any fear. In reading about this, it can be said that perhaps a "divinity" was preparing him for his death which was soon to happen. Finally at the end of the play when everyone is found dead (Claudius, Gertrude, and Hamlet) young Fortinbras (who has been trying to recapture the land his father forfeited to Hamlet Sr.) is crowned the new King of Denmark without having to battle for it. After looking at the evidence shown throughout the play, I would agree that God did determine Hamlet's course.
I personally believe that God determines where my life will end up. Sure he gives us options to choose from but his choices co inside with his plan. For example, let's say you work as a host for a restaurant and there are four sections of tables in it (each having five). Each section is overseen by a server and each one wants to make money. What do you do? You try your best to seat each section evenly. Problem is, people are going to sit where they want to be not necessarily where you want them to. So, what do you do then? You give people the option to sit where they would like to but your options are restricted to the section you're trying to fill up. You see what I mean? You give people options only to make them think they have the freedom to choose but little do they know that in the grand scheme of things, it's only to suit your purpose. That brings me to this:
"The Lord works out everything for his own ends-even the wicked for a day of disaster"-proverbs of Solomon, Proverbs 16:4
Hamlet said, "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, /Rough-hew them how we will," which may or may not represent a development in his character but if you recall the events which occur later on after saying this, you would think it probably did. Throughout the play I clearly see a development in Hamlet's character from his encounter with his father's ghost to his conversation with a gravedigger. I see Hamlet as a play of one's man journey to reunite with his father and a father who longed to be with his son. In the process of the play, Hamlet learns about the value of man's life on earth, and God. That is probably why the play is entitled "Hamlet." M
Monday, November 10, 2008
Polonius writes a report on Hamlet
As senior officer in the state of Denmark, it is my duty to write a report on my encounter with Lord Hamlet. My views are based on the event which took place in the castle, the day I alerted the King about his madness. What I found interesting was that there was a method or a pattern of some sort to young Hamlet's madness. If ever I asked him a question he would answer me oddly. For example, when I told him that I wasn't an "fishmonger" (because he thought I was) he told me that he wished I was "such an honest a man." What does being honest have anything to do with being a fishmonger? Whether I was one or not, it shouldn't determine my honesty or dishonesty. I think that by simply denying that I am a fishmonger is honest enough. He then talked about maggots and how the sun can produce them in dead dogs because their flesh is good enough to deserve kisses from it and in the same sentence he finished by asking me if I had a daughter. After I told him that I did, he urged me not to let her walk in the sun. And before I could make of what he was saying, he mentioned that conception is a blessing and that I should be careful of my daughter because she can conceive. What a bizarre thing of Lord Hamlet to say to a father, not just to me. How can you go from speaking of maggots to talking about conception. Unless, it was his way of letting me know what he thinks about life and death. Conception being viewed as life and maggots relating to death. Perhaps he is trying to say that life is better than death because in it when your're dead (as within dead dogs lying in view of the sun) maggots are produced in the body. It's a good theory to ponder on but what should I make of all of this. I noticed a manuscript in his left hand, when i asked him what he was reading he simply said, "words, words, words" as if not wanting to be bothered about what he may had been reading. If I asked him what was the matter with the subject he was reading, he would answer, "between whom?" After I told him what I was referring to, he began to explain a little bit about the slanders in his story. As he explained, I got the impression as if he was describing me. Very odd of him to say those things but I paid close attention in hopes of understanding. Suddenly he told me that I could grow as old as him if only I could walk backwards as a crab. That's when I knew that there was a genius to his madness. How upsetting this will seem for both the King and Queen to know but it is nessesary for them to know...if sir Hamlet is to be helped.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Hamlet, Act 1
In the first of many soliloquies found throughout Hamlet, it is interesting to see how it plays out on screen or stage by different actors.
After seeing the five versions of Hamlets soliloquy I have to say I enjoyed Mel Gibson's performance best. He not only involved emotion into Hamlets mood but also in what he said. I like the fact that he didn't look into the camera, giving the scene a sense of realism. I thought it was a good idea to have in go to the window and look out at the people as he spoke. Again, it gave the scene a sense of realism.
In regards to Kenneth "the Shakespeare guy" Branagh's portrayal sounded more like he was reciting a speech. Perhaps he was trying not to forget his lines. I like his physical presence but not so much his acting.
With Kevin Kline it was sort of the same thing, instead it seem like he was caught in a fog. I don't know what the producers were thinking but by having all that smoke on stage, it seemed to like I was watching "The happening."
On to Tony Richardson, I liked his performance even it was an old version. I like how he sat in front of the camera and just looked up as if speaking to God. And the fact that he is close to the camera helps for viewer to notice his emotions as he speaks. At one moment he even leans his head on his left fist as if pondering, then slightly hitting himself adding more pain to his performance.
The last performance and my least favorite is by Japan's very own Fujiwara Tatsuya. At first i couldn't tell what was going on. All I could see is people in a cage. After everyone leaves and he's left alone...that's when it got frightfully interesting. He began running around like a "mad" man then stopping to yell (not act). I feel as if the acting was over playing the role of Hamlet. If I didn't know that what I was seeing was a scene from Hamlet, I would have thought it was about a guy who had trouble defecating. He looked like he was constipated (Am sorry!). Needless to say the performance was S*****.
As I mentioned before, Mel Gibson's performance was superb and I highly recommend it. M
After seeing the five versions of Hamlets soliloquy I have to say I enjoyed Mel Gibson's performance best. He not only involved emotion into Hamlets mood but also in what he said. I like the fact that he didn't look into the camera, giving the scene a sense of realism. I thought it was a good idea to have in go to the window and look out at the people as he spoke. Again, it gave the scene a sense of realism.
In regards to Kenneth "the Shakespeare guy" Branagh's portrayal sounded more like he was reciting a speech. Perhaps he was trying not to forget his lines. I like his physical presence but not so much his acting.
With Kevin Kline it was sort of the same thing, instead it seem like he was caught in a fog. I don't know what the producers were thinking but by having all that smoke on stage, it seemed to like I was watching "The happening."
On to Tony Richardson, I liked his performance even it was an old version. I like how he sat in front of the camera and just looked up as if speaking to God. And the fact that he is close to the camera helps for viewer to notice his emotions as he speaks. At one moment he even leans his head on his left fist as if pondering, then slightly hitting himself adding more pain to his performance.
The last performance and my least favorite is by Japan's very own Fujiwara Tatsuya. At first i couldn't tell what was going on. All I could see is people in a cage. After everyone leaves and he's left alone...that's when it got frightfully interesting. He began running around like a "mad" man then stopping to yell (not act). I feel as if the acting was over playing the role of Hamlet. If I didn't know that what I was seeing was a scene from Hamlet, I would have thought it was about a guy who had trouble defecating. He looked like he was constipated (Am sorry!). Needless to say the performance was S*****.
As I mentioned before, Mel Gibson's performance was superb and I highly recommend it. M
Monday, October 27, 2008
Emilia's diary
Day 6 of August, 1522-
I just left my lady's chamber...and to be frank, I am very upset with myself. I allowed my demanding husband to take what I cherished most-Desdemona's handkerchief! For once I felt as if the gods where smiling upon me. I could almost feel there presence when I found my lady's cloth laying on the ground. Upon til today the idea of stealing it from her crossed my mind on many occasions but I never dared go through with it. My love for Desdemona eclipse any selfish desire I may harbor in my heart. And even when Iago tried to get me to still it, I refused him time and time again. Oh, why couldn't I had hidden it from anyone to see. I wasn't going to keep it. I wonder if the gods might have thought that. Could that be why it's been taking out of my possession. If I have transgressed in my heart without realizing it, I pray the gods will forgive me.
Day 7 of August, 1522-
How I wished I knew what to do now. My lord seemed very perplexed at the sight of my lady's handkerchief. What must he think is going on with the gift he once gave Desdemona? I must ask my lord Iago why has Cassio now possessed what he took from me? Perhaps Othello thinks that my lady gave it to the Leutenaunt...oh that can't be! Why would she give Cassio what the moor has given her. My women would love to have in their possession that token of love, gift from the heart, a piece from heaven. I will speak with my lord to see why the leutenaunt had the lady's cloth in his hand. I can't tell anyone of this or else I will be under suspecion. I pray gods would strip me bare and expose my deeds. To the gods I shall pray for forgiveness.
At this point in the play, starting with the first journal entry, I believe Emilia is trying to forfill her duty as a wife, which is to be obedient to her husband. Iago asked for Desdemona's handkerchief and she let him take from her. In regards to her loyality towards Desdemona-there wasn't any. As much as she may have wanted her handkerchief, and as difficult as it may seem to not keep it (once found on the ground), she should have done right by her lady. When you look at the bigger picture, it's a piece of cloth versus her relationship with Desdemona...what's more important? Towards the end of the play Emilia redeems herself by standing up for Desdemona but by then she had already been killed.
I just left my lady's chamber...and to be frank, I am very upset with myself. I allowed my demanding husband to take what I cherished most-Desdemona's handkerchief! For once I felt as if the gods where smiling upon me. I could almost feel there presence when I found my lady's cloth laying on the ground. Upon til today the idea of stealing it from her crossed my mind on many occasions but I never dared go through with it. My love for Desdemona eclipse any selfish desire I may harbor in my heart. And even when Iago tried to get me to still it, I refused him time and time again. Oh, why couldn't I had hidden it from anyone to see. I wasn't going to keep it. I wonder if the gods might have thought that. Could that be why it's been taking out of my possession. If I have transgressed in my heart without realizing it, I pray the gods will forgive me.
Day 7 of August, 1522-
How I wished I knew what to do now. My lord seemed very perplexed at the sight of my lady's handkerchief. What must he think is going on with the gift he once gave Desdemona? I must ask my lord Iago why has Cassio now possessed what he took from me? Perhaps Othello thinks that my lady gave it to the Leutenaunt...oh that can't be! Why would she give Cassio what the moor has given her. My women would love to have in their possession that token of love, gift from the heart, a piece from heaven. I will speak with my lord to see why the leutenaunt had the lady's cloth in his hand. I can't tell anyone of this or else I will be under suspecion. I pray gods would strip me bare and expose my deeds. To the gods I shall pray for forgiveness.
At this point in the play, starting with the first journal entry, I believe Emilia is trying to forfill her duty as a wife, which is to be obedient to her husband. Iago asked for Desdemona's handkerchief and she let him take from her. In regards to her loyality towards Desdemona-there wasn't any. As much as she may have wanted her handkerchief, and as difficult as it may seem to not keep it (once found on the ground), she should have done right by her lady. When you look at the bigger picture, it's a piece of cloth versus her relationship with Desdemona...what's more important? Towards the end of the play Emilia redeems herself by standing up for Desdemona but by then she had already been killed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)