i loved all three performances.
Jane Lapotaire was really good. when i first read Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking scene i felt she was a little desperate, anguished, desperate and guilty. i felt she, lady macbeth, must have a split personality and the second manifested itself in this particular scene.i got all these feelings in Jane's performance. i most especially liked her eyes. they looked like a mad animal who's just been caught in an evil act.
Judi Dench was also really good. Her scream, though a bit odd, worked for me. it should a total abandonement of the anguish which i believe Lady Macbeth, being a Lady of her time, must have been holding within her so as not to perturbe the image those around her have of her. Also the tears were brilliant! It should a sense of grief and desperation at what not only she but mostly her husband had been capable of doing. It should to me that despite her deal with Hell to become "unfeminine", she is still a woman.
Shirley Verrett to me seemed to be expressing remorse. To me of all the acts she seemed most sorry for what she had done. though, i must admit that she did not really give me the feeling of someone that was sleep walking, therefore that to me was a bit of a turn off, but i have to say that for an opereta it's not so easy to convey so many emotions while maintaining such a high level of vocal activity.
Bravo to all three in my opinion!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
"Let Be"
If we recall Hamlet's mood earlier in the play we see that they were not very stable. During the wedding ceremony or presentation of the royal couple he was pesimistically gloomy. He was behaving as a child who was being forced to sit down and drink his morning tea when all he wanted to do was to play outside in the garden or be anywhere else. Afterwards when he was left alone he was sulking at the lost of his father but then he was angry at the fact that he felt the love his mother felt for her deceased husband was false. he says "frailty, thy name is woman". The next moment he was punning with his friend who came to pay him a visit and after recieving news of his fathers ghost he went into desperation. Once he has heard from the ghost what i feel he wanted somebody, anybody, to confirm (that his uncle planned to kill his father) then he was sort of like a man on a mission.
i feel Hamlet has always known what he wanted to do to his uncle but he just needed a little push. sort of like a child who's training wheels have just been taken off. "To be or not to be" i would consider as that pep talk a person gives themselves before they make a major commitment. (like when a man is about to propose and isn't really sure he wants to give up his bachelorhood but is sure that he doesn't want to loose his love but still wants to wait until the final moment to "hang himself" as they say, because something, anything opened his eyes to show him that this is the best thing to do) Well that is exactly what happened to Hamlet, i feel.
He knew that there was someting about his unlce that did not sit right and when the ghost told him he was the murderer, what did Hamlet say? "OH my prophetic soul!". He was just waiting for someone else to say something vile about the man. Then he wasn't sure as to whether or not he could carry out the task of murdering his uncle and he said the famous lines "To be or not to be". He was doubting himself but that did not stop him from his determination because he still sought ways to prove his uncles guilt. Hence the play he had the actor act for the royal household. He wanted to see his unlce reaction, more obvious he could not be. Then his final resolve came when he concluded that men were nothing more then dust. It did not matter if you were a king or a commoner, educated or not, once dead we are all the same.
Its good that he comes to this conclusion because in a way i feel that his mind found some sort of peace. In my rational he reasoning was that once he killed his uncle, this man was going to become worm food the same way he would be one day aswell. I dont think he was viewing death as a question of having to then go to heaven or hell, because if we recall he once stopped from killing the king because he was praying and he did not want his soul to go to heaven and with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz he didnt want the king of England to give them anytime to pray for forgiveness of their sins, i think he started to view death as what it was, a natural course in life which all men, sinners and saints, must undergo.
i feel Hamlet has always known what he wanted to do to his uncle but he just needed a little push. sort of like a child who's training wheels have just been taken off. "To be or not to be" i would consider as that pep talk a person gives themselves before they make a major commitment. (like when a man is about to propose and isn't really sure he wants to give up his bachelorhood but is sure that he doesn't want to loose his love but still wants to wait until the final moment to "hang himself" as they say, because something, anything opened his eyes to show him that this is the best thing to do) Well that is exactly what happened to Hamlet, i feel.
He knew that there was someting about his unlce that did not sit right and when the ghost told him he was the murderer, what did Hamlet say? "OH my prophetic soul!". He was just waiting for someone else to say something vile about the man. Then he wasn't sure as to whether or not he could carry out the task of murdering his uncle and he said the famous lines "To be or not to be". He was doubting himself but that did not stop him from his determination because he still sought ways to prove his uncles guilt. Hence the play he had the actor act for the royal household. He wanted to see his unlce reaction, more obvious he could not be. Then his final resolve came when he concluded that men were nothing more then dust. It did not matter if you were a king or a commoner, educated or not, once dead we are all the same.
Its good that he comes to this conclusion because in a way i feel that his mind found some sort of peace. In my rational he reasoning was that once he killed his uncle, this man was going to become worm food the same way he would be one day aswell. I dont think he was viewing death as a question of having to then go to heaven or hell, because if we recall he once stopped from killing the king because he was praying and he did not want his soul to go to heaven and with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz he didnt want the king of England to give them anytime to pray for forgiveness of their sins, i think he started to view death as what it was, a natural course in life which all men, sinners and saints, must undergo.
Monday, November 10, 2008
To Be or Not to Be an Agent of God?
Hamlet believed that his actions were all to be viewed as righteous for he was an "agent of God". He feels that in order to avenge his father's murder, to hell with those that get hurt in the process. He felt no remorse for killing Polonius, granted we dont really know whether or not he liked the man, but if you claim to love the man's daughter then surely you should feel something, no? So the question that remains is do we believe this to be true? To be or not be an agent of god?
Comparing Othello to Hamlet there are similarities and differences. Both Othello and Hamlet feel that they are murdering to bring about justice for a wrong commited. i dont recall however, that Othello ever considered himself and intrument of god. His reason for murdering Desdemona was because she was unfaithful and because he wanted to "save other men" from her decieving ways. Hamlet on the other hand was looking to avenge his father so that his soul may rest in peace but to me it seemed as though he simply did not like the fact that his mother choose to remarry to his uncle.
Polonius said that there was "a method" to Hamlet's maddness. Though some people could argue that he went crazy i think that to a certain extent this is true but yet to another no, he was as perfectly comprehensive. Both he and Othello sought ways to have their sinners confess or reveal their guilt. But there was no method to Othello's way of seeking the truth from his wife, he was simply a puppet in the hands of Iago the puppeteer. Hamlet on the hand is the both the puppet and the puppeteer. He recieves orders from the ghost but all of his means to get to this end were all his doing, not someone ordering him about as was the case of Othello.
At last, both Othello and Hamlet choose to murder because the loved. Yet, unlike Hamlet Othello never had any intention of hurting those around him, only the people who he thought to have hurt him, which in this case was Desdemona and Cassio. Hamlet, by "feigning" to be mad hurt the woman whom loved him, two of his good friends and an inocent man, Polonius, and he did all this without any remorse.
So, was he or was he not an agent of god? In my honest opinion he's just a sad murderer.
Comparing Othello to Hamlet there are similarities and differences. Both Othello and Hamlet feel that they are murdering to bring about justice for a wrong commited. i dont recall however, that Othello ever considered himself and intrument of god. His reason for murdering Desdemona was because she was unfaithful and because he wanted to "save other men" from her decieving ways. Hamlet on the other hand was looking to avenge his father so that his soul may rest in peace but to me it seemed as though he simply did not like the fact that his mother choose to remarry to his uncle.
Polonius said that there was "a method" to Hamlet's maddness. Though some people could argue that he went crazy i think that to a certain extent this is true but yet to another no, he was as perfectly comprehensive. Both he and Othello sought ways to have their sinners confess or reveal their guilt. But there was no method to Othello's way of seeking the truth from his wife, he was simply a puppet in the hands of Iago the puppeteer. Hamlet on the hand is the both the puppet and the puppeteer. He recieves orders from the ghost but all of his means to get to this end were all his doing, not someone ordering him about as was the case of Othello.
At last, both Othello and Hamlet choose to murder because the loved. Yet, unlike Hamlet Othello never had any intention of hurting those around him, only the people who he thought to have hurt him, which in this case was Desdemona and Cassio. Hamlet, by "feigning" to be mad hurt the woman whom loved him, two of his good friends and an inocent man, Polonius, and he did all this without any remorse.
So, was he or was he not an agent of god? In my honest opinion he's just a sad murderer.
HAMLET!
Out of the first act with Kenneth Branagh the emotions i recieved from him were that of first depression, to a sad resignation followed quickly by anger mixed with disgust. i admit to being bias and like his performance but i wont say that it was my favorite.
Kevin Kline i felt had no emotion. im my opinion it was monotonous. to be frank i didn't feel much for his perfomance. it seemed too rehearsed for my liking.
With the 3rd act performed by Nicol Williamson i got the feeling of grief. he seemed to really be feeling sorrowful and did a good job at conveying so. his eyes, their direct gaze as a deer caught in a headlight simply awaiting his fatal destination, i thought it was great. Also the lazy manner in which he carried himself across the stage as though he had no strength, brilliant, but not my favorite.
Mel Gibson appeared to me to be heartbroken. He sounded pained and the way he looked down onto his mother from the window, like a child who's favorite toy was taken away. It was good.
Irronically enough, my favorite was the one i didnt not understand much of. The fifth act by Fujiwara Tatsuya was to me the best. Yes the cage was very much cliche, but he gave me everything. One moment he was angry, then frustrated back to angry, the depressed and painly sorrowed. I think Hamlet must have been feeling every emotion known to man when he was going reciting these words and to me Fujiwara expressed them all perfectly, if a bit exaggerated at times, but still great!
Kevin Kline i felt had no emotion. im my opinion it was monotonous. to be frank i didn't feel much for his perfomance. it seemed too rehearsed for my liking.
With the 3rd act performed by Nicol Williamson i got the feeling of grief. he seemed to really be feeling sorrowful and did a good job at conveying so. his eyes, their direct gaze as a deer caught in a headlight simply awaiting his fatal destination, i thought it was great. Also the lazy manner in which he carried himself across the stage as though he had no strength, brilliant, but not my favorite.
Mel Gibson appeared to me to be heartbroken. He sounded pained and the way he looked down onto his mother from the window, like a child who's favorite toy was taken away. It was good.
Irronically enough, my favorite was the one i didnt not understand much of. The fifth act by Fujiwara Tatsuya was to me the best. Yes the cage was very much cliche, but he gave me everything. One moment he was angry, then frustrated back to angry, the depressed and painly sorrowed. I think Hamlet must have been feeling every emotion known to man when he was going reciting these words and to me Fujiwara expressed them all perfectly, if a bit exaggerated at times, but still great!
Monday, October 27, 2008
"The Moor's Fit"
Othello's fit towards Desdemona has brought about three effects in me:
1-'It shows how much Othello love's Desdemona'
irronically enough this is one of the thoughts which did come to mind. you might think that this proves how meek his love for her is but its actually quite the opposite. as people the more we love someone the more we want to believe everything that person says, but also the more we love the more harsh we can be towards our love. we are more likely to forgive a friend for something, such as a lie, then we are to forgive our lovers, partners or spouse. the reason being because we "refuse" to believe that this particular person would "ever betray our trust". if it had been any other woman whom had done such a thing to him in the past i honestly believe he simply would have accused her of being a whore and moved onto another, but since it was "his Desdemona", his love, the woman whom he trusted his heart to, it hurt tenfold.
2-'It exposed how deeply insecure Othello is'
yes it does. it was the partially the fact that he thought that Desdemona was perverted for loving a "moor" that helped seal in his mind the lies of her infidelity. he came to the conclusion that she was "not normal" because, of all the suitors she had, all fair skinned as she was, she choose him, and in his mind this thought was unconcievable. granted when she said "i saw Othello's visage in my mind" she's admitting that she did not find him all that attractive but, if he would have had confidence in that he as a person was good enough for her and that she was not looking for someone who "looked" suitable but "was", for her, then he would have not thought her perverted for loving a man such as he.
3-'It is too "over the top" to be believed'?
no it is not. i dont really understand what this means, i mean isn't this what shakespeare is about? taking the ordinary and transforming it into something remarkablbly extraordinary and "over the top"? i mean for instance, coud two children love as truly and as deeply as Romeo and Juliet? Could a woman be as dutiful as Desdemona and defend her husband even, when it was he who tried and succeded in killing her? must all people recieve a most profound eulogy BEFORE they die? even if they were murdered or are committing suicide? remember shakspeare was ALL ABOUT THE DRAMA, it was and is what we love about him.
1-'It shows how much Othello love's Desdemona'
irronically enough this is one of the thoughts which did come to mind. you might think that this proves how meek his love for her is but its actually quite the opposite. as people the more we love someone the more we want to believe everything that person says, but also the more we love the more harsh we can be towards our love. we are more likely to forgive a friend for something, such as a lie, then we are to forgive our lovers, partners or spouse. the reason being because we "refuse" to believe that this particular person would "ever betray our trust". if it had been any other woman whom had done such a thing to him in the past i honestly believe he simply would have accused her of being a whore and moved onto another, but since it was "his Desdemona", his love, the woman whom he trusted his heart to, it hurt tenfold.
2-'It exposed how deeply insecure Othello is'
yes it does. it was the partially the fact that he thought that Desdemona was perverted for loving a "moor" that helped seal in his mind the lies of her infidelity. he came to the conclusion that she was "not normal" because, of all the suitors she had, all fair skinned as she was, she choose him, and in his mind this thought was unconcievable. granted when she said "i saw Othello's visage in my mind" she's admitting that she did not find him all that attractive but, if he would have had confidence in that he as a person was good enough for her and that she was not looking for someone who "looked" suitable but "was", for her, then he would have not thought her perverted for loving a man such as he.
3-'It is too "over the top" to be believed'?
no it is not. i dont really understand what this means, i mean isn't this what shakespeare is about? taking the ordinary and transforming it into something remarkablbly extraordinary and "over the top"? i mean for instance, coud two children love as truly and as deeply as Romeo and Juliet? Could a woman be as dutiful as Desdemona and defend her husband even, when it was he who tried and succeded in killing her? must all people recieve a most profound eulogy BEFORE they die? even if they were murdered or are committing suicide? remember shakspeare was ALL ABOUT THE DRAMA, it was and is what we love about him.
Monday, October 20, 2008
"Unnatural" Marriage
When Barbantio learned oh his daughters marriage to Othello he claimed this act was "unnatural". Is this acceptable? Was it true? According to the definition in the OED unnatual could be defined as "5. At variance with what is natural, usual, or to be expected; unusual, strange". before we make judgement we have to understand that this sort of union in times of shakespeare were very rare, especially among high society. it was expected of high society to marry high society, not that othello was not considered high society, but he was frowned upon because he was black. though he was a general in the army and had a good reputation it was this factor which made their union unnatural. blacks were considered not so much as inferiors, i believe, as "others". it was a way of classifying those which did not fit the "tradional" appearance or stature of what high society expected. Barbantio being of this high society and having brought his daughter up well he was, like any parent of his time, expecting her to marry "well", and unfortunetly for him Othello did not fit that criteria. so yes we can understand why he would say that she was bewitched into falling in love with othello and why he was so angry.
now a days society, for the most part, is quite tolerant of interracial marriages/unions. in this country alone the number has gone up tremendously since the law which made interracial marriages illegal was abolished in 1967. i come from an interracial family. if i were to find myself in this situation as Desdemona and Othello, i know that my parents would not disagree with my choice of partner. even if we were not in interracial family i know that they would not disagree because my parents are very bohemian and believe that when in love all is fair and good and that a good marriage is based on the acceptance of others as they are. they feel that problems will come regardless and its on how you are able to over come them together that makes you stronger.
im lucky to have been born as i am.though i know that my parents union was not an easy one to come by, becuase even in my family there are still those who view my parents marriage as somewhat strange and unusual. they believe that my brothers and i must have a hard time because we are "confused by whom we really are", but i can assure you such is not the case. that is why i sort of understand why in many countries mixed unions are not acceptable. such as for instance in some indian and islamic countries. parents expect their children to marry someone who has most in common with them. to many this aspect includes same ethnicity, religion and background.some countries i do believe take this matter to an extreme souch as for instance in Arabic nations. there are laws which give family members the right to kill any woman who chooses to marry outside of her tribe.
i dont feel many people oppose these unions so much because of racial factors, more so that they believe that by having such things in common the union has a more probable chance of lasting. though i do not agree with this mentality i do understand their perspective and respect their beliefs.
now a days society, for the most part, is quite tolerant of interracial marriages/unions. in this country alone the number has gone up tremendously since the law which made interracial marriages illegal was abolished in 1967. i come from an interracial family. if i were to find myself in this situation as Desdemona and Othello, i know that my parents would not disagree with my choice of partner. even if we were not in interracial family i know that they would not disagree because my parents are very bohemian and believe that when in love all is fair and good and that a good marriage is based on the acceptance of others as they are. they feel that problems will come regardless and its on how you are able to over come them together that makes you stronger.
im lucky to have been born as i am.though i know that my parents union was not an easy one to come by, becuase even in my family there are still those who view my parents marriage as somewhat strange and unusual. they believe that my brothers and i must have a hard time because we are "confused by whom we really are", but i can assure you such is not the case. that is why i sort of understand why in many countries mixed unions are not acceptable. such as for instance in some indian and islamic countries. parents expect their children to marry someone who has most in common with them. to many this aspect includes same ethnicity, religion and background.some countries i do believe take this matter to an extreme souch as for instance in Arabic nations. there are laws which give family members the right to kill any woman who chooses to marry outside of her tribe.
i dont feel many people oppose these unions so much because of racial factors, more so that they believe that by having such things in common the union has a more probable chance of lasting. though i do not agree with this mentality i do understand their perspective and respect their beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)