Soliloquy Analysis:
In Hamlet’s pivotal “To be, or not to
be” soliloquy, he deliberates about fate, questioning the values that suicide could
offer as compared to the hardships of life. To preface this, he uses such lines
as, “the oppressors wrong…the law’s delay” (3.2.71-72),“ The heart-ache and the
thousand natural shocks (3.2.63) and “For who would bear the whips and scorns
of time” (3.2.69) to portray the negative experiences of life. Hamlet convinces
his audience by repetition of the phrase “To sleep; to sleep” (3.2.60-61, 64-65)
in order to nod the audience off to sleep. By using common ailments to allow
the audience to a deeper connection, making them feel their past pain and
empathizing with Hamlet’s current pain, “Insolence of office… the pangs of
despis’d love…patient merit of th’ unworthy tasks” (3.2.71, 73, 74 ). Here he
uses logos, pathos, and ethos, respectively, to appeal to his audience. One paradox
that Hamlet mentions is “conscious makes cowards of us all” (3.2.83), this is
ironic in the fact that normally, ones’ conscious is what separates the
do-gooder from the wrong-doer, setting the hero who acted chivalrously ahead,
but here he is putting that attribute down. One primary metaphor Hamlet uses is
to equate sleep to death, and gives dreams the double meaning of heaven or
hell. This parallelism and synecdoche helps to paint Hamlet’s struggle with as
a more tangible concept. His conflicting tone, creating an opposition to more
fully highlight the argument he is having with himself, contrasts life and
death with more strength. Another opposition he identifies is the contemplator
and “the man” or the oppressor, essentially centered on “law” (3.2.72) and “office”
(3.2.73). Hamlet extends his thinker to all humans, asking himself and beseeching
for help about life on earth and how it compares to the afterlife—whether it
will resemble the heaven or hell he has in his mind. This is really a deep
philosophical question much of humanity ponders, as it is never going to be
answered scientifically, because as Hamlet states “no traveler returns”
(3.2.80). Hamlet eventually decides that death is too big of an action to take
when he is not sure of the consequences. This seems to be a pattern with him,
as he was tentative to even plan to kill Claudius without first having concrete
proof of his guilt, then again when he lets an opportunity slip by to avenge
his father because Hamlet is unsure of the King’s repentance, so really Hamlet
has been very stable in his rational thought throughout the play so far.
Acting Analysis:
1996 version: The only sound is
Hamlet’s voice, until soft singing without words emphasizes the ups and downs
of the struggles of life. By using the over-the-shoulder camera angle, the audience
is more in tune with Hamlet, but looking at him in the mirror, also farther
away but slowly gets closer and clearer, creating a very unique paradox within
this pivotal scene. When Hamlet pulls out the dagger, it heightens the
intensity and refocuses the audience on the change in tone. Hamlets striking
features and dark dress, with simplicity creates mystery.
1948 version: This one was markedly
more dramatic and pronounced than the others, which can be attributed to the
editing and non-diegetic music. It creates a stressful anticipation through the
music and the cutting between scenes of waves breaking on a cliff and Hamlet’s
eyes. This costuming is much more simplistic and to the time period, but not necessarily
for a young prince. The dagger pointed at Hamlet as he is contemplating suicide
is very powerful and makes the impact of the monologue even more powerful. The
shifting camera angles, alternating between close-ups and shots of the cliff
also emphasize the severity of the conversation being had with Hamlet’s rational
versus animalistic side.
Mel Gibson version: In this
rendition, it seems less of a contemplation of suicide than an attempt to
convince Hamlet that death is natural and okay, but still should be feared.
This is due to the setting in the catacombs, the camera following his
movements, when he addresses the dead themselves, instead of himself. The
echoing effect emphasizes the importance of the conversation though. There is
not the use of a dagger here. But the inner struggle does seem more apparent as
Hamlet literally rolls around, wrestling with himself about his conflict.
2000 version: The costuming and
acting make Hamlet appear very lost. He is wearing a suit jacket and a multi-colored
ski cap, just wandering around Blockbusters, looking almost dazed or
distracted. At first all the sound is non-diegetic, until the camera focuses on
a clip of the Terminator playing on a screen, which seems to add fuel to the
monologue because that is when Hamlet begins speaking out loud, mumbling to
himself in monotone. By including the setting in Blockbuster, it appeals to the
audiences struggles, about not being able to make the right decision while
being misinformed or without access to the right information. And then
including the allusions to Terminator, it lends to a tone without hope, that
all is lost and Hamlet is alone.
I feel that my performance was most
truthful in the 1996 version. And that is not just because I have the best hair
in that rendition either, but rather, the mirror was the stand-out. And again,
not just because I could admire my great mustache, but because this monologue
was about the inner struggle over suicide, life after death, giving up or
rolling with the punches, and the mirror lent itself most effectively and
accomplished these ends. The dagger was another prop that added to the drama in
a positive way: I think that all the techniques used only supplemented further
to the delivery of the message. The soft non-diegetic music, the two-way
mirror, and the black clothing all made a significant impact on the audience,
adding to the believability and appeal of my argument. The Mel Gibson version
had a very apt setting in the catacombs, making more sense to the topic of the
struggle but ended up retracting attention from the contrasting life and death
and felt more like I was praying to the dead for solace. The 1948 version was
heavy on editing but this effect lent itself well to the turmoil inside my
mind, however, the tights were distracting and itchy. The ploy with the dagger
and the chance of plummeting to my death however left very powerful effects on
the audience. And finally the 2000
version was too extrapolated, and the application to modern times just… felt
weird. I was more hopeless in tone than philosophical.
What I would have changed had I been
the lead actor and director, was to make all the lines more choppy—meaning more
exaggerated tone shifts for emphasis and making Hamlet seem very haunted
almost, but very resolute in his final outcome. This kind of acting and sound
qualities would be best executed in a haunted setting, such as the catacombs,
but taking on the conversation of the 1948 version where I almost stab myself
with a dagger in my rage. I would definitely keep the killer mustache from the
1996 version, as well as the black costuming and keeping constant the simple
make-up throughout all the versions. Camera angle I think I would want to stay
mostly focused on my face, but at every pivotal line, a framing change to
emphasize my words. Basically more drama, and more mustache.
No comments:
Post a Comment