What I've been studying all week...

King Henry V a the Battle of Agincourt, 1415

by John Gilbert (1817-1897)

"The mirror of all Christian kings."
?

What do you think Shakespeare was trying to say?

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

"Hamlet" on film and Kenneth Branagh

Before we get into any particulars I think we should establish the fact that Kenneth Branagh is a genius of his trade.

There have been many, many movie versions of Hamlet and Branagh has been the only director to tackle the entire play.

He loves Shakespeare and it is amazingly obvious.

He works hard to pull in the meaning, themes, and life of all the plays he's done and his enthusiasm is contagious.

One thing I particularly appreciate about him is the fact that he does not take himself too seriously...but he is very sincere about whatever story he is dealing with. He is willing to make the production all about what is happening and what it is saying, not about himself or the other actors.

Of the versions of Hamlet I have scene Branagh's 1996 production is my favorite. Although there are several portions that are distinctly his interpretation, he stays with the complete text. I believe he is true to the story, leaving the questions that Shakespeare does not answer, still questions.

Mel Gibson, although a very interesting Hamlet, completely fails to stick with Shakespeare's most important themes and suggests a relationship between Gertrude and Hamlet that Freud imagined. Laurence Olivier is good, although mopey, but forces his own interpretations.

I do not remember other versions I have seen well enough to critique. I know there are at least two productions since 1996 that I have not seen.

When the character of Fortinbras is obliterated for a shorter film, the play is no longer Hamlet to me. I can still enjoy it as a movie, but as Shakespeare's Hamlet it falls short. (See this post.)

Branagh's interpretation of Fortinbras is my main question with his Hamlet...although he is casted as Rufus Sewell, which is something.

Branagh also portrays Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship as exceeding the bounds of honorable courtship. I believe this could be a legitimate, (if unpleasant) interpretation. Unfortunately this leads to unnecessary scenes in Ophelia's mind while she is speaking with her father. This, a few other similar quick scenes, and some disturbing and violent images give Hamlet it's much deserved PG-13 rating and make me hesitant to recommend it. If you have Clearplay, go for it. Otherwise, be cautious.

Kenneth Branagh puts together a star cast. Nearly every character that turns up is familiar and excellent.

And he still manages to use falling petals despite the fact that he is dealing with a tragedy.

The first portion does a wonderful job of contrasting Hamlet with the other sons of the play and the other characters, which are essentially acting (an obvious theme of the play along with painting of faces and false appearances).

Brian Blessed gets a abnormal role for him as Hamlet's father and the ghost.

He's pretty creepy...

There is a lot of fog, cracking ground, and bubbling that make his and Hamlet's talk very dramatic and hardly gives the ghost a favorable impression as coming from any where but down. (Compare this to Mel Gibson's.)

Rufus Sewell as Fortinbras.

"The play's the thing..."

So...about Horatio... I love the character of Horatio. He is amazing. I have seen Nicholas Farrell in other movies (think Amazing Grace, Twelfth Night, Chariots of Fire, etc..) and I think he does a great job.

When I first realized he was playing Horatio, I confess I recoiled. I couldn't stand it for the first half hour, but I got used to it and he does do an interesting and sympathetic interpretation. He isn't what I would have imagined, but I couldn't tell you who I would cast as this part.

Julie Christie plays Gertrude.

Branagh is very convincingly mad...
It is very funny, sad, and a little scary.

Polonius is quite amusing. The interchanges between Hamlet and Polonius when Hamlet is being mad/rude are very well done.

Here is a clip from the "words, words, words" part. Branagh's face flexibility is impressive.

If you are Shakespeare or Branagh fan you will be familiar with Richard Briers.

He does an excellent job as Polonius. (Not sure if that is a compliment.)

Kate Winslet an excellent Ophelia...although I think she's a little over-the-top at times when she goes mad. I don't know.

I think the part where Ophelia goes mad would be a fun one to play. ;-)

The scene with Hamlet and Ophelia talking is very heartrending. In this version, Hamlet seems to discover part way through that Ophelia is betraying him and others are listening. Branagh made me want to cry.

Rosemary Harris and Charlton Heston reenact Hamlet's trap for Claudius.

We love you, Charlton Heston!

You can see part of his speech, Aeneas' Speech to Dido as First Player, here.

Timothy Spall and Reece Dinsdale as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Billy Crystal as the 1st Gravedigger.
A hilarious, but thoughtful interpretation.

Robin Williams as Osric.

Very funny...perhaps goofy enough to be a bit out of place, but he does a good job.

Derek Jacobi does an outstanding job as Claudius.

I was happy to see him in this role because, although I know he is a wonderful actor, I have a hard time liking him when he's trying to be a good guy.

Throughout the movie they constantly show people practicing fencing at interesting times. Since Claudius and Hamlet are essentially fencing through the whole play and people keep getting in the way (or being pushed in the line of fire) this is a very interesting touch. I also love this checkerboard, chess-like floor.

Laertes and Hamlet's fight is very dramatic.

Michael Maloney as a dead Laertes...

And Fortinbras again...now King of Denmark.

If you've seen the 1996 movie version, what do you think Branagh's conclusion was? Do you think he sees Hamlet as a hero?

What do you think about other movie versions?

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

A few thoughts on "Hamlet"

Hamlet and Horatio in the Cemetery
by Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863)

I have very successfully been avoiding Hamlet.

This is partially because it is too big of a subject for a blog post and partly because I love it so much. I know I'm not going to be able to explain why and sound rational.

I wonder how many years people have dedicated to studying, interpreting, and performing Hamlet. I bet the total would be staggering.

Is it worth the obsession we have with it?

The Play-scene in Hamlet
by Daniel Maclise (1806-1870)

I think Hamlet is largely about the complexity of human nature. Hamlet, himself, is extremely complicated and the subject of wide and varied conjectures (both in the play and the four-hundred years since it was first performed).

This was a problem for Hamlet too. Most of his soliloquies center around his inability to understand himself or his actions.

It is astonishing that today we accept Hamlet as a hero and his mission commendable. While Hamlet is certainly a likable character and I consider it natural to sympathize with him, this doesn't mean we should agree with what he is doing.

Shakespeare wasn't trying to create a role model.

Revenge tragedies were extremely common in Elizabethan England and taking vengeance oneself was universally condemned in the theater. It could be possible Shakespeare would go against this pattern, however, Hamlet condemns himself with several of his speeches. (For instance his reasoning in Act III, Scene 3 is startling as well as his quiet dispatch of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and lack of remorse over Polonius.)

Hamlet and Ophelia
by Dante Gabriel Rosetti (1828-1882)

It could also be a indication of Shakespeare's own conclusion when the only characters standing are Horatio and Fortinbras.

Horatio is the moral stability of the play and Fortinbras is the only son who does not take revenge into his own hands.

(There is some debate here. Branagh's interpretation has Fortinbras storm Elsinore and then take the throne. I suppose the play can be taken this way, but the last we heard of Fortinbras he was obeying the counsel of his uncle. Personally I think it would be horribly unfair for Fortinbras to get away with revenge while Laertes and Hamlet are dead on the floor. I know that doesn't sound very scientific, but Branagh is the only thing I've seen/read that interprets it this way. It makes me suspect that he is a little to fond of shattering glass.)

Here is a beautiful paragraph from Brightest Heaven of Invention by Peter Leithart.

"Hamlet" thus presents a negative view of redemption. Denmark is a fallen world, needing to be set right. Instead of showing us the Redeemer, however, Shakespeare shows us the folly and danger of man's efforts at self-redemption and especially redemption through violence. Time out of joint is not set right by the wrath of men. It is not the grasping of the first Adam who secures redemption but the patient suffering of the Last Adam. Those who seek vengeance do not prosper. The crown usurped by the serpent is finally worn by one who rejected revenge. And the meek inherit the land."

I think Hamlet raises a lot of questions without answering all of them. I don't think Shakespeare was just having a bad day. He knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what questions he wanted us to think about.

I know it is rather cliche to love Hamlet, but I am quite certain I will not get tired of it until the day I die. :-) It is by far my favorite Shakespeare play. I believe it is one that can be studied for a very, very long time...

I know these thoughts are all very incomplete, but I look forward to hearing yours.

I shall cudgel my brains no more about it (for the moment).

Miss Pickwickian

Further Reading-

There is a lot of very interesting stuff on Hamlet. Here are a few links online I came across earlier. I'd love to hear about other books or essays you found helpful.

-This is an interesting post by Alan Vanneman. The contrast between nine of the film versions is very helpful and some of the discussion on the themes and the plot of the play are interesting.

Over all, Vanneman has little confidence in Shakespeare and the consistencies of the play, which seem to make him miss the point. This is sad, but watching him talk himself out of Hamlet's conclusions and unanswered questions is amusing.

(He is strongly opinionated and doesn't mind using some off color language to get his point across.)

-Hamlet Works has a lot of reading material on the play and characters with several thought provoking essays.

-Shakespeare Online has some interesting ideas here.

-Although Peter Leithart's most organized thoughts on Hamlet can be read in Brightest Heaven of Invention there are two later blog posts that I found particularly fascinating.

Hamlet: Act 1

More on Hamlet

Other thoughts on Hamlet can be seen here.

Incomplete thoughts on "As You Like It"

As You Like It by James Watts (1736-1819)

I have a few questions I'd really like to ask someone about Shakespeare's As You Like It.

I love the play and I've read it countless times. (Partially because we own a small, cute, blue, Yale hardback edition and it's fun to hold and sniff.)
It has been a source of sorrow in my life that I cannot find anything by Peter Leithart on this play.

Some of the themes are obvious. Brothers and family (Oliver and Orlando and the two dukes). Totally confused romantic relationships. Loyalty. And the most striking and obvious-- the contrasts between all the couples at the end. Act V, Scene IV is quite the diverse line up. There are a strange variety of view points and reverence for love and marriage throughout the play.

But what exactly is Shakespeare saying with all this?

And what is with Jaques? I could literally be him. (Except for his famous "All the World's a Stage" speech in Act II, Scene VII which I would not have the genius to say.)

All the same...I kind of have this feeling that his conclusion is not what it should be. To leave at the marriage dance and feast hardly seems like a generally-condoned activity in Shakespeare... However appealing finding some abandoned cave and reading and thinking might sound. ;-)

Touchstone and Jaques seem to be contrasted often and both seem to be a bit unbalanced. I'd like someone really Shakespeare-smart to tell me what's going on here.

The dialogue is very clever and snappy which makes the play move quickly with plenty of laughs. Although there are more characters than some of the other comedies which make it a bit more confusing, I think As You Like It is good introduction to Shakespeare because it is just so funny.

I have only watched Kenneth Branagh's 2006 adaption. My sister and I watched it alone a couple years ago and loved it. We then told the rest of our family they had to see it. One night we all sat down with another family and watched it. Susannah and I laughed merrily through the entire movie while pretty much everyone else sat dead-pan. Apparently it wasn't a hit. Maybe they were disappointed if they were expecting another Much Ado.

I do realize that the movie is a little more random then Branagh's other adaptations-- partly because of the whole Japanese setting, partly because that's the way the play is written, and partly because Branagh gives it a funny, wacky flavor.

Random is my humor. I loved it. A random Buddha sitting in the middle of the forest? Who doesn't love that? ;-)

I also realize that the whole girl dressing up as a boy and then pretending to be a girl is weird and kind of awkward...especially due to our unfortunate exposure to homosexuality and America's current stand in this issue. We're pretty touchy. But since this is so obviously not what is going on, I don't think this should be a problem.

Audrey, and especially Audrey and Touchstone together, do add some unnecessary material. The only other iffy content I can remember is the wrestling scene which could be rated R for disturbing images. (Charles happens to be a sumo wrestler. Nasty. But if you have a sick sense of humor, like me, you will laugh.)

The cast is good and familiar. Bryce Dallas Howard is excellent and Romola Garai works better in Shakespeare for me than her other movies. I could listen to Brian Blessed all day because he plays Jean Valjean in Focus on the Family's Les Miz. Keven Kline, Alfred Molina, and Richard Briers play their roles wonderfully.

Patrick Doyle produced another amazing soundtrack as well as acting the part of the singer in the play.

Overall the movie has a 100% Kenneth Branagh feel (casting, music, takes, everything). Like Much Ado the movie is beautiful and mostly filmed outdoors. Branagh never appears but you do hear him say "and...cut!" at the very end after Rosalind's clever epilogue.

There is one thing I'd like to ask Branagh. Why did he make the shepherd, Corin, play the priest as well? I have enough faith in the way he uses imagery and details to portray his spin on Shakespeare (or Mary Shelley for that matter) that I don't believe he was just short on actors.

Hmm... I guess I mostly just have questions about this play and movie and not much intelligent things to say. ;-)

Overall, the movie totally resonated with me. Perhaps partly why I loved it was it's randomness, but I really think it's a well-done movie. Some of running-around-in-the-woods scenes I can totally can see my sister and I playing when were younger...of course with out all the clever themes and poetry. ;-) Maybe that's why it seemed normal.

I do love the story though. Many of our most well-known Shakespeare quotes come from As You Like It.

Thanks for reading. I love discussion, so comment and let me know what you think of it. I'd also love to hear about other film versions.

I charge you to like as much of this review as pleases you. :-)

Miss Pickwickian

C.S. Lewis, Max McLean, and your affectionate Uncle Screwtape

As previously stated, I got to see The Screwtape Letters in Portland on Saturday. :-)

I am so blessed to have gone. I wish I could just round up people and drive them into the theater! It was absolutely amazing and really made you chew on some thought-provoking stuff.

Although I knew it was going to be good, I wasn't prepared for how entertaining it would be. It never let you get remotely bored. I just wish I could see it several more times because there is so much to take in and think about.

I've read The Screwtape Letters and listened to Focus on the Family's rendition (not as good as reading the book) but it was very different to see it acted/narrated. It was also interesting to see what they choose to keep in and what they had to cut out. I think they did a good job preserving it's C.S. Lewis-ness.

The music was amazing. The acting, lighting, props...all wonderful.

You can see an interesting interview with McLean here. You can also see his narration of Mark on Youtube.

A lot of portions really stuck out to me. Something about hearing things from the other direction really gives you a wakeup call.

Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems too have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.

In a week or two you will be making him doubt whether the first days of his Christianity were not, perhaps, a little excessive. Talk to him about 'moderation in all things'. If you can once get him to a point of thinking 'religion is all very well up to a point', you can feel quite happy about his soul. A moderate religion is as good for us as no religion at all--and more amusing.

What he says on friends and conforming or becoming a different person depending on who you are around....and therefore being disloyal to all sets of acquaintances and then only feeling vaguely self-satisfied, self-righteous, or just shameful was extremely interesting. The whole section is something I think a lot of us young people could do some studying on.

Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one--the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.

If this portion was in the play, I missed it. I need to include it though because it is something I need to hear.

The most alarming thing in your last account of the patient that he is making none of those confident resolutions which marked his original conversion. No more lavish promises of perpetual virtue, I gather; not even the expectation of an endowment of 'grace' for life, but only a hope for the daily and hourly pittance to meet the daily and hourly temptation! This is very bad.

Or do you not realize that the patient's death, at this moment, is precisely what you want to avoid? ...he will almost certainly be lost to us if he is killed tonight. This is so obvious that I am ashamed to write it...They, of course, do tend to regard death as the prime evil and survival as the greatest good. But that is because we have taught them to do so. Do not let us be infected by our own propaganda.

The portion that is in Chapter 31 of the book was extremely powerful in the play. We, one day, will stand in the presence of our living God! There, devils can only cower.

C.S. Lewis is a genius. The end.

I'm so glad I got to see this. I want to read the whole book again. I hope we can have more amazing, well-done productions that turn our thoughts straight towards our Savior (however mixed up the direction might sound).

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

Your Affectionate Uncle

There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or magician with the same delight.

(C.S. Lewis. The Screwtape Letter.1941, p. 3)

I am going to go see Max McLean's Screwtape Letters in Portland on the 12th. I am very excited. I've been wanting to see this for a very, very long time. And before the performance I get to introduce Aisha to Portland's Powell's. They should get along quite nicely. I haven't been there for 12 1/2 months!!! Gasp. :-)

I'm sure you'll hear more about the Screwtape after we see it.

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

King Lear (TV 2009)

King Lear (Great TV Series 1972-)

Directed by Trevor Nunn

Rating: 6

Watch-ability: 7

Impact: ...

Watch it Again: Probably not.

Recommend it: I don't know...

Starring Ian McKellen, William Gaunt, Philip Winchester, Ben Meyjes, Francis Barber, Monica Dolan, Romola Garai, Sylvester McCoy, Jonathan Hyde, etc...

Not rated.

There is a great quantity of skin and the sisters are pretty creepy. The "out vile jelly" scene where Gloucester gets his eyes stomped out is disturbing. There is a hanging and some blood...obviously a lot of dying.

There's a lot of touching, like a lot of Shakespeare movies. This isn't necessarily bad, but if it creeps you out (like it does me) this movie would probably get a pretty harsh rating. ;-)

(See King Lear review.)

What to Expect

The sets are purposefully minimal and the whole movie is done more like a play. There are few characters and most of the sets are outside. There is no soundtrack. Always very dark lighting.

The costumes and setting/time period where pretty neat.

They do not add to the original play, but they do take out different sections. Sometimes a phrase, sometimes a chunk, and at least one whole scene.

I felt like some of the removed text is the best and most Christian. They took out some of Edger's best lines.

Also...their much more sympathetic to all the bad characters.

My Squib

As much as I do not Ian McKellen, he is an amazing actor.
I thought he did a great job as King Lear.

When he was insane he was especially convincing...

I loved the fool in the book, but he bothered me in the movie.

Goneril and Regan
These gals were the main sources of creepiness..

This is Philip Winchester as Edmund. (Think Flyboys and "Nights of the Air".)

He had considerably more hair in the movie version (some of these pictures are from a stage version). He played the part very well and was way to likeable.
Especially considering Edgar...

Frankly...he was awful.

He was a pathetic loser at the beginning and they totally have to make him start acting out of character to have him end up stabbing Edmund at the end. It's just plain weird.
It's like they couldn't stand having an awesome guy in the play.

This was the worst part about the movie....with no doubts.

Kent was comical...

I imagined him more sweet, yet cynical than comical, but he was interesting.

Romola Garai made a wonderful Cordelia.
I love a lot of movies that she plays in, but her acting style often bugs me. It's almost like she's overacting or something. But as Cordelia in a Shakespeare play this totally worked for me.

Poor Edmund is dead... Cwy. ;-)
Loved this creepy lady's coat!

Albany and Gloucester both did a really good job, I thought. I really liked Albany.

This scene was well done.

They insinuate that Kent goes off and shoots himself after this scene... You could interpret his last lines like that, but I hadn't thought of it that way before. Especially with the way they portray Kent, it didn't really fit.

Over all it had a very Trevor Nunn/Ian McKellen feel. Which means there were certain things I really liked about it, but mostly I didn't. ;-)

So yeah... That's my first experience with King Lear as a movie. :-)

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

King Lear - William Shakespeare :-)

King Lear Admonishing Cordelia by Henri Fuseli

We were all set up to study King Lear in highschool, but something happened and we didn't. After reading Deep Comedy I knew I simply had to make it a priority. :-)

So I read it.

I tried to read it straight through without looking at any notes or criticism the first time round. Then I watched the latest movie version, reread the play, reread the portion in Deep Comedy that talks about King Lear, and then investigated some other interpretations. It was extremely interesting.

I'm really glad I worked through it on my own to start with.
I've never really done that with a Shakespeare play, and it was very good. And I didn't get too confused. :-) And I was able to figure who was bad and who was good all on my own! Yeah!

So, anyways...I really liked it. Even more than I thought I would.

Here's a few lines from the play

Edmund 1.2.118-128

"This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when we are sick in fortune-- often the surfeits of our own behavior-- we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, the stars, as if we were villains on necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion, knaves, thieves, and teachers by spherical predominance, drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in by a divine thrusting-on. An admirable evasion of whore-master man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of the star."

Albany 4.2.

"This shows you are above,

You justicers, that these our nether crimes

So speedily can venge! But, O poor Gloucester!

Lost he is other eye?"

Edgar 5.3

"The weight of this sad time we must obey;

Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.

The oldest hath borne most: we that are young

Shall never see so much, nor live so long."

Squibbing

Deep Comedy has some really interesting, concise stuff on this play, and even if there weren't a hundred other reasons to read it, you should for Leithart's interpretation of King Lear.

Here's a chunk...

"In an important sense, this pattern of frustrated optimism is a sign of the effect of deep comedy on tragic drama. The play is filled with the unrealized possibility of restoration, redemption, resurrection, in a way that an ancient tragedy could never be. Ancient tragedy took place in a world where resurrection was unknown, where death was the end, but the world of King Lear is potentially a far happier place. The fact that this potential is not realized enhances the feeling of waste."

I wish I could quote all he has to say, but instead here's a paragraph from the conclusion.

"If ancient comedy is haunted by the fear of death, Christian tragedy is haunted by the hope of resurrection. A tragic vision of life makes ancient comedy sad; real hope of a new life in the Christian comic view of things makes Christian tragedy all the more poignant."

Christian tragedy is haunted by the hope of resurrection. I love that.

So I guess I don't have anything very profound to say about King Lear...Not surprising, I'm afraid. But I certainly recommend reading it and thinking about it. :-)

I'd love to hear your thoughts and any good film recommendations. I've watched the 2009 Trevor Nunn/Ian McKellen version (review to come).

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian