If I Could Make a Perfect Man...

The
characteristics my ideal man would possess are:

1.Sensitive 2.Caring 3. A Good Listener 4.VERY handsome but not conceited 5.Goals to further himself 6. Willful with strong moral beliefs 7.The ability to
cope in rough times 8.Strong but knows when to be gentle 9. Responsible 10.Not easily influenced by others (knows who he is and what he wants) 11.Calm, even during times when it is hard to restrain himself
I believe it is hard, speaking from a modern American standpoint, for a man like Macbeth to hold all of the characteristics I have listed. However there are several characteristic a man should have held from generation to generation.

Macbeth:
1.Sensitive- I think Macbeth is sensitive in a warped way. He doesn't kill King Duncan without remorse. He is so torn about the murder that he lets Lady Macbeth literally clean up his mess.
2.Caring- I think this goes hand in hand with sensitivity. He cared that he was a murderer and is tortures himself over the path that he chose 3.Good Listener-Obviously he is a good listener to a fault. His wife is a little nutty and suggests death as a means to obtain a goal. That was one time he probably shouldn't have listened to his Lady. He also listens too closely to what the three crazed witches have to say
4.Very Handsome but not conceited- I do not know exactly how handsome Macbeth is supposed to be. I'm sure he was to a certain degree (a powerful man is always sexy) but it is impossible to tell if he is conceited or not . 5. Willful With Strong Moral Beliefs- Willful Macbeth may be, in all the wrong ways of course, but he is obviously lacking in the morality department. He is the type of man where he believes that the end justifies the means. That makes him lack any sets of guidelines whatsoever. 6. The Ability to Cope in Rough Times- Although Macbeth outwardly acts like nothing is wrong in his life after the murder of King Duncan, he did not have that capability immediately after the murder. He reacted on instinct immediately after the murder and relied on his wife. He is also struggling internally, and eventually that will catch up with his outward actions. 7. Goals to Further Themselves- It is quite clear that Macbeth's goal is to become king with using unconventional methods. I never thought that a man with goals could be so flawed, but in Macbeth's case it is his fatal flaw. 8. Strong but Knows When to Be gentle- Macbeth is a murder, a villain no doubt, but he is a loving and gentle husband with his wife. He is a man of war that con protect his wife and family but still holds a gentle (but bloody hand). 9. Responsible- I feel that this is one trait that Macbeth lacks completely. His actions were completely irresponsible and was not the right choice for him to make. Does he own his responsibility for the terrible path he chose (which inevitably lead to his own demise)? Yes. but he does not act in any responsible form. 10. Not Easily Influenced- This is one trait that Macbeth also completely lacks in. He is not his own man. He is talked into committing an unspeakable crime and is spellbound by the idea of being king and is captivated by the witches. I wouldn't want to know what else he would be able to be talked into. 11. Calm- He is not in any way calm. He tortures himself almost daily and lets his deed completely was over him. He is not taking care of the situating he created for himself and is internally going insane. You can't blame a man that has just commited murder to be collected in his emotions or feelings, but he does almost nothing to cope and come to terms with what he has done.

Destiny is Dead in The Hand's of Bad Luck

Hamlet's fate in the play is quite clear once the reader realizes the plays plot. We have this man who is already depressed and torn apart over what he believes is his father's murder. His depression and "madness" beings to be verified to him when he speaks to his father's ghost. I believe the outcome of this is shaped both by divinity and his sometimes nonsensical course of actions. Had Hamlet's father never been murdered (divinity??) and had he never had any sort of suspicion to the death of his father like the other characters in the play (his character) there would be no course of action necessary for him to take. I believe that Shakespeare wanted to impose the belief of divinity being a means for a result simply by using a ghost as a character. In other plays he used soothsayers and other means to bring about the truth behind a matter. The fact that Hamlet speaks to his father's ghost brings about a feeling that there are bigger factors coming into play other than the bitterness Hamlet has against his uncle. However, Hamlet's constant over analytical plotting and double guessing himself brought about more harm than good it seems. His action/inaction lead to several death's that were seemingly unnecessary to help his cause (Polonius, Ophelia,etc...). The methods behind his madness did not help his master plan as much as it hindered his course of action further (although it made for great reading material). If Hamlet was not always a step ahead of everyone else and had he not had been a believer, there would be no Hamlet to begin with.

I honestly believe in the quote "Destiny is dead in the hands of bad luck". This means that divinty or destiny can only take a person so far. There is a path that is already paved for one to take but it is up to the person to choose how that path is going to turn out. The divinty aspect was a ghost appearing and speaking with Hamlet. The man's power with divinty is seen in Hamlet's choice to believe in the ghost and then follow up on the ghosts promting to avenge his death. Hamlet, when hearing his proof that his uncle is guilty of murdering his father (more divinity??), has a chance to confront him on it or wait it out. Hamlet waits it out and well, we all see how that worked out for him. It is a combination of divine power meshed with our own human instincts that lead to how things will turn out.

I feel that Hamlet truly believed he was put upon this path of destructive revenge by a higher power. He recognizes the ghost of his father to be, well, a ghost. I also think he recognizes that the choices he makes, even with the guidance of his father's ghost, played a hand in the outcome of the play. He recognizes that he is not the agent of God like he once said but just played with the hand he was dealt. I feel that "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, /Rough-hew them how we will" he is giving himself and his actions completly over to God. That this was the path god set him out on and he only being human only reacted as a human would.

Blog 8: You've Gotta Be Cruel To Be Kind in The Right Measure

Hamlet and Othello, although on a similar quest for justice, are two very different characters and are put on their paths for very different reasons. They both share a fatal flaw of needing to seek out justice by means of their own hands. However similar their goals may be, they approach the situation in very different ways. Hamlet, from the moment we meet him, is a thinker. He is very aware of the situations going on around him and is already brewing on the inside. We can see his anger and depression within the first few lines he speaks. He has been "royally screwed" by his family and is unsure of what action he should take, if any at all. Othello starts off a very calm, collective man. He is a man of war and therefor is logical, well planned, and is in full control of the situations around him. He starts off with the image of a big teddy bear. Othello is the war hero who turns to mush at the mere sight of his wife. He does not change his ways until someone else plants doubt in his mind. Hamlet had the doubt to begin with. The ghost, similarly to Iago, confirms Hamlet's worst nightmares. (Iago did this by giving Othello Desdemona's handkerchief) Both men however, waited until they had solid proof of their suspicions until they started to take action. Othello, before having his "proof" did not really put much thought into his actions. He reacted to Desdemona on the pure emotions he was feeling in the moment. One could see Othello's "in the moment" thinking when he sees Desdemona and begins questioning if he should really kill her because just by looking upon her, he falls in love all over again. It is not until Desdemona is actually dead he really knew that he was going to go through with his plans. Hamlet knew all along what action he was going to take. Timing and having the right evidence was key to the action (and sometimes inaction) Hamlet took. Due to Hamlet's precautions, he let all of his emotions brew inside of him to a point where he could no longer control them. He then, with the first taste of the release of his pent up aggression, could not "bottle the monster" back inside of him. He took on the personality of a man hellbent on evening the score. He initially did not want to ruin more people's lives than necessary, but didn't care enough at the end to stop himself. He was unapologetic in his actions even until his death. Othello on the other hand realized and admitted his own wrongdoing and was truly sorry for the actions he took. Can I really blame Hamlet for letting himself follow the path of justice he took? No. I can also see why he takes on this omnious god-like character. He is mentally a step ahead of all of the other characters in the play and knows that the end will be bloody.

Blog 6: It Was Fun While it Lasted...

I think my picture pretty much sums up what my response to this prompt is going to be. As a very strong minded, self sufficient, "miss independent" woman, reading Othello, I can't help but stop and think "What the F*ck is this woman thinking??" I have a very low tolerance for taking any kind of crap from a man. There is very little a man can do for me that I can't do for myself. Especially since I'm not looking to have any children in the near future, there is nothing a man can do for me that I can't do for myself. Yes it is nice to share love and be dedicated to one person, but what happens when that man turns on you? If a man were to ever call me a whore, tell me I was unfaithful, and belittle me just because he is insecure in himself, I would do a lot worse than just slam a few doors on my way out. Sticking around and listening to false accusations would not even be a possible option for me. If my own husband were to make the accusations, I feel like that would an even bigger betrayal . That is proof that the marriage has failed and the love has faded. If my husband loved me and didn't believe what was being said about me he would approach me in a different way than Othello approached Desdemona. If the slurs and slanders continued throughout the conversation I was attempting to have one with him, his chances of me staying in the marriage decreases. I would leave and not hesitate at all. Things may be rough for a while but I know it would be for the best if I left.

I do know that my mentality is in 2008 and women are VERY different than the women in Desdemona's time. Today women have options and are more aware of the fact that there is more than just one possible match for them. We see less arranged marriages and more freedom for women. Sadly Desdemona did not live with that luxury. For her time period and the constraints of her situation, I feel she reacted as any other sane woman would have. She is married to a prince whom she loves and respects completely. She has pretty much removed herself from the safety of her fathers name, and is living in a land she is unfamiliar with. Moreover, she has no real support system to turn to other than Emilia. Yet, even Emilia is not completely on her side because she is the dutiful wife of Iago. Desdemona had nothing to gain and everything to lose if she would've been defiant with Othello. Adding to the mixture is the zeitgeist that Desdemona lived in. It was only natural for the woman to do whatever it took to keep their husbands happy and she did. She took the belittling with a grain of salt and did what she could to rectify the situation. Even though I, in today's society, would've punched Othello in the mouth for speaking to me that way, I can't say for sure that my reaction would've been the same if I was living in Desdemona's time. So I guess in the end, and regardless of how crappy the actions she took were, she made the best choice for all of those involved.

Blog 5: Barbantio vs. Leonato

Barbantio and Leonato are two fathers who completely adore, praise, and believe in their daughter's. They hold the highest opinions of their daughters and never forget to sing their praises. Due to their undying love and faith in their children, they are deeply distraught and torn apart when they feel their daughters have wronged them. Both believe their daughters are faithful to their wishes and would always obey what daddy says under any and all circumstances. I think it is key in understanding the astronomical faith these fathers have in their daughters in order to fully understand the plays. When these fathers realize that their daughters aren't "little miss perfect" they feel as though their entire world is caving in around them. Having a daughter that is defiant or has been ummm... deflowered before marriage was probably the worst thing possible for a father during Shakespearean times. Their daughters were then viewed as damaged goods and would probably never marry. Barbantio and Leonato both wanted to beat the crap out of whomever questioned their daughters. When the accusations were based in truth, the father's then turned their anger to their daughters. Both Desdemona and Hero were belittled, almost disowned, and put through a lot of mental anguish due to their fathers disappointment. Barbantio and Leonato initially had a lot of respect for the men in their daughter's life. They felt Othello and Claudio were men of honor and they were looked upon like adopted sons. Leonato reacted to Claudio appropriately. He shunned him and made him feel extremely guilty for wronging his daughter and his family's name. Massive apologies were called for and there were severe repercussions for Claudio's actions. Once the situation was amended Leonato forgave Claudio and fully accepted him as his own. Barbantio on the other hand never really fully accepted the part Othello played in wooing his daughter. Othello was never fully accepted again as an adopted son. He was always "the Moor" to Barbantio and was always viewed as the man who stole his only daughter.

The Many Faces Of Hamlet

Before I put my two cents in on these actor's capabilities and who passed my test on the best portrayal of Hamlet, there were three lines that I was waiting to hear and see how they were portrayed. These lines were "Fie on it", "... Frailty thy name is woman..." and "...to incestuous sheets...". For some reasons these lines really stuck out to me as a time where an actor could really show us a lot of emotions. The delivery of these lines played a part in my critiques of the scenes.



(In order of my favorite to my least favorite)



1. From Tony Richardson's Hamlet (Nicol Williams as Hamlet)- I was really moved by the way the scene was shot using just flickering candles in the background with only Nicol's face being shown. His eyes alone are pretty intense and you can see the emotion of the soliloquy in them. When he says "...Fie on it..." you can really see his disgust and it seemed like he was really passionate about dropping the Shakespearean F-Bomb. His voice cracks when hes reflecting on the disgusting acts done by his mother and uncle, which adds another dimension of emotion. While delivering the "...Frailty..." line he looks directly into the camera and it feels as though hes looking right through me. I like that hes almost punching himself in the head as he continues his lines. I think this video is proof that sometimes its better to strip an actor of any devices and let them completely depend upon their talents.

2. From Franco Zefirelli's Hamlet (Mel Gibson as Hamlet)- This particular scene I really thought I was going to laugh until I peed. I had forgotten Gibson had serious acting skills after all of his DUI's, anti-Semitisim, and outreaching to Brittney Spears. I was pleasantly proven wrong and here is why: It starts out similar to Nicol's performance with just a close up of Gibson which let his face do the acting. He then delivers the "Fie on it" line with a lot of rage which then only continues to build. I like that you see his mother and uncle outside his window because it looks like he's talking over them and is quite ominous in his delivery. The sadness in his voice when reflecting on "...Not two months dead..." is also enhanced by his facial expression which he seems to scoff at. What really sold me on this being my number 2 choice was his delivery on the "...Frailty..." line. You can see hes pist and I must admit I jumped a little bit when he slammed his shudders.

3.From Kevin Kline's Hamlet (Kline as Hamlet)- Here's another one I didn't think I would enjoy much. In & Out happens to be a movie I still enjoy watching and I didn't think I would be able to look at Kevin Kline through different eyes. Although it is poorly shot and the scenery or wardrobe does not add to the scene, his delivery is emotion filled. The emphasis he uses in his delivery of lines is seething, just like Hamlet is. I like that he is on his knees during the "...Fie on it..." line. You really can see he is distraught. I definitely did not like his emphasis on the "...Frailty..." delivery. It was a bit laughable. But I feel like it was recovered through the use of his voice on the rest of the soliloquy. He seemed tormented, psychotic, and restrained all through the use of his voice. If you closed your eyes and didn't watch him, it wasn't terrible after all.

4.From Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet (Branagh as Hamlet)- The master of modern Shakespearean acting has finally failed me. I love Kenneth as every other Shakespearean character I've seen him play- except for this one. I really just didn't feel it at all. He had everything going for him- props, costume, apparently a decent budget to work with, and he lost it for me. He knows how to deliver a soliloquy, and Shakespeare's words roll off his tongue in a magical way but the emotions didn't read on screen for me the way the other's did. Nothing he said caught my attention until he yelled "Not two months married" and then lost it for me when he started talking normally again. I just really didn't get "it" from him. (Plus he kinda sounded like the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz if you ask me.)

Note: I did NOT rank this version of Hamlet because its just well, unrankable for me. I really didn't know where to put it on my list.

From Yukio Ninagawa's Hamlet (Fujiwara Tatsuya as Hamlet)- This was like watching Hamlet on acid for me. It was all just a little bit trippy for me from start to finish. I appreciate the symbolism of the cage for Hamlet's "caged" rage and heartfelt beliefs. I even "got it" while he thrashed around inside the cage. He seemed to be connected to whatever it was he was saying. However, he looked Dracula-esque to me in his cape. Then it got a little stranger while he was holding onto the cage because frankly, his face and body made it look as though he was taking a dump on the stage. I also feel that after his big explosion and rattling the cage in his opening, the rest of the soliloquy should not have been delivered in a corner. I did think it was riddled with emotion and Yukio really felt what he was delivering.