Poor Ophelia

My slight attempt at the Shakespearean language:

Sweet sorrow for thou are gone. She was a genuine soul, but thus with a corrupted mind and a sorry heart...How she held soft throughout her growing madness is unfortunate, though let us not forget who Ophelia "really" was, kind and gentle. We ought to remember that. Now, if we may pray for that of our lost and not remorse, but soly be proud of that she is somewhere far better. Let us end any sorrow, and embrace the light.

In my opinion, Ophelia was pitiful as she was a "forgotten" character in Hamlet. Ophelia was victim to something that never really concerned her and wrongfully villainized as a loon because of her coping problems. The death of her father and Hamlet's driving madness convinced Ophelia into believing that it's her fault for the outcomes. And sadly drives herself into madness...later dying, but not quite sure whether it was intensional or an accident. Possibly even both.

Hamlet's Dilemma

Hamlet has chosen to assassinate is uncle, Claudius the "unrighteous" king of Denmark. His uncle had killed his brother, the former king and father to Hamlet. So, it only seems obvious for Claudius to parish? But, when Hamlet sees an opportunity he hesitates because he realizes that in order to satisfy the "sweet revenge" that he wants he's going to have to get his uncle when he's most vulnerable. When there is no chance of salvation from the crime that he has commited.
Hamlet seems to have the right idea. But, the religious rammification of him going through with it is that he would have become the very evil that he wanted to destroy. He has already killed Polonius and due to that it has caused him to dive into a deeper state of insanity.
Claudius deserves to be punished, but not in the way Hamlet is persuing where innocent people are getting hurt. I say Hamlet should just get his uncle to confess to the people of Denmark and claim his rightful throne...if he can manage to not go mad from all that he has been through.

To be or not to be

In the Branaugh version of Hamlet, the "To be or not to be" speech was my favorite out of the other fims we have watched. The scene got more and more tensious and suspenseful as Hamlet moved closer to the mirror. The use of that prop was clever in the way that it gave a sense of curiousity and made the audience question whether Hamlet is still "pretending" to be crazy or if he is falling into madness. Moreover, the scene in such as music was quiet, but not necessarily calm. The actor who portrayed Hamlet seemed to be angry and stressed in the act. Not even is slight whispering could hide the emotions he felt.
In Zeffirelli's Hamlet, the speech scene gave more of a religious sense to it as Mel Gibson kneels and seems to have been praying as light was beaming on him. The light must of have represented heaven or holiness within Hamlet. The setting was in a more darker place, the catacombs of where former royalties have been buried as well as his father. To me, this version did a very well job expressing light and dark with life and death in this scene.
 The Almereyda version of Hamlet is still by far the strangest reenactment of William Shakespeare play. The film has that "urban indie movie"  kind of feel to it. The entire scene was in a Blockbusters, which through me off and was surprising that the famous To be or not to be speech took place there. But, the scene was not as bad as some other will claim it to be. It was clever for them to incorporate a movie in the store as a reference from the actual play and simply put a twist to it.
Olivier's Hamlet, the oldest version of the reenactments that we've seen, the To be or not to be speech was in fact the dullest. I am sure that most of my class was falling asleep during the whole black and white played out film. None of it seemed attractive to me. The only thing that was keeping me listening was probably the scenery. The idea of him contemplating suicide from the cliff was interesting.

Hamlet ghost scenes

            Each particular scene had distinguishly different emotions in the acting, voice, and music. The Mel GIbson version was very ominous/angry and settled in a more 'medival' time period. Mel Gibson (Hamlet) was more vengeful than other Hamlets portrayed by other actors we have seen as a class. The ghost seemed to feel more anguish and sadness for himself and brought a gloomy feel to the scene. The scene was also very quiet compared to the first version we saw with the loud dramatic music and the floor shaking and cracking.
           The first version was also in a different time period, in a sense more "modern", and displayed more variety in colors. The vibrant appeal made the first version stand out from the rest. Moreover, the acting to me was tasteless. The dramatic dexterity was too much for me and very unrealistic. You can say the entire scene was supernaturaly dramatic.
           The most recent version we've seen is indeed in the most modern setting. The movie consists of a different sort of plot being known that they are not in Denmark but Denmark Corporation, etc., in which Hamlet and the cast are differently portrayed. The ghost scene gave a sense of curiosty as Hamlet moved toward the ghost on the balcony. The ghost was calmer than the rest, while Hamlet seemed in his own little world. The scene was also duller and less entertaining compared to the rest, even the first version.