Hamlets' dilemma

          I disagree with Hamlets desicion to wait to kill Claudius.  Although King Hamlets' ghost said he should wait until he kills Cladius, I believe he should have just killed him and gotten it over with.  Because he didn't kill Claudius, Claudius ended up setting up a plan where Hamlet was the one who ended up being killed.  If Hamlet would have just killed and avenged him for his fathers' death, all of this would have been avoided.  I also believe that Ophelias' madness which eventually led to her death could have been avoided if Hamlet would have killed Claudius. However, the play probably would have changed drastically if Hamlet would have killed Claudius.   But, I believe that If Hamlet would have killed Claudius he wouldn't have killed Polonious which led to Opehelias' madness and later on, her death. Claudius not only betrayed King Hamlet, and Prince Hamlet but he also in a way betrayed and used Gertrude because he wanted to get to the throne.

Ophelia "So Much To Take In"

Ophelia and Hamlet had a very rocky relationship. She and him did not make it clear whether they were really in love or not.  After Hamlet accidently killed her father Polonious, she went mad along with him (Hamlet).  Hamlet's insane actions did not help at all.  Ophelia had nowhere to where to go and had no guidance, it was almost as if she were lost and disconnected. Ophelia was an innocent woman until Hamlet became aware that it was Claudius who killed King Hamlet.  It was not her fault, it was who she was involved with. If she would have never had a relationship with Prince Hamlet, she would have never went insane and drowned herself.
I don't blame Ophelia for going insane, she couldn't have expected that all of this would happen simply by having a relationship with Hamlet. I pity her situation because this could have all been avoided if Hamlet hadn't gone mad and accidently killed her father Polonious. The painting that John Everett Millais created potrays Ophelia to be helpless as she is the play as well after the death of her father and after Hamlet seems to have gone insane. 

To be or not to be (Hamlet)

In Olivers'version of the to be or not to be scene I remained in suspence.  The fact that he was on the top of a castle while giving a speech about death made it very suspenseful. It added a very specific, deep tone to the film.  It made it easier to comprehend the speech given by Prince Hamlet. As I was watching this film, Prince Hamlet seemed very unpredictable.  I wasnt sure if he would suddendly just jump or happen to fall of the top of the castle into the ocean. Oliver played Hamlet very well. In my opinion, this was the beswt out of the three versions.
In Branagh's version I was very confused and did not understand the speech as much as I did in Olivers' and Zeffierllis' version.  The whole scene when Hamlet was starring into the mirror fit the speech very well because there are two ways that one can interperet the speech as there are two sides to a mirror. However, his tone wasn't as intriguing and meaningful as it was in the other two versions. It was as if he was just talking and his voice and his tone was indifferent.  All I could do was listen, I werent really in suspense and didnt really feel any emotion.
Zeffierellis' version with  Mel Gibson was very well played.  Mel Gibson portrayed a very depressing tone and set a very cheerless, upsetting mood.  In this version, it was the easiest for me to comprehend Hamlets speech.  The catacombs all the way at the bottom of the castle was a very good spot to set Hamlets speech.  One of the main differences that I noticed from Olivers' version to Zeffierellis' version was the setting.  In Olivers' version, Hamlet was at the very top of the castle outside where you can see and hear the ocean as oppose to the setting in the Zeffierellis' version where Hamlet was at the very bottom of the castle and there was no music at all.
In Almereyda's version, Hamlet is walking up and down in a Blockbuster.  This was the most modern film.  It was easy to understand but it was too intense.  Hamlet was in the action movie section.  All the movies in the background had fire and the sound was not calming.  It was very different from the other three versions of the "To be or not to be" speech.

Hamlet Ghost Scene

      
       King Hamlet was killed by his brother Cladius.  No one knew but him.  King Hamlets' ghost was roaming around and he went to inform Prince Hamlet about his death.  King Hamlet was upset that his wife would marry his own brother.  They had such a happy marriage and he would never have thought that Gertrude would remarry so soon.
     After watching all three of the films the first one with Mel Gibson was my favorite, the reason being that it was the closest film to the book.  The time period and the characters reflected what I have read so far.  My least favorite was the last film that I watched.  The time period was totally different to the actual play, and the characters were not similar at all to the characters in the play.  It was the hardest to comprehend.  In the first film the time period and setting fit excellently.  In the actual play, the Ghost of King Hamlet was portrayed as a frustated, intimidating man at first.  But as time went on he was more at ease and emotional. At the end of Prince Hamlets' discussion with the Ghost of Hamlet, he was sad.  Before he was able to touch Prince Hamlets' face he dissapeared and Hamlet became very angry especially because he couldn't tell anyone about his encounter with his father.
      In the second film, the time period was very different. It took place during the mid-evil times.   There was a thunderstorm at the beginning of the scene.  King Hamlet was running through the woods and his thoughts were bring said out loud. This film was the hardest to comprehend because his thoughts were being spoken, but they were being spoken quickly.  When King Hamlet was speaking to his son Prince Hamlet, he was more sad and seemed scared.  This is not the way he was portrayed to be in the written play.  This film was very over exagerated.
     The third film was the most modern film.  It was filmed in 2000.  It took place in New York City.   Hamlets' father, Prince Hamlet was killed.  King Hamlet was very emotional and sad.  He was very angry at first. Towards the end he became very sad and affectionate towards his son.   He also became very touchy, as if his son were younger.  It seemed very real and was not difficult to comprehend.  It just wasn't closely related to the play time wise.

Good Night and Good Luck

“Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. Good night, and good luck.”




I definitely agree with Mr.Murrow.  I believe he is trying to say instead of watching shows that inform us, we would rather watch shows that do not help us in any way.   Television can either be used to inform us or to brainwash us.  Television has changed drastically since then.  If Murrow were still alive today, i believe he would be disappointed in television and the media of today because there are more reality TV shows instead of shows that can help us learn. In my opinion