Hamlet in Modern Court

In the original Hamlet, old Hamlet is killed by his own brother and now young Hamlet makes a plot to revenge Claudius. In my opinion, my Hamlet is going to be in the modern world and he will be the son of a powerful corporate officer. It sounds very similar to the movie we recently watched, but this is going to be a court trial scenario. In my version of Hamlet, he is an adult who recently lost his father. His uncle takes the wealth of his father because a majority of people think the uncle was more mature and better able to help the corporation to thrive since he is older than Hamlet. Hamlet finds out that his father left a note for him. The note had only one sentence: “Check the camera”. Hamlet sees the footage of his uncle shooting a pistol with a silencer at Hamlet’s father. He is shocked because Claudius made up a story about Hamlet’s father being killed by a poor person. It was outrageous since brother murdered his own family because he was blind by the wealth that Hamlet’s father had. Hamlet decides to take revenge on Claudius by staying quiet at first in order to make Claudius feel as if he got away with the murder and then, in the middle of the court trial between Old Hamlet’s company and its rival company, Hamlet will show up with the video footage and show how Old Hamlet actually died. The reason why Hamlet stayed quiet was too make him attention to him go away from him. And then he will start his revenge by appearing in the court between the fight between Claudius and its rival company. He will then reveal the video footage of Claudius shooting his brother and spread the truth through court and its television program.

Hamlets in Different World

So I have chosen two of Hamlet’s Soliloquy videos, and they show a different ways that different Hamlets orated the “To Be or Not to Be” soliloquy. It was very interesting because I thought they were completely different people. The first video is David Tennant. In this video he looks extremely desperate and full of hate. Every minute he speaks, it shows that he is in pain and having a backstabbing feeling. As the clip ends it looks like his mind is beginning to fill with anger and revenge.

The second video shows Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet. As he enters the lobby he directly goes to the mirror and starts his soliloquy. It shows that he is talking to himself. This shows that maybe he is commanding to himself. This Hamlet doesn’t show any grief or sadness, but it shows the determination and eagerness.

The difference between these videos is that hamlet acts differently. The first hamlet acts desperate and powerless, but the second Hamlet shows willingness to take revenge. Also, the first Hamlet was talking in the room alone while the second Hamlet was watched by Claudius and Voldemort (I think) and talked without being feared. Still it shows that both Hamlets are ready to do some revenge on Claudius.

Revision of Shortwork Process Essay(one paragraph)

Original

George, Hazel’s husband, is described as being more intelligent than his wife, but he has been given a handicap device to make him stop thinking. George is a smart person, but he cannot think freely because the handicap device destroys his thoughts. George has more common sense than his wife because he does remember his son being taken by the government. He says, “That must be Harrison” while seeing the television (Harrison Bergeron 136). He also has doubts about the government’s rule, but he seems to agree with it at times. He thinks about how a handicap shouldn't be mandatory for the dancers, but the device scrambles his thought. Also, he thinks about his son who didn't fit into the structure set by the government and was taken away, but another loud sound in the form of a 21-gun salute disrupts his thoughts. George is intelligent and has the potential to care about his family member better than Hazel, but he can’t do that because his mind is distracted by the handicapping device. The normal family dynamics is severely broken to benefit the regime. George is rendered unable to fight in any way for his son.

Revised

George represents the rule governing citizens in the story. He is a smart person, but he cannot think freely because the handicap device destroys his thoughts, and things would be different if George didn't have an earpiece attached to him. Anyway, George has more common sense than his wife because he does remember his son being taken by the government. He says, “That must be Harrison,” while seeing the television (Bergeron 136). He also has doubts about the government’s rule, but he seems to agree with it at times. He thinks about how a handicap shouldn't be mandatory for the dancers, but the device scrambles his thought. The reason I think that he is acting like that is because there is time between the activation of handicapping device. During those time he thinks about his son who didn't fit into the structure set by the government and was taken away, but another loud sound in the form of a 21-gun salute disrupts his thoughts. George is intelligent and has the potential to care about his family members better than Hazel, but he can’t do that because his mind is distracted by the handicapping device. The normal family dynamics is severely broken to benefit the regime. George is rendered unable to fight in any way for his son.

Two Faces of Ophelia

According to the book, Ophelia looked like naïve and listening person, but she also looked tired of listening to Laertes advice. This shows how caring Laertes is to his sister. Since his caring is so great that even his sister is tired of listening to it. Also when Laertes leave he wants Ophelia to write letter to him, saying”/but let me hear from you.”(1.3.1-4) Ophelia in my perspective before watching the video, she is very naïve and listening, but after watching the video, it showed me many way that Ophelia can be looked. The two video I saw showed differences between them. In Zeffirelli’s version, Ophelia truly loved Laertes because she cried, or looked sad, when his brother was leaving. She seem to be willingly to listen to his brother’s advice. It was similar to book, but the advice part looked short because it only lasted about forty second. In Zeffirelli’s version, it showed to me that Ophelia cared about his brother than Laertes caring about his sister. Ophelia was sad when Laertes was leaving, but Laertes looked hurried. It showed me that Laertes cared about her sister, but he was little bit selfish and wanted to go to France. However, Patrick Stewarts’s version was different than what Zeffirelli’s version. In Patrick Stewarts’s version, Ophelia looked and sound more rebellious. She looked like she was evading his brother’s advice. She also kind of shows inappropriate stuff like “condom” and making Laertes worried. In my opinion, this video was different than Zeffirelli’s version because they added modern items and ideas to it. In this version Laertes is the one who cares more about the Ophelia, but Ophelia does not care that much. Sometime it reminds me of my brother and sister situation, since my sister doesn’t listen to my advice that much. The two videos I watched were very different and showed me lots of different perspective. The reasons are because two movies has different time setting. Zeffirelli’s version was more similar to the book because there wasn’t much change needed, but the other one required some change since it was set at the modern time. If I choose the best actress who represented Ophellia, I would choose Helena Bonham Carter because I believe that Ophelia should be a girl who listens well to his older brother. 

Attitude of Upset Prince

Shakespearean English have always confused me because I can understand is hardly, but I will try to explain about the Hamlet best as possible. In the "Hamlet", by William Shakespeare, Hamlet seems to be very normal, but it also showed me that Hamlet have problem about the death of his father. When Hamlet is talking to her mother, he gets mad. Hamlet talks to her mother angry because she is not showing a single sign of sadness of Hamlet’s father. He said to his father, “/No, nor the fruitful river in the eye. /” (1.2.76-86) Hamlet was mad to her mother and he thinks that mother does not care for his father since she doesn't even try to show fake grief. And later, Hamlet insults her mother how caring she is by saying, “I shall in all my best obey you. Madam.”(1.2.120) After Hamlet left his mother. He start to mock about her greediness. To me it seems that Hamlet was mad because she didn't show emotion to his husband’s death, but also remarried his Uncle without a single hesitation. It showed me that Hamlet knew that her mother married his father only for the power. Claudius, the new king, was acted nice to Hamlet. Claudius is trying to make his new son be content, but the main character, Hamlet, cannot accept the new father. His interaction between Claudius is like one way love. Claudius is trying to love his new son, in my perspective, but Hamlet is refusing because he doesn't believe in the new King. In the beginning of the story, hamlet shows that he misses he father who was a King before. The proof that he misses his father because when he was talking to Horatio, he said, “I would I had been there.” (1.2.235)  Hamlet is upset about his father and have complain to his uncle, the new king, and her mother, who remarried for the love. This shows why Hamlet is grumpy to his uncle and mother. It also explains the desperation to meet his father since he wants to meet the ghost of his father that the guards met during the night. Hamlet at the beginning of the story shows that he is upset prince who missed his father and have family problem with his uncle and his mother.

Characterization Essay

Tony Kim

Ms. Hawkins

English II

30 September 2013

Handicapped Family Structure Ruined by Authoritarian Government

Kurt Vonnegut, the author of “Harrison Bergeron”, depicts an environment where each citizen has a different method of dealing with the oppressive government and shows the effects of the oppression on the family unit through his characterization of three members of the family. Hazel, the mother, is the “normal” person in story and she shows [RK1] the base line of the inhabitants of America in the year 2081. On the other hand, George, the father, is a very smart man, but his thinking is disrupted due to government regulations. Harrison Bergeron, their son, is also an intelligent man like George, except he is out of control since he breaks the rules and begins to act against the dictates of the regime. Vonnegut is trying to tell us through characterization how the totalitarian [RK2] government affects the family and how each member reacts to the government’s harsh actions.

            Vonnegut depicts [RK3] Hazel as a normal woman in the environment set by totalitarian government because she is naturally handicapped [RK4] by her short term memory. Every mother loves her son or daughter, [RK5] but Hazel shows different picture. She barely remembers that her son is taken by the government. Also, when her son is killed on television, she barely remembers anything that happens on the screen. She says, “I forgot”(Harrison Bergeron 192)[TK6] . Since Hazel is too naturally handicapped, she doesn’t have any further handicaps given by the government. The Government in the story is trying to break the strong connection between family[RK7] , and Hazel works as an example of what the government would like all of its citizens to be like. Basically, the government is making people handicapped to make the family structure weaken, so people wouldn’t care about each other greatly. This advantage takes power from the family and allows the government to have more power over the people. The government just wants its citizens to be less aware and just be diligent workers.

            George is described as being more intelligent than his wife, but he has been given a handicap device to make him stop thinking. George is a smart person, but he cannot think freely because the handicap device destroys his thoughts. George has more common sense than his wife because he does remember his son being taken by the government. He says, “That must be Harrison” while seeing the television (Harrison Bergeron 136).[TK8]  He also has doubts about the government’s rule, but he seems to agree with it at times. He thinks about how a handicap shouldn’t be mandatory for the dancers, but the device scrambles his thought. Also, he thinks about his son who didn’t fit into the structure set by the government and was taken away[RK9] , but another loud sound in the form of a 21gun salute disrupts his thoughts.[RK10]  George is intelligent and has the potential to care about his family member better than Hazel, but he can’t do that because his mind is distracted by the handicapping device. The normal family dynamics is severely broken to benefit the regime. George is rendered unable to fight in any way for his son.

            Harrison Bergeron is the most intelligent and strongest character in Vonnegut’s story. He is an example of how a dictatorial government ruins the family structure. He has been taken away to jail for rebelling to since his intelligent mind cannot be made to submit and his highly abnormally strong physique[RK11]  poses a threat. In our time there would be huge protests for taking children away from their parents, but the environment depicted by Vonnegut prevents parents from thinking freely. Harrison Bergeron’s bravery is shown when he later escapes prison and causes chaos in the theater, but he ultimately gets shot by Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General[RK12] . The death of Harrison shows how the totalitarian government has an effective system because even Harrison’s family members, George and Hazel, are unable to mourn the death of their only son[RK13] . The father cannot even pay attention long enough to seeing his son on TV and leaves to get a beer, and the mother cannot even remember why she was crying.[RK14] [TK15] 

[TK16] 

Citizens in this story are handicapped so they can’t think clearly and react normally when they are treated negatively. Since they are handicapped, the government has an easy time controlling people. Vonnegut uses his characterization of Hazel, George, and Harrison as the examples of what might happen to people living under a totalitarian regime and how family dynamics are affected. The various reactions of the family members to the situation illustrate how families might become when the parents are restricted from thinking freely: the mother benefits from the regulations and supports them, the father has some reservations, and the son outright rebels. None of them is able to overcome the power of the regime or solve the problems caused by it. Vonnegut shows what might happen to each family member and how each family member reacts to government’s totalitarianism.

---

 [RK1]A little awkward. I suggest saying “she is the base line” or “she is an example of an average person in America…”

 [RK2]?

 [RK3]depicts or describes would be better

 [RK4]if it’s natural it isn’t a handicap

 [RK5]Hello, subject change

 [TK6]Quote spoken by Hazel while watching television.

 [RK7]That isn’t what it says the reason for the handicaps are in the story

 [TK8]Quote spoken by George

 [RK9]Sounds a little awkward

 [RK10]Use quotes for these examples instead of summarizing them

 [RK11]Not why he was put in jail. He was in jail for conpiring to overthrow the government

 [RK12]Use quotes

 [RK13]Also talk about how the government is ruthless and how today they would take precaussions and try not to kill harrison

 [RK14]Use quotes

 [TK15]I added quote in the paragraph of Hazel and George;

I think it is redundant if I put the quote again.

 [TK16]This was less edited than other paragraph and I also thought that is didn’t make sense so I kind of copy pasted the paragraph and tried to make it more structural

The below paragraph is my actual conclusion.

Characterization Intro(Revised)

Outline-

• Thesis- Vonnegut is trying tell us that through his characters how different types of people feel about a totalitarian government and their reactions to that government.
• Hazel- normal person
• George- intelligent, but has to wear handicapped machine provided from government
• Harrison- intelligent, and out of control
• They all shows the example what happens if you act like that in the condition that they live in.

At the beginning of the story, we think that Harrison, George, and Hazel live in a fair environment.

Everybody is equal and look equally handsome

Everybody has the same IQ

During the story, the description of the characters shows that governments are very authoritarian

Some people have to wear this handicapped equipment if they are too intelligent

One will have to pay heavy fine and jail time when one brakes the rule

At the end of the story, it shows the consequence of the each character

George and Hazel live normally

Harrison tried to rebel and overthrow government rule, but instead he is killed by handicapped general

Intro-

            Kurt Vonnegut, the author of “Harrison Bergeron”, depicts an environment where every citizen have different method of dealing with oppressive government. Hazel is the “normal” person in story and she is the example that shows the base line of the inhabitants of America in the year 2081. On the other hand, George is very smart man, but his thinking is disrupted due to government regulations. Harrison Bergeron, their son, is also an intelligent man like George, except he is out of control since he breaks the rules and begins to act uncontrollably. Vonnegut is trying tell us that through his characters how different types of people feel about a totalitarian government and their reactions to that government.

Characterization of Introduction

Kurt Vonnegut, the author of “Harrison Bergeron”, depicts an environment where every citizen has equal value and everyone is equally intelligent. Hazel is the “normal” person in story and she is the example that shows the base line of the inhabitants of America in the year 2081. On the other hand, George is very smart man, but his thinking is disrupted due to government regulations. Harrison Bergeron, their son, is also an intelligent man like George, except he is out of control since he breaks the rules and begins to act uncontrollably. Vonnegut is trying tell us that through his characters how different types of people feel about a totalitarian government and their reactions to that government.

Deal with It (⌐■_■)

E.A. Robinson, the author of the poem “Miniver Cheevy”, introduces to the readers a pessimistic main character who hates his current life. The author is trying to tell us to live life to the fullest. One can think that Miniver doesn’t like his life, but Miniver should consider himself lucky because it is a privilege to have shelter and guaranteed education. Also, Robinson shows us that Miniver is being too greedy. Life doesn’t give specific instructions to follow, but it gives each person the opportunity to create his or her own path in life. The author is showing us that Miniver is an ungrateful fool who is only daydreaming about living a better life in the medieval times. He romanticizes about medieval life and makes assumptions that life would have been more exciting if fate didn’t bring him into his common world. But he will never experience the glorified medieval times and carry on with what he has in the present time. Instead of being like Miniver and wasting our lives, we should be satisfied with what we have. Complaining is just an excuse to be lazy. We should take action toward goals and not get stuck in negativity.

Ironic

The Barbie Doll was the one of the weirdest in my opinion because I don’t get why people suicide while thinking that they are useless. To me I think they chose the wrong direction because each people are unique and talented in their way. Barbie doll was also sad because the girl could have become strong women and maybe become alethic I saw women who are not viewed as pretty people, but they were respected and envied by other people in different way as, athletes, writers, or maybe scientist. Once upon a time was also ironic. Of course, people would like to protect their family best as possible, but I believe that he chose the wrong direction. He could have used the money to make people more content then trying to escape from then. That choice could made the situation both win. Why didn’t they chose the direction I think the best? I think that is because they were blinded by other people’s perspective too much and having huge responsibility, thus making them narrow eyed.

Dystopia

 “The City of Omelas” was the most shocking story I ever read. I read a lot of dystopian stories, but this one went too far. It was weird because the story showed some of the extreme levels of inhumanity. It was shocking because deformed children were treated worse than animals. It was challenging because people in the story didn’t do anything about it. It showed the reality of humanity. This story also made me think of the history summer reading where Africans are treated badly while Africans who went to British school were treated well. It is just sad that the world cannot be a hundred percent happy.