According to many writers and scholars Hamlet changes from a slightly melancholy character into a gloomy depressed character. This idea can simply be revoked by a comparison of two quotes, one being expressed as early as Act I, scene one of the play, “how weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world” (Shakespeare 26). The other in Act IV, "I must be cruel, only to be kind: Thus bad begins and worse remains behind" (Shakespeare 232), from these two quotes we learn that hamlet has not changed at all from the beginning of the play in terms of depression. In actuality he has just
Although not as central to the play as those foils involving Hamlet, these additional foils give us a better understanding of the lesser characters in the play. The first of these lesser characters I would like to mention is Horatio, friend and confidant to Prince Hamlet. Horatio is even-tempered, apparently intelligent, and loyal in his friendship to Hamlet. (A case could almost be made that Horatio could also serve as a foil of Hamlet because he is even-tempered and cool under pressure while Hamlet is often rash. But that is not the direction I would like to go.)
Of course MAAN follows Shakespeare’s traditional comedy structure but modern critics have their own agenda that a comedy, being such a complex genre, should conform to. Since the time of the ancient Greeks critics have struggled to define it, Plato described it as a series of events you would ‘blush to practice yourself’. Susan Snyder who writes for the Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Company, states that - ‘Comedy involves men of middling estate, its perils are small scale, its outcomes peaceful’. This is an excellent summary for the majority of Shakespeare’s plays; however it is not necessarily accurate in relation to MAAN. It is true to say that a comedy involves ‘men of a middling estate’, in MAAN the protagonists share the company of the Prince Don Pedro, and are socially superior to the watchmen such as Dogberry and Verges.
To start with, in the original version as well as Branagh’s version of “Hamlet”, the “To be or not to be” soliloquy comes before Hamlets encounter with Ophelia, where as in Zeffirelli’s version of the play, Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy comes after the scene where he speaks with Ophelia. Also, Zeffirelli’s version doesn’t completely follow the original script word for word. I personally feel that Zeffirelli’s version is better in both of these regards. As far as the scene sequences, I feel that Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” had become more relevant after his encounter with Ophelia because that encounter only added to his frustration and broken heart, which could have helped further explain his reasoning for considering whether life is worth living or not. In regard to the faithfulness of the original language in the script, I believe that it is better to differentiate a small bit as Zeffirelli did.
The Foils of Hamlet A minor character, who serves as a comparison to the main character, is a literary foil. For a character to be a foil, they must have things in common with the main character, in order to make differences more apparent. A foil could simply be another character for the protagonist to talk to, in order for the readers to better understand the thoughts and feelings of the main character. In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, nearly every character serves as a foil to the main character, Hamlet. Shakespeare characterizes Laertes and Fortinbras in certain ways that draws attention to Hamlet’s indecisive character, making them the two major foils to Hamlet.
We always make decisions without knowing the exact outcome of what we do, despite whether our intent is good or evil. In the play, Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, he develops the idea that an individual’s good intentions can have devastating results. This idea is developed through the characters Romeo, Friar Laurence, Juliet, and Mercutio. In the scene where Mercutio and Tybalt were fighting, Romeo intervenes and ends up losing Mercutio the match, costing his life. “I thought all for the best.”(Act 3, Scene 1, line 99) Romeo had the best intentions however; best intentions in Shakespeare’s plays always have a negative impact.
I love you not” (III.i.127-129). This can be comprehended in many different ways because Hamlet could just be acting still because that was a decision he made to try and fool everyone, or could have been the truth. Although Hamlet never truly knows that Ophelia spies on him, Shakespeare may just have not said that he knows but actually wanted it to be inferred. It could be inferred due to the answer and the attitude that Hamlet shows towards Ophelia and the connection between this incident and later on with Gertrude when both times their was someone hiding behind the curtains and both times Hamlet showed disrespect and brutal nature towards women. Finally other characters that spied on Hamlet through out the story was Polonious and
It is interesting that a story may contain two foiled characters existing in such a bleak contrast to each other and yet sharing similar events. In William Shakespeare’s tragic masterpiece of Hamlet, the foils are played by Hamlet and Laertes. Hamlet is the contemplative one, and would often think rather than act; Laertes is quite the contrary, having his inhibitions guide him to acting rather than thinking, the impulse buyer of Shakespearean literature. While these characters may differ significantly, their actions and reactions to the death of their fathers, their ultimate downfall, and their alternative methods of action and contemplation prove that while different, much of their character is parallel. The simplest comparison to make is
Katrina, if you compare your passage with the original definition of Middle English, you notice that just a few words are actually changed but the whole concept and the way the ideas are organized are parallel to your passage. In both your work and the original definition of Middle English, first the Renaissance is mentioned, and then the dates are given, following with the Norman Conquest and ending with the example of Morte D’arthur. Katrina, I hope you notice that your work is too similar to the original definition. The main concern here is that you have not cited this information. It is completely okay to use someone else’s ideas but you have not given any credit to the author therefore this is an act of plagiarism.
Marcus Aurelius once said, “Whosoever does wrong, wrongs himself…” Othello by William Shakespeare and A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams both illustrate the critical lens. Both authors use literary devices to convey the critical lens. Both authors use characterization and theme of deception in their literary works. The critical lens means that if a person does wrong or bad thing it will eventually affect them at the end. The quotation is true because when someone does wrong thing it comes back to them.