Act Fourham23comp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Hamlet Study Guide Act Four Levels 2 & 3 Act Four, Scene One 66. What does Gertrude tell Claudius? She tells him that Hamlet has killed Polonius. Act Four, Scene Two 67. Who has gone to find Polonius’ body? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Act Four, Scene Three 66. Where does Hamlet say Polonius is? He says several different things including at dinner where he is being eaten and in heaven. 67. Hamlet is leaving to go where? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are escorting him to England. 68. What does Claudius send with him? Sealed letters that ask England to execute Hamlet. Act Four, Scene Four 69. Where is Fortinbras’ army headed? They are on their way to attack Poland for a piece of land that is not worth very much. 70. Who does Hamlet meet? A Captain in Fortinbras’ army. 71. How does this meeting affect him? He becomes inspired when he sees the lengths Fortinbras will go to avenge his father. Act Four, Scene Five 72. What is wrong with Ophelia? What has caused this? She has gone crazy; Hamlet has murdered her father. There is also an interpretation that she may be pregnant with Hamlet’s child. 73. Who returns to Denmark? Why is he angry? Laertes returns; he is upset about his father’s murder and sister’s madness. He is also upset about the fact that his father was not given a stately funeral. 74. Why is Claudius worried? Claudius is worried that if he kills Hamlet openly the people will turn against him because Hamlet is so popular. 75. What does Ophelia think she is giving everyone? She believes that she is giving everyone flowers. Act Four, Scene Six 76. What is delivered to Horatio? A letter from Hamlet saying that his ship was attacked by pirates and he is on his way home. 77. What has happened to Hamlet? He made a deal with the pirates that attacked his ship and he has gotten away from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Act Four, Scene Seven 78. What are the two reasons Claudius will not execute Hamlet? The people love him and he does not want to upset Gertrude. 79. What is brought to Claudius? A letter from Hamlet saying he is on his way home 80. What plan do Laertes and Claudius come up with for Hamlet? They are going to have Hamlet and Laertes fence, but they will give Laertes a sharpend foil (sword). 81. What is their back up plan? Laertes will poison the sword so that he only has to scratch Hamlet to kill him. Claudius will drop a poisoned pearl into Hamlet’s drink. 82. What has happened to Ophelia? She has drowned. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Bibliography for the Study of Shakespeare on Film in Asia and Hollywood
CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture ISSN 1481-4374 Purdue University Press ©Purdue University Volume 6 (2004) Issue 1 Article 13 Bibliography for the Study of Shakespeare on Film in Asia and Hollywood Lucian Ghita Purdue University Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb Part of the Comparative Literature Commons, and the Critical and Cultural Studies Commons Dedicated to the dissemination of scholarly and professional information, Purdue University Press selects, develops, and distributes quality resources in several key subject areas for which its parent university is famous, including business, technology, health, veterinary medicine, and other selected disciplines in the humanities and sciences. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, the peer-reviewed, full-text, and open-access learned journal in the humanities and social sciences, publishes new scholarship following tenets of the discipline of comparative literature and the field of cultural studies designated as "comparative cultural studies." Publications in the journal are indexed in the Annual Bibliography of English Language and Literature (Chadwyck-Healey), the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (Thomson Reuters ISI), the Humanities Index (Wilson), Humanities International Complete (EBSCO), the International Bibliography of the Modern Language Association of America, and Scopus (Elsevier). The journal is affiliated with the Purdue University Press monograph series of Books in Comparative Cultural Studies. Contact: <[email protected]> Recommended Citation Ghita, Lucian. "Bibliography for the Study of Shakespeare on Film in Asia and Hollywood." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 6.1 (2004): <https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1216> The above text, published by Purdue University Press ©Purdue University, has been downloaded 2531 times as of 11/ 07/19.
[Show full text]
Fortinbras Program
THE MIT COMMUNITY PLAYERS PRESENT FORTINBRAS BY LEE BLESSING THURSDAY–SATURDAY, MAY 22-24, 1997 KRESGE LITTLE THEATRE ON THE MIT CAMPUS FORTINBRAS by Lee Blessing *Produced by special arrangement with Baker’s Plays The Persons of the Play Fortinbras ...................................... Steve Dubin Hamlet ........................................... Greg Tucker (S) Osric .............................................. Ian Dowell (A) Horatio........................................... Matt Norwood ’99 Ophelia .......................................... Erica Klempner (G) Claudius ........................................ Ben Dubrovsky (A) Gertrude ........................................ Anne Sechrest (affil) Laertes .......................................... Randy Weinstein (G) Polonius......................................... Peter Floyd (A, S) Polish Maiden 1............................. Alice Waugh (S) Polish Maiden 2............................. Anna Socrates Captain .......................................... Jim Carroll (A) English Ambassador ..................... Alice Waugh (S) Marcellus....................................... Eric Lindblad (G) Barnardo ....................................... Russell Miller ’00 The Scenes of the Play Act I: Elsinore — ten minute intermission — Act II: Still Elsinore (“S” indicates MIT staff member, “G” indicates graduate student, “A” indicates alumnus, and “affil” indicates affiliation with a member of the MIT community). Behind the Scenes Director............................................. Ronni
[Show full text]
An Analysis of Paternal Models of Authority and Filial Duty in Shakespeare’S Hamlet
The Dilemma of Shakespearean Sonship: An Analysis of Paternal Models of Authority and Filial Duty in Shakespeare’s Hamlet The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Mosley, Joseph Scott. 2017. The Dilemma of Shakespearean Sonship: An Analysis of Paternal Models of Authority and Filial Duty in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33826315 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA The Dilemma of Shakespearean Sonship: An Analysis of Paternal Models of Authority and Filial Duty in Shakespeare’s Hamlet Joseph Scott Mosley A Thesis in the Field of Dramatic Arts for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2017 © 2017 Joseph Scott Mosley Abstract The aim of the proposed thesis will be to examine the complex and compelling relationship between fathers and sons in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. This study will investigate the difficult and challenging process of forming one’s own identity with its social and psychological conflicts. It will also examine how the transformation of the son challenges the traditional family model in concert or in discord with the predominant philosophy of the time. I will assess three father-son relationships in the play – King Hamlet and Hamlet, Polonius and Laertes, and Old Fortinbras and Fortinbras – which thematize and explore filial ambivalence and paternal authority through the act of revenge and mourning the death of fathers.
[Show full text]
Hamlet-Production-Guide.Pdf
ASOLO REP EDUCATION & OUTREACH PRODUCTION GUIDE 2016 Tour PRODUCTION GUIDE By WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE ASOLO REP Adapted and Directed by JUSTIN LUCERO EDUCATION & OUTREACH TOURING SEPTEMBER 27 - NOVEMBER 22 ASOLO REP LEADERSHIP TABLE OF CONTENTS Producing Artistic Director WHAT TO EXPECT.......................................................................................1 MICHAEL DONALD EDWARDS WHO CAN YOU TRUST?..........................................................................2 Managing Director LINDA DIGABRIELE PEOPLE AND PLOT................................................................................3 FSU/Asolo Conservatory Director, ADAPTIONS OF SHAKESPEARE....................................................................5 Associate Director of Asolo Rep GREG LEAMING FROM THE DIRECTOR.................................................................................6 SHAPING THIS TEXT...................................................................................7 THE TRAGEDY OF HAMLET CREATIVE TEAM FACT IN THE FICTION..................................................................................9 Director WHAT MAKES A GHOST?.........................................................................10 JUSTIN LUCERO UPCOMING OPPORTUNITIES......................................................................11 Costume Design BECKI STAFFORD Properties Design MARLÈNE WHITNEY WHAT TO EXPECT Sound Design MATTHEW PARKER You will see one of Shakespeare’s most famous tragedies shortened into a 45-minute Fight Choreography version
[Show full text]
Ophelia: a Psychological Portrait Xena Fitzgerald Class of 2017
Ophelia: A Psychological Portrait Xena Fitzgerald Class of 2017 The tragic image of Ophelia, a young representation in art contributed to a variety of popular noblewoman who drowns during the play Hamlet, interpretations of her character. has haunted Britain since Shakespeare wrote her into Ophelia as a character is frequently represented existence around the year 1600. Ophelia reached the as various forms of femininity. Art historian Kimberly peak of her popularity around the mid-nineteenth Rhodes explains that during the Victorian era Ophelia century. In the realm of painting, she was a popular represented a range of female typologies from the subject for Pre-Raphaelite painters who were concerned “dutiful daughter” to the “madwoman.”3 Because with tropes of Victorian femininity as well as with Ophelia has very few lines within the play and her most the psychology of their subjects. In this paper I will signifcant action, her death, does not even appear on consider how the artist Anna Lea Merritt (1844-1930), stage, Rhodes describes her as “a blank page on which who was infuenced by the Pre-Raphaelite movement, patriarchy can inscribe and project its desires.”4 Along leapt beyond popular tropes to visually portray Ophelia with other Shakespearean heroines, Ophelia was taken in her 1880 painting with emotional and psychological up as an exemplar for femininity.5 Moral guides such depth more successfully than her contemporaries (fg. 1). as Anna Jameson’s Characteristics of Women, Moral, Born in Pennsylvania, Merritt, like Mary Poetical, and Historical instructed women and girls to Cassatt, pursued an artistic career in Europe.
[Show full text]
HAMLET: PRESS RESPONSES Almeida & West End (2017) Shakespeare
HAMLET: PRESS RESPONSES Almeida & West End (2017) Shakespeare www.roberticke.com FINANCIAL TIMES Ian Shuttleworth ★★★★★ I have been privileged to see several first-class Hamlets this century: Simon Russell Beale, Samuel West, David Tennant, Rory Kinnear, Maxine Peake, arguably Lars Eidinger. Andrew Scott is at least as outstanding as any of those, and right now I’m inclined to rank him in front. His Prince is almost always self-aware, but not self-understanding; on the contrary, his keynote is a kind of bemused wonder at goings-on both within and beyond his skin. The great soliloquies seem new-minted, every word a separate question. The playfulness at which Scott so excels (most notably as Moriarty in BBC-TV’s Sherlock) is here kept under a rigorously tight rein. I did not see this production when it opened at the Almeida a few months ago, but my impression is that neither Scott’s nor anyone else’s performance has been ramped up for a venue two and half times the size; the consequent occasional intelligibility problems are far outweighed by the sense of human scale. For this is the glory of Robert Icke’s production. It does not consist of a superlative Prince Hamlet, a clutch of fine supporting performances and a number of sharp directorial ideas stitched together into a plausible fabric; rather, it is whole and entire of itself. Angus Wright’s cool, disciplined Claudius, Juliet Stevenson’s besotted-then-horrified Gertrude, Jessica Brown Findlay’s Ophelia (at first at sea like Hamlet, finally psychologically shattered in a wheelchair), David Rintoul’s doubling of the Ghost and the Player King .
[Show full text]
Hamlet on the Screen Prof
Scholars International Journal of Linguistics and Literature Abbreviated Key Title: Sch Int J Linguist Lit ISSN 2616-8677 (Print) |ISSN 2617-3468 (Online) Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Journal homepage: https://saudijournals.com/sijll Review Article Hamlet on the Screen Prof. Essam Fattouh* English Department, Faculty of Arts, University of Alexandria (Egypt) DOI: 10.36348/sijll.2020.v03i04.001 | Received: 20.03.2020 | Accepted: 27.03.2020 | Published: 07.04.2020 *Corresponding author: Prof. Essam Fattouh Abstract The challenge of adapting William Shakespeare‟s Hamlet for the screen has preoccupied cinema from its earliest days. After a survey of the silent Hamlet productions, the paper critically examines Asta Nielsen‟s Hamlet: The Drama of Vengeance by noting how her main character is really a woman. My discussion of the modern productions of Shakespeare begins with a critical discussion of Lawrence Olivier‟s seminal production of 1948. The Russian Hamlet of 1964, directed by Grigori Kozintsev, is shown to combine a psychological interpretation of the hero without disregarding its socio-political context. The action-film genre deployed by Franco Zeffirelli in his 1990 adaptation of the play, through a moving performance by Mel Gibson, is analysed. Kenneth Branagh‟s ambitious and well-financed production of 1996 is shown to be somewhat marred by its excesses. Michael Almereyda‟s attempt to present Shakespeare‟s hero in a contemporary setting is shown to have powerful moments despite its flaws. The paper concludes that Shakespeare‟s masterpiece will continue to fascinate future generations of directors, actors and audiences. Keywords: Shakespeare – Hamlet – silent film – film adaptations – modern productions – Russian – Olivier – Branagh – contemporary setting.
[Show full text]
Language, Humour, Character, and Persona in Shakespeare
Language, Humour, Character, and Persona in Shakespeare Arthur Henry King The rst Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter OED)1 use of “character” as “a personality invested with distinctive attributes and qualities by a novelist or dramatist” is in Fielding’s Tom Jones (1749). OED does not list the Theophrastian2 use reected in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century character-sketches, for example Ben Jonson’s play, Every Man Out of His Humour, “the characters of the persons” (1599),3 those in the then current satires, and in translations and collections.4 Another OED entry under character, “personal appearance” (entry 10) correctly interprets Twelfth Night 1.02.51 “outward character”; but that phrase implies “inward character” too, and OED misinterprets Coriolanus 5.04.26 as the outward sense; but “I paint him in the character” refers to this description of Coriolanus (16-28): He no more remembers his mother now than an eight-year-old horse. The tartness of his face sours ripe grapes. When he walks, he moves like an engine, and the ground shrinks before his treading. He is able to pierce a corslet with his eye, talks like a knell, and his hum is a battery. He sits in his state, as a thing made for Alexander. What he bids be done is nish’d with his bidding. He wants nothing of a god but eternity and a heaven to throne in. I paint him in the character. There is no more mercy in him than there is milk in a male tiger. Compare Coriolanus 2.01.46-65, where Menenius sketches an ironical “character” of himself and makes “character” statements about the tribunes: I am known to be a humorous patrician, and one that loves a cup of hot wine with not a drop of allaying Tiber in’t; said to be something imperfect in favoring the rst complaint, hasty and tinder-like upon too trivial motion; one that converses more with the buttock of the night than with the forehead of the morning.
[Show full text]
Make Us Laugh at That: Hamlet's Gravediggers
“Make Us Laugh at That: Hamlet’s Gravediggers” LAURY MAGNUS Though the “Clownes” in 5.1.appear only once in Hamlet, Shakespeare’s Gravediggers’ Scene has been called “the most extraordinary scene in this extraordinary play” (CN3189, Hibbard, 1987), a valuation that is surely a function of the proud professional undertaker, the First Clown, whose quick wit shines out in dialogue but who is intently focused and in his own world when at his proper task of digging. Does this clown speak more lines than have been “set down for him?”1 Of course, such a question is one that textual evidence in itself can’t decide. But what it does point to is that even when intent on his digging, the Gravedigger enjoys the limelight and “performing” for himself and for any passers-by. What is also clear is that the Gravedigger’s singing at his tasks intrigues Hamlet at a critical point of passage in the play. As an outsider first introduced in this scene of the play, the Gravedigger could be seen as a choric figure. In his initial dialogue with Second Clown, he unwittingly comments on the prior actions of the prince and the court of Denmark that have led them to seek the consecrated “ground” of his professional turf. For his part, the prince, now also an “outsider” who stumbles upon this site, becomes a kind of correlative choric figure as he comments to Horatio on the Gravedigger’s song and accompanying gestures and then draws out the Gravedigger concerning his trade. From this dual choric perspective grows what is to be a direct duel of wits between clown and prince that is prelude to the mortal duel of 5.2.
[Show full text]
Ophelia's Death As Submission to the Feminine Element
1 Rosalyn Stilling Drowning in Womanhood: Ophelia’s Death as Submission to the Feminine Element For Shakespearean heroines, a most fascinating, yet critically dismissed, character is Ophelia from Hamlet, the Danish prince Hamlet’s lover who goes mad and drowns after Hamlet murders her father. For generations, Ophelia has captivated artists, critics, poets, and musicians alike, who revive her spirit within their creative works, allowing the mystery and tragedy of her death to live on. Within the text, Ophelia struggles with womanly duty and obtained agency over her own life. She is constantly silenced and disregarded by the characters for no reason other than her youth and gender. No matter how she communicates, through words or physical symbols, she is misunderstood, ignored and called “mad,” which ultimately leads to her watery demise. Ophelia’s drowning is the consummate representation of an eternal retreat into the feminine, trading an individual voice for eternal silence in union with feminine essence. In turn, her death expresses the danger of reducing an individual to his or her gender and disregarding the voice of the marginalized. The silencing of Ophelia has surpassed her textual death given the amount of critics that see her as flat, under developed, and used only for emotional upheaval. A majority of Ophelia’s critical reception precipitates the quashing of her voice by disregarding her actions within the text. Critic Linda Welshimer Wagner critiques Ophelia’s character by stating, “It would appear that Ophelia has two primary purposes in her ingenuous role—that of providing a convenient hinge for several of Hamlet’s analytical scenes, and of providing […] emotional impact for the audience […] Apparently Shakespeare intended for her to be a minor character, using her sparingly and 2 almost forgetfully throughout the plot” (94).
[Show full text]
Ruggeri's Amleto
© Luke McKernan 2004 RUGGERO RUGGERI’S AMLETO Notre Dame Shakespeare Festival, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, USA 4 November 2004 Luke McKernan Of all the products of the first thirty years of cinema, when films were silent, perhaps none were so peculiar, so intriguing, and in their way so revealing of the temper of the medium in its formative years, as silent Shakespeare films. Shakespeare in the cinema is enough of a challenge for some people; what about Shakespeare on film when you can’t hear any of the words? The film you are to see this evening is one of two hundred or more Shakespeare films that were made in the silent period of cinema. You are seeing it because it has survived (when so many films from this time have not), because it is a rarity scarcely known even by those who are expert in this area, and because it is a good and interesting film. Not a great film, but arguably the best silent Shakespeare film that exists. It is certainly a film that needs to be much better known. To those who may never have seen a silent film before, be assured that even if you can’t hear the words you will be able to read them, as such films commonly have on-screen titles throughout, and in performance they were never silent as such in any case – for you had music. Silent Shakespeare I said that more than two hundred silent Shakespeare films were made, and that is true, but few of these were feature-length, that is, an hour or more, such as this evening’s attraction.
[Show full text]
Metacriticism in Salman Rushdie's Short Story Yorick*
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Letters Cilt/Volume: 35 Sayı/Number:1 Haziran/June 2018 doi:10.32600/huefd.438142 Metacriticism in Salman Rushdie’s Short Story Yorick* Salman Rushdie’nin Yorick Adlı Kısa Öyküsünde Üsteleştiri Seda ARIKAN** Abstract Salman Rushdie is mostly known for his usage of new techniques especially those of postmodernism. In his short story collection East, West, besides many postmodern techniques such as pastiche, parody, and metafiction, his focus on metacriticism is apparent in the short story titled “Yorick”. Rushdie’s “Yorick” that is based on an invented story about the character Yorick, the dead clown whose skull Prince Hamlet handles and makes his famous speech in Hamlet, appears as an example of creative metacriticism that depicts the place and function of literary criticism in a fictional work. Referring to theoretical criticisms of Hamlet, such as psychoanalysis and social theories, Rushdie uses criticism of literary criticism in his short story “Yorick”. Thus, he adds his postmodern interpretation into the analyses of literary criticism since antiquity. This study will firstly focus on the theoretical background of metacriticism, in general, and creative metacritcism, in particular. Later on, it will try to find out the traces of creative metacriticism in Rushdie’s short story “Yorick” in which he also deals with metafiction, the role of the writer, the function of the reader, writer- critic-reader collaboration, the objectivity or subjectivity of literary criticism, creative writing or creative reading, and the truth in storytelling. Analysing how metacriticism operates in the story, finally Rushdie’s ideas on what literary criticism is and should be will be clarified.
[Show full text]