Self reflection: 

I think that my writing has improved a great deal since the very beginning of the course in September.  I think I started quite strong with my analysis of the two basketball poems, where I think I had solid quotational analysis backed up by substantial claims.  In the Hamlet speech essay, I wrote an essay on the speech patterns of both Claudius and Gertrude.  However, as the essay progressed I started to veer a bit off topic.  Instead of solely focusing on the speech patterns, I started to dabble a bit into the psychology of the "royal couple."  While I do thinkl that this was a good essay, it was slightly off topic.  I have to learn, especially in college, to stay completely on topic, no matter how tempting it might or might not be to explore othera areas of a specific text.  Finally, in the final essay, the Hamlet film essay, I was quite challenged at first but eventually ended up enjoying the assignment.  I chiose the Branagh and Jacobi version to compare/contrast.  This was not like any other essay I have ever written, as I only made minimal use of quotation analysis and instead focused more on the different aspects of the films: their lighting, settings, and character dispositions.  I look forward to seeing the coments on it.

As I go off to cellege next year, I realize that I need to eliminate the wordiness of my essays, while still maintaing a complex sentence structure.  Sometimes, I use flowery language, instead of getting straight to the point, which can sometimes take away from the essay.  In order for my writing to evolve, I need to eliminate these things that sometimes do not let the essay reach its full potential.

I loook forward to a great second semester!

draft of essay(second body in progress, will post later):  

There certainly is no one way to depict William Shakespeare’s Hamlet on the “big screen,” as there have been over a hundred versions of the play on film, including ones in which Kenneth Branagh and Derek Jacobi star as Hamlet.  While both of these films actually cast Jacobi, this is the only similarity between the two versions of the film. The difference between these versions comes down to more than just the fact that Branagh’s is in color and Jacobi’s is not.  Both directors of the films made decisions, some less obviously seen than others, in order to promote what they feel is the most innovative representation of the life and toils of Hamlet, while not veering too far away from Shakespeare’s original In the Derek Jacobi and Kenneth Branagh versions of Hamlet, there are certain directorial choices regarding the setting, tone, and dispositions of Hamlet, Claudius, and Gertrude, that creates two identities for the film.  Branagh's take on the play focuses more on the modern and contemporary aspects, while Jacobi's depicts a more conservative portrayal of Hamlet.

Kenneth Branagh’s version is visually appealing.  With its extravagant palace laced with red, gold, and white, and bright lighting, the viewer feels as if there are thousands of spotlights gleaming onto each one of the actors.  The director of the film has done what no other film has done, depicting the wedding of Claudius and Gertrude.  Here, the people of Denmark have flocked to see the ceremony and are wearing bright red and white garments.  However, when Hamlet walks in, one can truly sense his loss and the fact that he is still deeply grieving about the loss of his father.  The director wants to make it obvious to the audience that this is the case, so he has Branagh dress in all black, the color of death and funerals, instead of wearing white, the color of celebration and purity.  Branagh truly is wearing a “solemn suit of black,” but the director not only wants the audience to see Hamlet’s pain (with the black attire), but to sense his suffering.  Branagh’s pain can be heard in his voice as he sarcastically responds to Claudius claim that he has been grieving for far too long:  “Not so, my lord; I am too much i’ the sun” (1.2 line 69).  Branagh is on the verge of tears, as he cannot stand to watch his mother take his murdering uncle’s hand in marriage.  Additionally, there is an immense and vivid contrast of the joyous wedding and Hamlet’s disgruntled and unsettled disposition.  Branagh’s portrayal of Hamlet allows to the audience to delve into the character’s inner emotions, as Hamlet is portrayed as an “open book” wen it comes to his expression.  One can hear the gut wrenching pain in his voice and see his head droop down when he watches Claudius and Gertrude intimately hold hands, all the while seeming to be constantly on the verge of bawling because he cannot stand to watch his beloved mother marry an evil and manipulative man.  Additionally, Gertrude and Claudius are depicted much differently in the Branagh version than in Jacobi’s.  In this film, Claudius is represented as a so-called caring stepfather; he speaks in a gentle manner to Hamlet because he wants to create a “healthy” relationship with him.  Claudius states the phrase, “Tis’ unmanly grief,” because he is attempting to teach Hamlet that his actions are unfit for that of royalty.  Claudius “babying” Hamlet is a sign of false caring, and Hamlet sees right through it.    What really perturbs Hamlet is that his mother stands in union with a man who obviously has anything but good intentions, yet is steadfast in supporting him, with no sign of wavering.  Branagh’s Hamlet feels as if he is old news and cannot stand Claudius receiving more attention than he receives.  

Body paragraph 1 so far:

Kenneth Branagh’s version is visually appealing.  With its extravagant palace laced with red, gold, and white, and bright lighting, the viewer feels as if there are thousands of spotlights gleaming onto each one of the actors.  The director of the film has done what no other film has done, depicting the wedding of Claudius and Gertrude.  Here, the people of Denmark have flocked to see the ceremony and are wearing bright red and white garments.  However, when Hamlet walks in, one can truly sense his loss and the fact that he is still deeply grieving about the loss of his father.  The director wants to make it obvious to the audience that this is the case, so he has Branagh dress in all black, the color of death and funerals, instead of wearing white, the color of celebration and purity. 

Intro for Hamlet film comparison essay:

There certainly is no one way to depict William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” on the “big screen,” as there have been over seven versions of the films, including ones in which Kenneth Branagh and Derek Jacobi star as the grieving Hamlet.  While both of these films actually cast Branagh, this is the only similarity between the two versions of the film. The differences between these version comes down to more than just the fact that Branagh’s is in color and Jacobi’s is not.  Both directors of the film made decisions, some less obviously seen than others, in order to promote the manner in which they depicted the life and toils of Hamlet and his family. Again, this means that it is solely up to the director to decide how he or she might want to present or adapt Shakespeare’s creations.  A perfect example of an adaptation would be Ethan Hawke’s version of the film which took place in a modern metropolitan area that had sophisticated technology.  In the Derek Jacobi and Kenneth Branagh versions of Hamlet, there are certain directorial choices regarding the setting, tone, and dispositions of Hamlet, Claudius, and Gertrude, which creates two identities for the film.  Branagh's take on Hamlet focuses more on the modern and contemporary aspects, while Jacobi's depicts a more conservative portrayal of Hamlet.

Working Thesis:  In the Derek Jacobi and Kenneth Branagh versions of Hamlet, there are certain directorial choices regarding the setting and the tone and dispositions of Hamlet, Claudius, and Gertrude, which creates two identities for the film, Branagh's being more modern and Jacobi's more on the conservative side.

I decided not to compare an extremely modern film such as Hawke or Tennant's with Olivier's because I think that the Hawke and Tennant versions was too big of a stretch (as I do not think it is an accurate representation of what Shakespeare would want) and Olivier's for me is not appealing because I think the relationship between Gertrude and Hamlet is taken too far, as they are seen making out!  While I know the director of the Olivier version is attempting to illustrate the extremely close and intimate relationship between the mother and son, it seems extravagant.  Also, I personally am not a fan of black and white films, as films with color allow an audience to truly see the emotion that an actor attempts to display.

Second Hamlet film post:  I think that in my essay I will focus on the Jacobi and Branagh versions of the film.  I think that these will make for an interesting essay because they can easily be contrasted.  Jacobi's version is plain and simple, with a dark castle setting.  On the other hand, Branagh's version has a bright court wedding setting, with bright red and white outfits.  Jacobi's is older, while Branagh's is relatively more modern.  Also, I think that the acting in both films is fantastic, but with a few twists.  In Jacobi's version, Gertrude is hostile and less submissive and Hamlet is aggressive and sarcastic in his facials expressions and tone.  Also, both films depict Claudius as a man trying to teach Hamlet a lesson about grief and death.  He is putting on a show in both.  Also, the symbolism in Branagh is great, as Hamlet is the only character wearing black in the wedding scene, which shows that he is far from ready to move on from his father's tragic death.

First Hamlet film post:

Wow,  there is a huge difference between reading Hamlet aloud in class and watching it on a screen!  Now, I can see how directors envision the individual scenes looking, what emotions they want the actors to show, and how they want the audience to perceive the characters.  What I found most interesting, was how the Ethan Hawke and David Tennant films were modern.  Hawke's setting was in a city and involved computers, while in Tennant's film, we saw his monologue through a security camera.  I think that if the modernization of Hamlet will attract a younger audience, then by all means directors should so so.

Wrap up post for Hamlet:

Well, that escalated quickly.  Hamlet dies by means of Laertes' sword and Laertes by means of Hamlet's sword.  Gertrude dies by drinking the poisoned wine cup in which Claudius intended for Hamlet to drink out of.  Claudius dies by Hamlet making him drink out of the poisoned cup and then subsequently stabs him.  Claudius' death is fitting for a man who stirred up so much commotion in which there was no real need for.  What I found most intriguing is that Claudius lied even when about to die.  He claimed that Gertrude fainted from the sight of blood on the ground from the fight between Hamlet and Laertes.  I guess the saying that when someone dies, they reveal their true colors is correct after all.

11/13 blog post:

The final scene has arrived.  Claudius has arranged an array of ways he could kill Hamlet.  If he wins the fencing match with Laertes, Claudius will slip poison in the shape of a pearl in his celebratory wine cup, and he also has arranged for Laertes to receive a sword that has not been "filed" down.  It seems only fitting that after Hamlet wounds Laertes, he reveals his plan with Claudius to kill him (Hamlet), and then Hamlet FINALLY kills the cold blooded murderer of his father, Claudius.  However, with all of this violence, three innocent lives have been taken: Ophelia, Polonius, and Gertrude.  Ophelia potentially killed herself due to Hamlet's murder of her father Polonius and Hamlet's poor treatment of her(even though he loved her more than 40,000 brothers combined, he had to keep his cover of not being sane).  Gertrude's death lays completely on Claudius' shoulder, although in the best case scenario, Gertrude lives on to carry the family legacy and preside over Denmark.  Even Hamlet got what he deserved in this play, DEATH, and a painful one at that.

Veteran's Day Weekend post:  

I am excited to see ow the play is turning out, as things are developing quite rapidly.  Hamlet has returned from his "death voyage" to England, much to the surprise of Claudius who ordered Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to behead him.  Also, Laertes has returned from his adventures in France and is enraged to hear about his father's death and how he was not given a proper burial.  He storms the Claudius' castle, only to be manipulated in to eliminating his father's killer himself, Hamlet.  Also, due to the unexpected passing of her father, Ophelia either drowned by accident in a pond or committed suicide.  I am interested to see which side Laertes will take, as his current side (Claudius' side) is the side of evil.  Also, Gertrude is slowly but surely distancing herself from the king at Hamlet's orders, yet will she listen to him?

11/7 blog post:

It is official, Hamlet, driven by his stepfather, has gone mad!  The exchange he had with his mother was quite intense!  I was quite surprised that Hamlet not only killed Polonius (who he referred to as a "rat"), but that he did not kill the Claudius when he was praying.  It seems that Hamlet will in fact go to hell, so why worry about his fate?  Also, after months and month of anguish building up in Hamlet's head, he finally speaks his mind.  He consistently references his mother's sexual behavior (which is quite disturbing) and criticizes her for hastily marrying her former husband's brother and that she has ashamed him.  However, it seems that Hamlet now has Gertrude on his side and will not stop his pursuit of revenge against Claudius for the cold blooded murder of Hamlet Sr.

11/6 blog post:

I am excited to see how the play is going to end, even though we have three acts to go.  I think that by playing "mad" to keep his cover, Hamlet is slowly starting to become a bit crazy himself.  How can Hamlet possibly expose his father's murderer?  As stated by Claudius' "yes men" Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the public would sigh a deep sigh if he were to somehow abandon his post.  Perhaps this is a foreshadow of the evil king's death in the end.  This would be the ideal ending, as the evil would be substituted for the good, the unintended heir ceding the throne to the correct heir to the throne.  Also, I am curious to see how Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia plays out, as Hamlet has to keep his cover, but yet not wanting to drive her too far away.

Intro Paragraph:

Claudius and Gertrude would not exactly be the best exemplars of an “ideal couple.”  Claudius murdered his own brother and Gertrude’s former husband, the previous king, in order to acquire the throne for himself.  On the other hand, Gertrude ignores her son Hamlet’s wishes to stay a widower and hastily marries her former brother-in-law.  Claudius and Gertrude prominently exhibit their emotions through their respective speech patterns.  Claudius has a certain sense of arrogance in both his actual diction and the delivery of his lines, while Gertrude speaks without a firm sense of authority, even though she is in one of the ultimate positions of such.  Both characters are actually portrayed as villains, obviously Claudius more so than Gertrude.  King Claudius’ attempts to make up for his inadequacy by acting in a manner that he sees fit for a king, which includes speaking in a complex, yet empty manner and having the ability to make quick, decisive decisions.  Gertrude also believes she is inadequate because instead of finding a proper king for the people of Denmark, she ultimately chose the first man she saw in Claudius. Gertrude and Claudius' speech patterns readily reflect each other's attitudes and emotions because both are incapable of expressing how they truly feel about the death of the former king of Denmark, Hamlet Sr.

Working Thesis:

Gertrude and Claudius' speech patterns readily reflect each other's attitudes and emotions because both are incapable of expressing how they truly feel about the death of the former king of Denmark, Hamlet Sr.

In the paper, I will focus on the role of men and women in the epoch of Shakespeare and how that effects the speech patterns of Gertrude and Claudius.  Also, I will focus on how both feel as if they are unfit for their current positions in life.  Claudius tries to make up for being a new king and murdering the old one by talking in a sophisticated, yet empty manner (like Polonius), while Gertrude is imprisoned as all women back then were completely subservient to men and she feels that she married Claudius too hastily, and thus drove Hamlet "mad" by her insensitive actions.

I think I will write about the speech patterns of Queen Gertrude and King Claudius.  I am choosing these two characters because there is an interesting dynamic at play, since Claudius is Gertrude's former brother in law.   Claudius exerts his authority by speaking highly of himself.  On the other hand, Gertrude speaks with less authority and passion because woman in Shakespearian times were not even remotely considered equals to men.  Also, Claudius is living two different lives, one being the leader of Denmark, and the other being that he murdered his own blood, his brother for the throne of Denmark.   It just so happens that the former king's son Macbeth is suspicious about his seemingly kind and noble uncle, and yet he lectures Macbeth on what is right and wrong.

Speech patterns in Hamlet:

Shakespeare intentionally utilizes speech pattern to reflect the thoughts and actions of all the characters in his plays, especially this one.  Claudius speaks with firm authority.  This authority figure-like speech reflects how he makes quick decisions such as potentially beheading Macbeth on a ship sailing toward England.  Ophelia, in disbelief that her now former lover has gone "mad" has a certain desperate tone, as she constantly looks to her father, Polonius for help.  Speaking of Polonius, he in fact speaks WAY too much.  His words take up an entire page, when they really should only take up a line or two at most.  Queen Gertrude has a distant and subservient tone and manner.  She seems a little distant (probably because her husband just passed) and does whatever Claudius says.  Finally, Macbeth, acting mad, has an extremely bitter, sorrowful, and angry tone.  He is angry for his mother for hastily marrying his uncle, because he is not allowed to see Ophelia anymore, and that his father was potentially murdered.

10/17 blog post:  

I think that Shakespeare is indirectly mocking gossip, and how something so false such as Macbeth feigning that he has lost his mind, can travel so quickly.  Macbeth takes advantage of the "gossip chain" and convinces Ophelia that he is mad.  Once Ophelia tells her father, the right hand man to King Claudius, he goes ahead and tells the King himself.  Claudius then goes ahead and hires two men to watch every move of Macbeth and show him a good time, in order to hear the truth.  Shakespeare make a mockery of how something so false spreads so quickly.  Sadly, the "gossip chain" has grown considerably since the times of Shakespeare.

10/15 blog post:

After encountering his father's ghost and learning that he (Hamlet Sr.) did not die by the bite of the serpent, but rather by the hand of his own brother.  He most likely was killed because his brother was tired of playing second fiddle and saw murder as the only way to clear the path for himself.  Hamlet knew from the start that something was off about his uncle and stepfather from the moment when Claudius said that he could call him "dad".  Hamlet's father's obsession with the term incest and incestuous stems from the fact that his former wife is now "in love" with his brother and that every smile in which Claudius sports is artificial and should not be taken seriously.

10/14 blog post:

Hamlet is living in a world that is moving much too fast for his tastes.  His beloved father just passed away (of what will be revealed as murder), but even worse, his mother without wasting a month, marries a new man.  Hamlet feels as if his mother just discarded her old husband for a new one.  Because Hamlet feels like he is one of the few people who are actually grieving for his father, when he hears of news from Horatio that his father's ghost is lurking around the castle at midnight, he becomes so obsessed with the possibility that he could have an opportunity to communicate with his father.  He even threatens to kill anyone who acts as an impediment toward him following the ghost into the forest.  Hamlet is certainly determined to honor the legacy of his father, instead of not even recognizing his former presence as his mother and father-in-law/uncle are.

Once again, media defines this country and thus shapes how people around the world perceive sports.  Playing sports has always been a more of a masculine thing and thus, the commercials that are played during official television timeouts, regular timeouts, and during halftime are more geared toward men.  The Keystone Light Beer example, although about as cheesy as it gets, is one of many examples in which a commercial deems a man "unmanly" if he does not use their product. Real life examples of this are Old Spice, Axe, and other beer commercials.  On Monday Night Football or Hockey Night in America, or Sunday Night Baseball, all televised nationally, there are few to no commercials that would appeal to women.  This is simply because women make up a minority of the millions of people that watch these programs.  In order to appease the viewers (although who actually like commercials!) the station has to provide commercials that would be up their viewers' alleys.  While there is nothing really wrong with this, in order to attract all the male consumers, these commercials depict women as "prizes."    These make women seem like material things and not human beings with feelings, emotions, but most importantly, talent.  Women are the majority of the time the background actors who receive attention only on their looks, while athletes like Peyton Manning, Victor Cruz, LeBron James, and Mike Trout are recognized instantly as pure gods.

The interview on The Tom Leykis Show certainly could be one of the reasons why the show does not exist today.  Unfortunately the viewer named Brad and the host of the show, Tom Leykis, are actually right about something, yet say it in the most vulgar and disrespectful way.  Brad's comment about 90 to 95 of televised sports being performed by males is absolutely correct, along with Leykis' comment about attendance (examples on pp.107) and Brad's comment about how even the sports leagues that the woman have are barely a blip on the radar screen compared to say men's gold or the NBA.  "There's no woman basketball player like a Shaquille O'Neal... And there's no Tiger Woods in the women's gold league (107).  However, even though the men's leagues are more popular and fun to watch, this does not mean that they should be disrespected.  They work just as hard and get less exposure, coverage, and recognition.

Corporate America would obviously want to have a more attractive athlete, or rather woman to be the figurehead of its respective campaign because consumers respond to this.  However, this is not to take anything away from the less attractive, but more talented athletes.  They are better than the more attractive women who get endorsement because they worked harder and would stop at nothing to achieve near perfection in their game.  But sadly, in terms of endorsements, talent is not the only factor. While Messner is right, he seems to degrade women that choose to pose provocatively for calendars, magazines, or television commercials.  If the world were based on talent, the less attractive and more talented female athletes would get the endorsements, but because the world revolves around media, beauty and image matters.

Because the world revolves around media, sports broadcasting is dependent on media as well.  Different television and radio outlets broadcast men's sports games over women's because the majority of the world simply finds men's sports (most notably football, baseball, basketball, and hockey) more entertaining than sports played by females.  Even with the institution of Title IX, which guaranteed equal funding for female sports in both high school and college, mens sports teams will always remain dominant.  Messner references ESPN's flagship show, SportsCenter, as "devoting only 2.2 percent of its coverage to women's sports.  In order for SportsCenter to stay relevant, the program has to provide what the viewer wants, and the average viewers almost always prefers men's sports.

1.  Intro/Similarities

2.  Contrast setting and socioeconomics of characters

3.  Contrast the two games/perception of game/pace

4.  Conclusion/Big Picture/Restate Thesis

Working Thesis: 

While both poems vividly portray their characters' passionate and never ending love for the game, in reality, the games are played in completely different manners, one as an unorganized pickup game, the other in a gym with authentic hardwood floors, a scoreboard, referees, and uniforms.

Prompt for compare/contrast essay of Slam, Dunk, and Hook and Fast Break:

What are the different poetic devices used by Komunyakaa and Hirsch in their respective poems.  How do these devices make the poems different or similar?