On Act III and Seriously?

Alright, was I the only one surprised with Act III of A Doll’s House? I mean, seriously. Where the hell did that ending come from? Dr. Rank dies, Krogstad shows a complete change of heart and runs off with Mrs. Linde, Nora runs off without any thought of her children (but that’s an entirely different blog entry), and everything about Nora’s forgery is revealed to Torvald but this exposure seems to no longer be that big of a deal! I’m sorry but Act III seems so out of place with the entire rest of the play! Acts I and II seemed to be leading………somewhere! And instead, the audience is faced with a shot from left field! For such an example of “realism,” the ending hardly seems realistic in the slightest. How will Nora meet the demands of life on her own? Has Torvald seen *any* emotional growth? Nothing has come to any satisfying conclusion! (Except, perhaps, Dr. Rank, but was it seriously necessary to kill him off?) I guess my main issue is with Krogstad and his immediate reversal of attitude. He was used until he was no longer useful to the plot and then cast aside. What depth is there in that? Acts I and II gave me so much hope. I was looking forward to an amazingly sweet ending! And then was faced with…….this. ……..…..Gosh, it’s like Episode I.

231 words.

On Rehearsal and My Blog

Alright, due to several costume issues, I had to stay rather late at rehearsal tonight. I am merely posting to say I have just gotten home and am writing my blog now. It shall be up soon.

Good things come to those who wait.

-MJPT

On Hamlet and The Simpsons

Sadly, I could not manage to actually post the video directly do my blog like I did with The Who, but here's the link. The Simpsons do Hamlet. Enjoy.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/54549/detail/

-MJPT

P.S. AP English students should also enjoy the Oedipus allusion in the first few seconds.

On Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

The friendly, philosophical, interchangeable, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet’s life-long friends, are condemned to death by the very man they thought they could trust. What the Hell, Robert? What the Hell? (Please excuse the Hemingway allusion. It’s for you, Schooner.) Does friendship mean nothing to Hamlet? Or is he merely so concentrated on revenge that he focuses on nothing else? (A la Edmond Dantes of Alexandre Dumas’s The Count of Monte Cristo) In the course of the play, it is established that Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are good friends of the Danish prince. And yet, Hamlet willingly and unflinchingly writes his friends off to death without a second glance. Seriously, Hamlet? It has been argued by many that Rosenstern and Guildencrantz deserved their terrible fate. After all, they sided with the corrupt king to become spies against their friend. They are a symbol of the corrupting power of the court. But really, can we blame them? It’s not like they were doing anything….evil. Or really that terrible at all! They were merely following the orders of the king so that they might uncover the truth behind Hamlet’s madness and, by doing so, help cure their childhood friend. Hamlet suspects the two have “sided” with Claudius from the beginning and, upon realizing his suspicions are true, decides first to write them from his life and then, suddenly, end their lives with a letter! (Hamlet, like a Sith, seems to deal in absolutes.) What does this reveal about Hamlet’s character? In what mental state must a man be to have no regard for the lives of, if not friends, acquaintances? Obviously, not the correct one. We know that Hamlet’s a bit mad, however, that does not excuse him from killing R & G. One might pardon Hamlet for wishing to kill Claudius. One might also even pardon Hamlet for ending Polonius’s life, for he truly did not mean to kill Ophelia’s father. (Even though stabbing might NOT be the best way to discover what’s behind a curtain. I have discovered that simply asking for a name BEFORE stabbing can avert potentially embarrassing murders.) But one can simply not write off Hamlet’s murder of Guildencrantz and Rosenstern. No matter how awesome Hamlet might be, this murder puts a serious spot (Out, damned spot!) on his record.

The fact that the Danish prince ends the lives of two innocent people, people he once called friends, cannot be overlooked in a discussion of his character. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern become merely pawns in Hamlet’s elaborate plan of revenge. They are not with him; they are against him. They must be destroyed. In this way, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are tragic. Their fates are out of their control. They are swept away by actions they don’t understand. And, sadly, they meet their end because of a depressed prince.

RIP Rosencrantz and Guildenstern