thelitteam
tammyebbLast week marked the beginning of our study of the treatment of women in Shakespeare, and the tutorial was aimed at:
1) Looking at the treatment of women in Shakespeare,
2) Understanding how Shakespeare might employ archetypes in his plays,
3) Getting a sense of how the male-female dynamic might emerge in a dramatic text,
4) Understanding that the text is open to interpretation, especially because of Shakespeare’s lack of stage directions,
and
5) Deriving possible direction for the action from the speech.
We weren’t quite able to cover all these areas in depth yet because there’s only so much that can be accomplished in 50 minutes, particularly if you get hung up on the thees and thous and can’t get to the meat of the text in time. Reading Shakespeare is a matter of habit, really — once you’re used to the pattern of the language, it really gets easier to understand what he’s going on about. It’s actually remarkably easy because Shakespeare talks in pictures about everything: the environment, the characters, feelings, thoughts… Everything is in pictures, and all you have to do is put your imagination to work on your behalf. Ask questions like What is he comparing here? Why is he comparing these things? When it comes to the treatment and depiction of women, ask What are women compared to and why? How do the other characters, whether it’s the significant male figures (fathers, brothers, husbands / boyfriends) or the significant female figures (mothers, sisters, best friends / confidants, romantic rivals, ladies-in-waiting / handmaidens / servants) help to illustrate these comparisons, and for what purpose / why?
The Reduced Shakespeare Company was very right in some of their observations of how Shakespeare writes, particularly relevant being the statement of how he’s a method writer and that he basically distilled four or five key tales of the time into his various comedies. You’ll see the pattern repeat over and over again. If you pay attention, you really can’t miss it. But perhaps, given the title I’ve given this particularly blog entry, that should be dealt with in another blog entry.
For today, I want to focus on what the viewing of the various videos of Act 3 Scene 1 — otherwise known as ‘The Nunnery Scene’ — from one of the four great tragedies, Hamlet, was meant to help you to see.
As you watch the various videos I have attached to the blog, please remember that his question to her about her honesty is also a question about whether or not she’s still a virgin, and not just about her truthfulness. Whether the meaning is to be taken chiefly as the former or the latter is affected by the way in which Ophelia responds to the direct question as well as her attitude as it is generally directed.
In truth, the analysis of a text turned audio-visual is no different from the analysis of the on-paper text itself: you need to pay attention to detail and be aware of how you, as the audience or reader, are being manipulated and affected by the text, why you prefer one to the other and vice versa.
Kevin Kline as Hamlet, Diane Venora as Ophelia
In the videos that follow, what I wanted you to look at was:
a) the way in which Ophelia comes across — she seems rather calm, even fairly spirited at some point — and I want you to ask yourselves how this is an effective interpretation of the character in this scene, and
b) treatment of Ophelia by Hamlet — how is the text / speech translated into actions? How is the character’s speech invoking various archetypes of women, and what is the emotional association with these archetypes as he speaks?
Kenneth Brannaugh as Hamlet, Kate Winslet as Ophelia
Here, the key characters come across as having quite a different level of emotional bonding to each other, particularly in the way in which they greet each other. However, what differs is that at some point, there is a sound that alerts Hamlet that they might not be alone. Note how he speaks to and treats her before and after this interruption. Why do you think this is the case; is the anger directed at Ophelia and how is this made clear to whoever is watching?
I did make it a point to highlight how the faces of Hamlet and Ophelia are juxtaposed during the course of the scene: As they stand next to each other, when he is speaking to her before he suspects something is amiss, and then after, when he squashes her against the glass. The distortion of her visage is visually symbolic of Hamlet’s current state of distorted vision; it also heightens the sense of Ophelia as a victim because her discomfort is apparent and is contrasted with Hamlet’s ferocity.
Derek Jacobi as Hamlet, Lalla Ward as Ophelia
In this particular video, Hamlet seems to be quite satirical; he suspects Ophelia being part of a set-up quite early on, and this is signaled by his righting the prayer book that she holds, such that the line, “Nymph, in thy orisons may all my sins be remembered,” said sentimentally in Brannaugh’s version is rendered somewhat sarcastic and admonishing in Jacobi’s depiction. Also note the way he shouts “I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious…” — who is he targeting as the recipient of his speech? The notion of speaker and recipient which we explored in unseen poetry analysis is no less important in drama because who the speaking character is addressing is important — which other character on stage, or the audience or the gods, even — and the interpretation of that changes the intention and the ensuing effect of the text.
In this version, Hamlet’s anguish is brought across quite differently, and you can get a sense of the Danish prince really playing up the madness that he is affecting, not just with threatened violence (Question: what’s with the batting / ‘hit-and-miss’ in the scene? Can we interpret that as an interpretation of the character’s desire to strike out at women but a reluctance to actually hurt the woman he loves?) but with deliberate crudity in the way that he touches her when he says “Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?” such that the reference to sex is made more apparent.
Laurence Olivier as Hamlet, Jean Simmons as Ophelia
I think this is the most beautiful pairing. That perception is, of course, highly subjective. This is one of the more classic film versions, and Olivier in his time was known for playing many Shakespearean roles.
I read somewhere recently that Olivier, in this version of the nunnery scene, changed one of Ophelia’s exclamations from “O, help him, you sweet heavens!” to “O, help me, you sweet heavens!” because he wanted to focus on the romantic relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia and to emphasize the impact of the scene on Ophelia. The man who noticed the change in the text actually called Olivier to ask him why he did that (http://glind.customer.netspace.net.au/prayer.html). I think it’s a great illustration for how the classics are manipulated and adapted by various people through time to communicate their own emphases of what they think is the most important aspect, and all for different reasons.
I think that the change also brings out the fragility of Ophelia and how she’s a victim to the male characters, torn between filial piety to her father and love for Hamlet. Of course, in this particular depiction, as I pointed out in class, Ophelia really looks very pretty, dainty and fragile, and that it’s very deliberate because it heightens the contrast between the angry Hamlet and the weeping Ophelia, and it really creates an impact when he flings her to the ground because she really looks very abused, even though the violence might not be of the same extremity as in the Kline version.
Ethan Hawke as Hamlet, Julia Stiles as Ophelia
I have to admit that I haven’t seen this version in full. I actually forgot that there was this version (then again, there are many versions I have not seen; some which I have refused to see for reasons I will not expound upon here), but stumbling across it, I thought it was interesting to look at as a comparison.
Firstly, right at the beginning of the video, Ophelia’s being implicated in the intentions of Claudius and Polonius is made very clear. She submits to being wired up with a mike; the wired portable mike is, of course, a way of adapting the text to the modern context to replace the idea of there being listeners hidden in a arras, as is indicated in the original script. It also then allows the conversation between Ophelia and Hamlet to take place in the intimate space of Hamlet’s apartment, which then implies the degree of infiltration that the plotters were aiming to achieve, and also then the degree of betrayal experienced by Hamlet because Ophelia cannot deny involvement or claim ignorance when he realizes that she’s wired.
Secondly, the script is quite chopped up, and there are parts missing. What is the impact of having taken out those parts of the text. Why do you think the director / script adapter decided that those parts of the speech could be removed? It means that, for whatever reason, those parts of text have been deemed less important for generating audience understanding. Do you agree?
Thirdly, the encounter between Ophelia and Hamlet is much shorter and she leaves; the later part of the ‘get thee to a nunnery’ speech are turned into ansaphone / answering machine messages which Hamlet leaves for Ophelia. What’s also interesting is that while we hear the voice-over of the messages being left, we see Ophelia burning a photograph of Hamlet — what impact does this create? What impression do you get of how she’s received what he has said and what does the action symbolize?
Mel Gibson as Hamlet, Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia
Not my favourite version of the text, though one of the first few of the few I have seen in full. I remember at the time that the joke was about how the lead actor’s Australian accent and intonation rendered one of the lines — “Murder, murder most foul!” – quite hilarious to the ear. I didn’t see how it was particularly funny. Then again, many moons ago, my senses were more dull and my ears less sensitive to such things.
This version of the play is also rather heavily edited. I want you to look at the character of Ophelia and how she’s depicted. Somehow, there’s almost something a bit grubby about the way she’s dressed, and there are times when she comes across as being rather more sullen and challenging than cringing and weepy. How does this affect your perception of the degree to which Hamlet’s abuse really affects her and how sympathetic you feel for the character as you are watching the scene? Also, those of you familiar with Carter’s work, you might want to consider how much of her ‘usual’ character comes across in this interpretation of Ophelia.
***
And so, what is your verdict? Which Ophelia is, in your reading of the text, closest to how you envision her in your head? Which is closest to the way that you would direct the text if you had to stage it or film it? Why? Which Ophelia do you feel the most sorry for, and which Ophelia makes you feel that she deserves whatever she suffers in the course of the scene and the rest of the play? Which Ophelia highlights the stereotyping and treatment of women the most clearly, and which interpretation of the character is not, in your opinion, pandering to fewer stereotypes?
Please be aware that text-to-stage and text-to-screen adaptations can be quite different. For a live play, there is only one angle of viewing, and no retakes; for screen, they can do the scene over and over again to get just the right emotion, they usually use multiple camera angles (the more modern the film, the higher the chance that you will encounter this) and can do rapid scene / location changes and make use of other effects not available for putting the play on stage.
As you move into the study of Taming of the Shrew, you need to think in terms of how it would have been put up on stage given the conditions of Shakespeare’s time, so as to understand how they would have made the most of what is in the text to speak for them when physical and technological limitations prevailed, and when you are watching more modern adaptations, understand what was left out and what was kept of the text and how emphasis shifts as a result of that.
