Christopher Marlowe.

Christopher Marlowe was a poet and playwright born in Canterbury in 1564 and died on the 30th of May 1593. He went to The Kings School in Canterbury, and then went on to Corpus Christi College in  Cambridge to do a BA degree in 1584 and later MA. It is said that while at Corpus Christi he may have been influenced religiously by the beliefs of Francis Kett, who was burned in 1589 after being accused of heresy.

While doing his Masters degree Marlowe would frequently not attend, and was absent so much that it went against the rules of the university which put his degree in jeopardy. Marlowe got his degree thanks to the Privy Council (Queen's council) who allowed him his degree because of 'good service' to the Queen which then fuelled speculation that Marlowe was a spy for Sir Francis Walsingham (part of a spy service for the Queen). According to www.marlowe-society.org/ Marlowe was recruited by Walsingham as a 'part-time secret service agent'.
    Marlowe was arrested in 1592 for the counterfeiting of coins, but was not charged, even after being sent to the Lord Treasurer, which fits with the spy idea in the sense that at that time you were likely to be executed for that sort of crime, but he was let off.

Marlowe was arrested on 20th of May 1593 on a charge of atheism, and therefore heresy. He was granted bail despite the seriousness of the crime, and had to report daily to an officer of the court. On the 30th May Marlowe was spending the day in Deptford with Robert Poley (an experienced government agent), Ingram Frizer (the personal servant and business agent of Thomas Walsingham, the cousin of Sir Francis Walsingham), and Nicholas Skeres (often assisted Poley, and was often associated with Walsingham). Marlowe, Skeres, Poley and Frizer are all linked by Sir Francis Walsingham, a spy.
 It is said that after the four spending the day together, there was an argument between Frizer and Marlowe over a bill, which led to Marlowe wounding Frizer with Frizer's dagger, and the fight culminating in Frizer stabbing Marlowe just above the right eye, killing him. Marlowe was buried in an unmarked grave in the churchyard of St Nicholas Deptford.

There are claims that Marlowe's death was faked and that he is in fact William Shakespeare, who was born around two months after Marlowe. A.D Wraight analysed Shakespeare's sonnets and found links between him and Marlowe. More about this can be found on http://www.marlowe-society.org/marlowe/life/exile1.html.

The Creation of Gothic Atmosphere in Nosferatu

I think that being alone is a key part to the creation of Gothic atmosphere in Nosferatu, because through being alone the characters are vulnerable which therefore makes them more likely prey for Nosferatu. Also, the reason for it being a key part in Nosferatu is because there seems to be a lot of it; Nina is without Jonathon, and therefore alone because there is no-one to protect her (waawaa); Jonathon is alone when he has to go and stay with the Count; the ship is the only ship you see on the sea, therefore alone; the Captain of the ship is left alone with Nosferatu when the first mate jumps off the side of the boat, etc etc. This loneliness puts the audience on edge, because of the vulnerability of the character, and also because, especially when the captain of the ship is left 'alone', they are not alone. There is always some sort of threat, in the case of this film Nosferatu is the threat, and being alone makes you an easy target because it is harder to defend yourself. 

There are elements of the supernatural, just like the Gothic pictures we looked at; Nosferatu can turn himself invisible. This adds to the Gothic atmosphere because if he can turn himself invisible, you never know where he is going to be, or when he is going to pop up, which builds up tension.
  Something that would also be seen as supernatural is the psychic connections between people in the film. Nina and Jonathon appear to have a psychic connection, 'He is coming, I must go to meet him', and Renfield and the Count also appear to have a psychic connection, 'Master is dead.'

Rats help to add to the Gothic atmosphere because they are considered vermin and make people uncomfortable, and from the Gothic pictures we looked at I get the impression that they like to pick out what people fear, e.g. dark, ghosts, and so rats would have most likely caused fear because they carry disease and people just generally fear them as they aren't usually seen to be a good thing.

What makes a setting Gothic?

I think that darkness and shadow plays a key part in making a setting Gothic, because it adds a sense of the unknown. To use an example, your own room; in the daytime it's lovely and it's your room and there's nothing sinister about it, but then you turn the lights off, add in it taking more time than usual to fall asleep and it suddenly becomes a Gothic setting, where the sound of your own breathing becomes something that makes you jump a mile and start thinking about how you really should stop putting clothes on top of things because it looks spookily like a ghostly figure sitting in the chair. Then you turn the light back on and everything seems totally fine.

Another thing that makes a Gothic setting is the vulnerability of the people that are in the setting. For example, someone with a broken leg, dragging themselves to the nearest escape while the walls are slowly caving in would be seen as more vulnerable than someone fully capable of running through and being totally fine at the other end, and therefore more Gothic because there is an element that makes the reader uncomfortable; there is less chance of the guy with the broken leg getting out and so reading about his struggle to escape puts the reader more on edge and therefore makes the Gothic setting successful.

Adding children, or innocence. For example, in Insidious it is the child who is trying to be possessed by the demons etc not the father, even though the father has the same abilities as the child (I'm not taking the end into account because it was at the end and not the bulk of the film) which then plays on the feelings of the audience because children are seen as innocent, and what is trying to possess the child is the complete opposite, and so it has the attempted corruption of innocence, paired with the grey setting and dark-ish house which makes it Gothic.

Gothic Settings

 In both The Castle of Otranto (TCO) and Vathek there are mentions of vast amounts of space, in TCO the word 'cavern' is often used to describe the space, whereas 'spacious and lofty' was used in Vathek. In TCO the fact that there is a lot of space could be used to highlight the difficulty of her escape; there is so much space but that actually hinders her escape because it means there are only more places to look to get out and a higher potential of getting lost and therefore more trapped.

There are limited amounts of light mentioned in both extracts, 'an imperfect ray of clouded moonshine', 'illuminated by torches and braziers', 'labyrinth of darkness' - all of these words back up that darkness is seen as a scary thing, by that you don't know what is in the shadows, and so it adds to the sense of uncertainty and fear.

The vault that leads to the church in TCO is described as 'dark and dismal', so even the way to safety is not actually comforting to the character. The fact that the description of the way to the church is so negative fits with the idea that the Gothic genre goes against religion; the place of worship that is supposed to be a safe place is only safer than the castle the character is currently in because it doesn't have Manfred in it.

Recreative Piece Ideas

Ophelia

Set just after the end of Act 5 scene 1, just before scene 2, everyone has left and then Hamlet re-enters because he hears a noise.

Appearing to Hamlet as a ghost, Ophelia tells him of her pregnancy, 'why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?'. This could show how the ghost of his father isn’t real, like by reinforcing the idea that Hamlet sees what he wants to see and the guilt of him telling Ophelia to ‘get thee to a nunnery’ and shunning her has forced him to imagine her ghost telling him that she did love him etc, and about their child. However, it could also be used to back up that the ghost of Hamlet’s father is real, like if there is more than one ghost it could show that Hamlet is not simply just hearing what he wants to hear and what he suspects, because he wouldn’t want to hear that the baby died when Ophelia did.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

Arguing amongst themselves in an empty room, in-between the end of act 2 and Act 3 scene 1.

Rosencrantz arguing that it is wrong to betray Hamlet by working with Claudius, because they both know that Hamlet doesn’t trust him and just because Claudius is King it doesn’t mean that it should get in the way of their friendship, and then Guildenstern arguing that if they ever want to get anywhere in life they are going to have to help the King because he is the one with the power. Used to try and show that although Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are never seen apart and are often seen as one character, they are both the two sides to a character that one actor would have to portray.

Polonius

Inner monologue from the point where he hides behind the curtain in Act 3 scene 4. It shows his reactions to Hamlet, and his realisation that the King killed his brother, ‘here is your husband like a mildewed ear, blasting his wholesome brother’ – as it says in the book, ear could be a reference to the actual killing of Hamlet’s father, and so Claudius comes to a half conclusion that Claudius may have been the one to kill Hamlet. It helps to fill out Polonius’ character as more than an old fool, and that when he is thinking he is actually quite sharp and he realises what is going on just before he dies, which adds a bit of extra frustration and intrigue for the audience because it’s like Hamlet came close to having someone who believes him and then he kills him.

Gertrude Talks Back

Well, this freaked me out. It's weird reading something to do with Hamlet that isn't in Shakespeare's English, but I did think it was good though. It shed new light on Gertrude and I feel that it gave the character of Gertrude a chance to be explored in a different way, rather than just the girly 'oooooo Hamlet stop saying bad words!!' sort of character that it seems like she is portrayed as in Hamlet.

I don't agree with the 'It was me' part at the end, but I think that it makes it a good monologue, like it adds drama and it just seems right for the play, like I sort of want it to be true. I think that it could be true for this version of Gertrude, but I think the actual Gertrude would never be able to do that. I LOVE the part where she is talking about Ophelia, 'Borderline. Any little shock could push her right over the edge.', it shows that she does actually notice what's going on. I sort of feel like if she could notice Ophelia, why didn't she notice that Hamlet's hatred for Claudius was more than 'You married my mother but you're my uncle' sort of thing.

Presenting Hamlet

By the end of Act Two, Hamlet is a  confusing character in regards to 'tragic hero' - he is the protagonist of a tragedy, therefore he should be the tragic hero? Hmmm.

Well, to me, although he doesn't have the excessive pride that is associated with the tragic hero, he still does things to excess, like thinks to excess, which I believe is his downfall. I might be wrong and just trying to fit things, but it sort of works. For example, if the ghost is not real, and is a figure of Hamlet's imagination, then he has imagined that up to try and justify and make right all of the things that he has been thinking, which is some MAJOR overthinking and just going way too far into his own head!! I really hope you understand what I mean because otherwise all of that just makes no sense.

Although I've just made that point about how Hamlet does have something that leads to his downfall, I don't really believe that he is a tragic hero at this point. A tragic hero would have started to plan to actually DO something about what  they are thinking, like if Hamlet was a tragic hero, he would have probably gone ahead  and attempted to kill the King by now, but because he's Hamlet, he's decided to put on a play to try and see whether the King is guilty or not. Tragic heroes seem to follow their gut instinct straight away, whereas Hamlet doubts himself, (which could be to do with the overthinking thing) and it feels like he's making excuses not to act on his instincts. It's like he doesn't trust his own judgement.

I think that the way David Tennant plays Hamlet - sort of sensitive, like he's sad but that he could also flip to complete insanity and rage at any moment- is the best way of performing the character. I also think that because David Tennant is not some massive beefy muscly guy, it gives Hamlet the femininity that should show through,like the whole 'women words men action' sort of thing, and Hamlet is a very wordy guy.

Presentation of the ghost in Act One.

The character of the ghost in Hamlet can be presented in many different ways, because he can be interpreted differently by each person who reads/performs Hamlet.

Some people say that the ghost of the King isn’t real, and that it is just a figure of Hamlet’s imagination, and his way of clarifying his belief’s about Claudius and his dead father. Hamlet declares that he has a ‘prophetic soul’ after the ghost says that it was Claudius who killed his father, causing the reader to wonder whether Hamlet is just trying to find an excuse to believe his own suspicions, in the form of the ghost of his father. After all, the ghost does say a lot of the things that Hamlet has said himself, ‘damned incest’; Hamlet has said something along these lines in his soliloquy ‘incestuous sheets’, which gives the impression that the ghost is just Hamlet’s mind playing tricks on him telling him what he wants to hear.

The ghost could be interpreted as evil, and something that is out to do harm to Hamlet - he teases Hamlet with information it is not going to tell ‘I could a tale unfold’; he is manipulative, saying that ‘if’ he ever loved him when he was human and his father, he should revenge his murder, which causes the audience to ask the question of whether or not the ghost is trustworthy, or whether it is something sent to sway Hamlet and force him to kill Claudius. The ghost tells Hamlet of how his father was killed by poison being poured into his ears, but there is also the question of is that what the ghost is doing to Hamlet? Pouring poison into his ears, so to speak, so that he believes his own thoughts about who killed his father, and also to make him angry, by telling him details like how the poison would have reacted within his body, to make Hamlet emotional and more vengeful.

The Laurence Olivier version of Hamlet helps to portray the ghost as a gentle being, with his soft voice and simple effects. This supports the interpretation of the ghost that some readers may take, which is that the ghost simply is Hamlet’s father, who was murdered by his brother, and a character that should be felt sympathy for. Most readers could sympathise with the ghost dying before he was allowed to repent for his sins (‘no reckoning made but sent to my account with all my imperfections on my head’), whether you believe in heaven/hell/purgatory or not, because you can tell of his distress of this by how he describes it as ‘O horrible, O horrible, most horrible!’.

While the Laurence Olivier version of Hamlet could be seen to make the ghost seem more gentle, the ghost could also be seen as something scary; it is the stereotypical ghost in the sense that you can’t fully see it, and it is whispering in a manner that is not simply to say something quietly, it is like they are trying to achieve a ‘shivers down your spine’ scared feeling from the audience. There are elements of this in the play; the ghost is telling of his own murder, a subject that isn’t supposed to be friendly and happy, its supposed to spook people, and could have spooked people in the time that Shakespeare wrote it because people relied on religion more, so ghosts would not be seen as friendly helpful beings but rather a being that should not be trusted and would be seen as a bad sign.

The ghost played by Patrick Stewart seems angrier, which is understandable to the viewer because he has been killed by his own brother. This is evident in the text with the way the ghost talks about his brother, ‘that incestuous, that adulterate beast’ – the repetition of ‘that’ implies that there are many other things that the ghost could have chosen to say about his murderous brother. There are also a lot of negative words in the text, which gives the impression of anger and bitterness, ‘vile’, damned’, ‘wretch’.

My interpretation of the ghost is that I believe that it is an actual ghost, even though there is reason behind the belief that the ghost is a product of Hamlet’s imagination, but because Horatio and Marcellus have both seen it it reinforces my belief that the ghost is real. I also think that the ghost is supposed to be slightly scary, and untrustworthy, which helps to make Hamlet seem more mad to the reader, because even now if a person believes in ghosts they generally don’t see ghosts as a good thing, or at least find them slightly unnerving, whereas Hamlet trusts every word the ghost says. This makes Hamlet seem desperate, like he is so thankful that he has got to see his father again he will believe anything this figure says, which makes him seem slightly without reason, and therefore mad, or at least going mad.

Hamlet.

I'd just like to start by saying that this will not be a smart blog, because I'm not in a smart mood after my computer has wound me up to the point where I might actually crush it into the wall out of sheer rage.

So, Hamlet. Well, I'm going to get my opinion of the second Hamlet out of the way. Mel Gibson + English accent? + role of Hamlet = PLEASE JUST NOOOOOOO.

I liked the first one, because of the way that its like you're seeing into Hamlet's thoughts, which makes it feel more truthful and personal, but I think that the acting is better in the 3rd version, and so it doesn't need the feeling of being in Hamlet's head because you feel close to the character's feelings because of the awesome acting. Also, the guy's voice in the 1st one is sort of off-putting, to me he sounds like RiffRaff from Rocky Horror, which makes a good soliloquy a bit creepy. He can't help his voice though, so he is forgiven.

Claudius

 Last time I said that I wasn't sure how I felt about him, except that I thought he was a tiny bit more on the evil side than the good side. I'm STILL CONFUSED!! It's really annoying. I do mostly want to believe that he is evil, but after watching the different versions of how he would be played, I sort of think that the guy playing Claudius when he was all happy and stuff seemed really nice. I suppose it depends on the way you interpret it, because after all, the Queen stole some of his lines in that one, and also, I would rather believe that he is a nasty man over a good man because after all, he did kill his brother. Also, it sort of seems wrong to me not to think he is the villain because otherwise, who would the villain be? And to me there is always a bit of a villain in every story, even like girly romance stories there's always that really mean girl who tries to ruin everything, or the nasty boy or something.

So basically, I think that Claudius is an evil sort of character, but sometimes my opinion changes depending on the way that the text is represented. I really really really hope this isn't read out because I think I've rambled more than even I can stand, and it doesn't even make sense, so yeah.

19.01.11

Blogging about my opinion of King Claudius in Hamlet is hard, because my opinion of him changes throughout Hamlet, which actually makes me find him a really frustrating character. Depending on how you read it or how he is portrayed he could be anything! There are no stage directions in the speech like 'acting suspiciously' (I know that would be  a rubbish stage direction) so you can read it however you want and actors/directors can interpret it how they want.

For example, someone could read  the line about 'with mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage' and think that he was eeeeeevil and that he doesn't care about his dead brother 'mirth in funeral', and that he doesn't care about his new wife 'dirge in marriage'. Someone could then read the same line and say 'WHAT he was only joking fool, stop taking Claudius so seriously, you know what he's like, that old joker.'

So, in short, I can't really make my mind up about Claudius yet, until something clicks and I think :O , I'm a bit undecided. I'm leaning towards the evil side, but not super evil, just determined and sort of willing to kill people to get what he wants sort of evil.

5.1.11 and 7.1.11 or Tragic Elements and Structure

Tragic Elements

There are usually three elements that tragedies go by, which are :

By the way, I'm using Romeo and Juliet to help with my example things :)

1. Suffering - This is normally toward the central character and the audience have to watch and see how it is dealt with and created, e.g. in Romeo and Juliet, the character's suffering is that their parents won't let them be together.
2. Disorder/Chaos - The main character breaks down, which then draws the other characters into it. There is also the idea that the character's break down reflects the break down of society, e.g. when Mercutio is killed by Tybalt, Romeo takes revenge and kills Tybalt, which leads to him being exiled which then means that he and Juliet can't see each other, which then leads to their (sort of) accidental death. The breakdown of society being the feud between the two families, and the fighting that this causes.
3. Death (dum dum dum-dum dum dum-dum dum-dum dum-dum) - This usually occurs towards the end of the tragedy, where the protagonist ( :O BIG WORDS - I hope I used it in the right place) usually dies. Of course, there can be other deaths during the tragedy, like in Romeo and Juliet, where Tybalt, Mercutio, Romeo and Juliet all die. I hope I didn't forget anyone really obvious there :/

Tragic Structure

You often get 5 stages in your average classic tragedy. These are:
(Thought I'd stick to Romeo and Juliet as an example, a) because I like it, and b) because apparently Hamlet is a bit iffy when it comes to tragic structure, so I thought I'd see how that pans out in class first before using it as an example)

1. Introduction - Setting the scene, introducing characters etc. For example, part of the introduction of Romeo and Juliet is explaining about the rift between the Montague's and the Capulet's.
2. Complication/Problem - Well, a  huge problem in Romeo and Juliet is that they fall in love in the first place, although different complicating actions take up the bulk of the story until it gets to...
3. A climax - The part of the tragedy that sort of changes everything, what the complicating actions have been building up to.The fake death scene, for example. Romeo ends up killing himself just as Juliet wakes up, causing her to kill herself because she can't face life without him. Aww.
4. Understanding - E.g. when Romeo and Juliet's family realise that they were really in love.
5. Resolution - Society returns to normal? Most things return to how they should be, e.g. the Montague's and Capulet's end the feud. (Not sure if there's supposed to be an apostrophe there, but I put one in because that's how I did it first and tbh neither look right)

Fathers and Sons in the Kite Runner

Right. Fathers and sons in The Kite Runner.

1. Amir's first word is Baba. This shows how important Amir's father is to him, because this is mentioned on page 10, so right at the beginning of the book, which gives the impression to the reader that his father was a huge part of Amir's life from the very beginning.

2. It shows the relationships between fathers and sons, like a son's admiration for his father - Amir's admiration for Baba. 'Lore has it that my father once wrestled a black bear' - this quote shows that he thinks very highly of his father to believe the legend.

3. It shows the relationship of father and son again by showing that the father is the teacher, and the son is the student. Amir will always listen to the words of his father over any other teacher, 'you've confused what you're learning in school with actual education'.

4. Rahim Khan acts as a father figure to Amir when Baba shuns him, e.g. he gives him the book as a present, which is a gift that shows Rahim really knows Amir, and that is the sort of present a father should be buying for his son.

5. Amir's jealousy that another boy could be taking his father's attention; Baba treats Hassan like a son (we later find out that Hassan is his son), like buying him expensive presents (the harelip surgery) and how Hassan gets most of the same treats from Baba as Amir does.

6. Amir teaches Sohrab, like Baba was the teacher to Amir. He teaches him how to fly the kite, 'I'm going to show you one of your father's favourite tricks, the old lift-and-dive'.

7. Sons usually want to be like their fathers, and fathers usually want their sons to be like them, but when it happens, like with Hassan and Ali both being loyal, it turns out that the two people aren't actually related at all.

8. Amir and Baba's different parenting styles - Baba waits for Amir to prove himself before he accepts him, whereas Amir is the one proving himself to be a good father figure to Sohrab, and waits for Sohrab to accept him. Amir is more patient than Baba, like when he wants him to fly the kite, he wait for Sohrab to come to him in his own time ,'looks like i'll have to fly it tanhaii'.

9. Fathers are supposed to be the stronger ones in the father/son relationship, but with Assef and his father it was the other way around, like it says that it looks like his parents are scared of him, 'looming over both...like he had brought them here'.

10. Instead of being ashamed of his son/ son-figure (that would be Sohrab, think father figure but son figure, incase you didn't get what I meant by son-figure) like Baba sometimes was with Amir, Amir is proud of Sohrab and even defends him to General Taheri, 'you will never again refer to him as 'Hazara boy' in my presence'.

There could be so many things wrong with these points, but I hope not. Sorry if there are any spelling mistakes, or punctuation stuff! :)