Elizabethans, who read Ovid, Horace, Cicero, and Quintillan in their schools, acknowledged the rhetorical effectiveness of words, as Sir Philip Sidney argued: "oratio next to ratio." Fully awaring that "violent delights have violent ends" as well, Shakespeare often includes Sidney"s axioms in his pl...
Elizabethans, who read Ovid, Horace, Cicero, and Quintillan in their schools, acknowledged the rhetorical effectiveness of words, as Sir Philip Sidney argued: "oratio next to ratio." Fully awaring that "violent delights have violent ends" as well, Shakespeare often includes Sidney"s axioms in his plays. In Hamlet, for example, Shakespeare demonstrates the efficacy of this axioms by strategic "dumb-show" & "play-within-the-play" sequence. Of course, this tautological pattern of "dumb-show" & "play-within-the-play" is one of the theatrical convention at that time, so to speak, as we can see in A Midsummer Night"s Dream. In Hamlet, however, Shakespeare takes a step further showing his strategy in his own way. He switches the murderer during the play-within-the-play from king"s brother to his nephew, implying the fact that he will revenge by himself in the same way as Claudius did. In addition, all these acts take place in the meta-dramatic space of the stage-within-the-stage. The murderer in the play-within-the-play is identified king"s nephew by Hamlet verbally, while he is identified non-verbally during the dumb-show. The major film auteurs usually abridge or omit either "dumb-show" or "play-within-the-play". And they usually ignore the Fortinbras subplot at the end of the play. It is not surprising that, since the running time is extremely important in producing films, they should employ this abridgement in their own works. In his Hamlet, which is significant not only because of its historical primacy but also because of its obvious auteurial reliance on the power to control audience response Olivier uses voice-over technique. He omits, however, the play-within-the-play shifting the moment when the Claudius arises, from the moment of the poisoning to the moment of wooing of the murderer. On the other hand, Branagh omits the dumb-show, and Branagh"s Hamlet rushes into the stage at the moment of the poisoning. Snatching a poison bottle from the murderer"s hand, he stares at Claudius, while the dying image of the old King superimposes into his face. These filming interpretations are fair enough. They are, however, re-examined in full scale. The major rhetorical strategy used by Shakespeare to manipulate audience response in early-modern England should be preserved today just as effectively to reshape that response. This is a critical study of films of Hamlet by famous directors, including Sir Laurence Olivier, Rodney Bennett, Franco Zeffilelli, and Kenneth Branagh.
Elizabethans, who read Ovid, Horace, Cicero, and Quintillan in their schools, acknowledged the rhetorical effectiveness of words, as Sir Philip Sidney argued: "oratio next to ratio." Fully awaring that "violent delights have violent ends" as well, Shakespeare often includes Sidney"s axioms in his plays. In Hamlet, for example, Shakespeare demonstrates the efficacy of this axioms by strategic "dumb-show" & "play-within-the-play" sequence. Of course, this tautological pattern of "dumb-show" & "play-within-the-play" is one of the theatrical convention at that time, so to speak, as we can see in A Midsummer Night"s Dream. In Hamlet, however, Shakespeare takes a step further showing his strategy in his own way. He switches the murderer during the play-within-the-play from king"s brother to his nephew, implying the fact that he will revenge by himself in the same way as Claudius did. In addition, all these acts take place in the meta-dramatic space of the stage-within-the-stage. The murderer in the play-within-the-play is identified king"s nephew by Hamlet verbally, while he is identified non-verbally during the dumb-show. The major film auteurs usually abridge or omit either "dumb-show" or "play-within-the-play". And they usually ignore the Fortinbras subplot at the end of the play. It is not surprising that, since the running time is extremely important in producing films, they should employ this abridgement in their own works. In his Hamlet, which is significant not only because of its historical primacy but also because of its obvious auteurial reliance on the power to control audience response Olivier uses voice-over technique. He omits, however, the play-within-the-play shifting the moment when the Claudius arises, from the moment of the poisoning to the moment of wooing of the murderer. On the other hand, Branagh omits the dumb-show, and Branagh"s Hamlet rushes into the stage at the moment of the poisoning. Snatching a poison bottle from the murderer"s hand, he stares at Claudius, while the dying image of the old King superimposes into his face. These filming interpretations are fair enough. They are, however, re-examined in full scale. The major rhetorical strategy used by Shakespeare to manipulate audience response in early-modern England should be preserved today just as effectively to reshape that response. This is a critical study of films of Hamlet by famous directors, including Sir Laurence Olivier, Rodney Bennett, Franco Zeffilelli, and Kenneth Branagh.
주제어
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.