Jail? More Like an Acting Career.

"This American Life" radio program did a fascinating 1-hour program about Hamlet Act V. What makes this play amazing are the actors. Don't get too excited, they are not Angelina Jolie or Orlando Bloom, they are actual prisoners! Yes, people who have actually committed a crime because of vengeance, jealousy, hatred, or just because are actually playing out Hamlet. Isn't it ironic? They are actual people who have passed through the emotions that Shakespeare wanted to transmit to the audience, it will make the best play ever! (I would totally go!)

It is a high security prison called, Missouri Eastern Correctional Center.This play is directed by a women called Agnes, she has some hard work to do because of the fact that it is illegal to congregate the prisoners for more than 4 hours. This leads to the decision of breaking up the play every 6 months. The audience is not the only one that receives the thrill of the play, also, the actors get to experience their own decisions and it makes them realize what they're actions caused and what are other solutions instead of violence. (off course, they need to keep in mind to not go insane)

"Claustrophobia of Consciousness."

In Northrop Fyre's essay, it shows a very different point of view compared to other analytical essays I have encountered. Actually, it is the essay that I most relate to, and agree with. He mentions something very unique, instead of using knowledge as an answer for Hamlet's madness, as Freud did, he uses the action behind a thought to explain it. He gives an example with Claudius, saying that although he was a very good man, by committing the act of killing his own brother, he already ruined his own ideal of who he is as a person. On the other hand, he concludes that Hamlet still has his integrity and still has his own great potential.

Fyre get's to the point, where everyone has the same idea, where the mind is the answer for everything. Although it is just round shape composed of lobes and all kinds of important stuff, most philosophers believe it is the "key" of why a human is, what it is. After taking a few classes myself, I don't believe they are crazy anymore, the brain IS the main thing, it IS what makes our ideas become actions. The "claustrophobia of consciousness", as Fyre said, is what leads and idea to an actual action. He mentions that is is the only way to be let out of your "prison" by actually committing the act and afterwards having some kind of release. I do agree with this intellectual idea, the only problem is that depending on the action, lets say in Hamlets case, which is killing his own uncle, can it cause more claustrophobia of the guilt afterwards?

Lets Do This! LOL JK.

Sigmund Freud's ability to compare two very complex characters is fascinating. The way he finds similarities between the two of them, but at the same time, he juxtaposes both characters, contradicting his own opinion. These two intriguing characters, Hamlet and Oedipus Rex, haver very different stories but at the end, leading to the same analytical response by the audience. Oedipus Rex is this guy who has his destiny "written on paper", but his own parents dont want to let him follow it. This act leads him to, as Freud said, "neurosis" (basically means that he went crazy.) While in Hamlet's case, Freud delivers his point by saying that other characters from the play are overshadowing Hamlet, leaving him with repressed feelings, leading to his madness.

A very clear example is found in Hamlet, when Hamlet himself is faced with the situation in killing his own uncle (basically an example of "LOL, JK"). He starts overanalyzing every single detail, and instead of making his uncle feel bad he undervalues his own state of mind. All of these ideas and conclusions made by Freud respond every readers question, "Why is Hamlet that way?" (In other words, "just kill him, dude") At the end of the day the only thing stopping Hamlet is himself.

Good bye.

Normally, when a short book starts getting into their hundred page or so, the reader is expecting some type of conclusion, or big climax that will leave the reader with their mouth open, or not being able to continue with their life for a period of time, or a happy ending that will make everything okay and stop your nightmares (I’m sure I’m not the only one), but in this book, something unexpected happens, it starts to say good-bye.

"On the mattress lay a man with his legs gone to the hip and the stumps of them blackened

and burnt. The smell was hideous.

Jesus, he whispered.

Then one by one they turned and blinked in the pitiful light. Help us, they

whispered. Please help us. Christ, he said. Oh Christ.

He turned and grabbed the boy. Hurry, he said. Hurry." (pg 110)

The father is preparing himself to die, along with his son and goes to God for help. The desperation of dying may be because they are just too scared to continue with their path, or simply they are in too much pain to carry on. Either way, the book is not ending with a happy moment or a climax, that won’t let you sleep for days, but with a sad truth.

"If they find you you are going to have to do it. Do you understand? Shh. No crying. Do you

hear me? You know how to do it. You put it in your mouth and point it up. Do it

quick and hard. Do you understand? Stop crying. Do you understand?

I think so.

No. Do you understand?

Yes." (pg 113)

This conversation from the book, gives the reader a simple but shocking fact, that the father doesn’t want to live anymore, it can be because of the pain he ahs or because of fact on only imagining a life with nobody, whichever reason, it is so influential that he asks his own son to kill him. His humanity is simply lost.

Fire is the Answer

In Maria Cecilia’s post, The Ignition of Life, she gives us her reasoning and interpretation, about The Road. She writes her own opinion, and after she gives us the quote that goes with her interpretation. I think it is a very good idea, because it gives the reader time to re-think, and re-analyze what he/she thought at the beginning, and afterwards given proof, that the interpretation does make sense. Il probably use it as a technique for my next blog post (its not copying, its just using your resources well)

I also enjoyed when Maria Cecilia wrote,

"The element of fire can also be seen to an exception of the monochromatic life both characters are living. The dazzling colors of the flames and the warmth they produce reminds them that they are still alive and they have a purpose to fight for."

I really enjoyed how she interpreted the fire as a symbol of life and survivor. On the other hand, I disagree with her. I am not saying that she has it wrong (I’m not throwing her under the bus, don't worry) but I believe that it can also be interpreted as if the fire is burning everything that was alive, and not leaving anything behind, leaving only ashes, and dead souls, which I like to compare it to the father and son.