Tempo Crescendo

Emptiness is so fulfilling...

Act 3 Scene 1

In the most hedonistic of the ways, off course. (Ive been on it, believe me.)

"To be or not to be": word-based analysis is only plausible by grammatical basis, according to Jem Bloomfield; "The form of words guarantees that Hamlet’s question will be interpreted on a general level: the line uses one of the most basic verbs in the language, one without which English itself would surely be impossible to speak. The verb is then phrased in the infinitive, “to be”, rather than attaching it to any specific noun or pronoun (not even Hamlet’s own “I”). Balancing it on the other side of “or” is the simplest possible opposition, the same verb with a one syllable prefix: “not”."  Thank you Jem,  I suppose it cant be braked down better. Shakespeare reduces English to its simplest form, opening therefore a tremendous, abstract (tedious) gap in any kind of interpretation, oblique in its essence.

Feeding my nonconformity, I would like to respectfully address Shakespeare's soliloquy with a philological counterargument, aided by my good friend Frederich Nietzsche on its text "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense"; "Every word immediately becomes a concept, inasmuch as it is not intended to serve as a reminder of the unique and wholly individualized original experience to which it owes its birth, but must at the same time fit innumerable, more or less similar cases—which means, strictly speaking, never equal—in other words, a lot of unequal cases. Every concept originates through our equating what is unequal." To be as "not to be" are concepts, solemn perceptions subject to ones critique, they end up being just that, a partial truth. Consequently forming a pseudo-oxymoron when placed parallel to each other, producing a "metaphysical" response reaction to a dialectical foundation, a corroborated truth which is a sum of two lies.

In conclusion, the actual question does not provide an objective underlined meaning by itself, meaning its usage relies entirely on context, which is fairly poetic, even more in Hamlet where romanticism is subject to this kind of adornments. Alienation issues and emotional crises of the main character, that is.  

 Take that "To be or not to be".

 High five Nietzsche. 

 
To Be Or Not To Be: An Analysis of Hamlet's Famous Soliloquy http://www.suite101.com/content/to-be-or-not-to-be-a32234#ixzz12rvGhBhE

Exercise: Passive Voice

- The statue is being visited by hundreds of tourists every year.

Hundreds of tourists visit the statue every year.

- My books were stolen by someone yesterday.

Someone stole my books yesterday.

- These books had been left in the classroom by a careless student.

A careless student left these books in the classroom.

- Coffee is raised in many parts of Hawaii by plantation workers.

Plantation workers raise coffee in Hawaii.

- The house had been broken into by someone while the owners were on vacation.

Someone broke into the house while the owners were on vacation.

- A woman was being carried downstairs by a very strong firefighter.

A very strong firefighter carried the woman downstairs.

- The streets around the fire had been blocked off by the police.

The police blocked off the streets around the fire.

- Have you seen the new movie that was directed by Ron Howard?

Have you seen the new movie directed by Ron Howard?

- My car is in the garage being fixed by a dubious mechanic.

A dubious mechanic is fixing my car in the garage.

10. A great deal of our oil will have been exported to other countries by our government.

Our government will have exported a great deal of our oil to other countries.

B for Bendetta on Star Trek

After finding myself somewhat clueless when attempting to execute a decent comparison between two of Hamlets soliloquies, I decided I was going to turn to the pros, and by turning to the pros it was necessary to go back to the Basics. 

I'm talking about Patrick Stewart.   

I can predict what your thinking, YOU think, that I'm turning to good ol' Patrick just because he was Jean-Luc Picard, or just because he was good ol' Xavier. And I cant deny, this guy has something going on for wisdom, I mean, he is always the smart ass elder who shuts everybody up or its the dude that everybody turns to for advices, while still able to hold his modesty by having a day just for him. (Note min. 1:55). As some Star Trek geek once said about Captain Picard: "Picard is deemed the ultimate delegator of authority, knowing how to gather and use data better than any other Star Trek captain. His leadership style is best suited to a large, process-centric, either geographically identical or diverse team." Wow, Paul Kimberly and David R. Webb, wow. you really have something going on for ol' Picard, I mean, you wrote and ENTIRE serious PAPER about it! (Please note their pictures at the bottom of the page.)

Well, yes I must admit I've been influenced to a certain extent by this factor, but the real reason for which I am turning to Mr. Stewart  in this occasion is simply because he is a prodigious actor and an active participant of The Royal Shakespeare Company. This man has played various astounding roles in many adaptations of Shakespeare's plays, being in over 60 productions of just Shakespeare. Casually, he also played Claudius in the 2008 Hamlet adaptation were David Tennant is the main role. The Hamlet in the soliloquy of Act. 2 Scene. 2. I personally would agree that Mr. Stewart would be very pleased with Tennants performance, since despite being obnoxiously modern, it conveys a fruitful piece of alternative focus. Tennants Hamlet is exquisite and obscene, a definite breakthrough in drama. Mr. Stewart must know, since the man itself was the leading role of a "photo negative" adaptation of Othello in 1997, in which an all-black cast contrasted with white Othello, being an extremely vivacious racial-bending approach to Shakespeare. In parallelism, Kenneth Brangh's Hamlet is much more conservative, despite being extraordinarily expressive, focusing more in performance than props. Mr. Stewart would not appreciate it as much, (he would), I just want to pretend that he wouldn't. Either way, both performances are astounding and impressive, each having secular and juxtaposing notabilities.

As a proof and as my inspiration, I would like to present to you one of many prolific Mr. Estewart's performances, in this occasion performing a soliloquy. Mr. Stewart also turned to the very basics, but recalling his snobbish spiritual self, I think this simplistic piece of art holds unimagined sights of lucidity. Or meth addiction. 

(I would like to clarify that by no means I would like to be considered a Star Trek geek or freak or wathever.)
   
   

"A Memorable Equinox"

 

Striking details turn Krapp's Last Tape into a worthy piece of psychological internalization. The symbols at the beginning of the play are intended to drive the viewers attention towards the man and his particular state of mind. The banana, which is commonly referred as a sweet, tropic fruit can be often be interpreted as happiness, yellow as a jolly color, its condition is universally accepted as being enjoyable. However, Krapp completely diminishes its meaning in less than two minutes, diverting its image into a disgusting element of desperation, restlessness. A more pictorial communication is achieved in the filmed play, since this single detail introduces the viewer into Krapp, a consolidated image of madness can be perceived by Krapp trashing completely this symbol. A more comprehensive understanding of the tape is achieved when being exposed to preluding scenes as these ones. 

The second "big" symbol is the boxes, the film focuses on the objects brought by Krapp after the banana scene, the first one being a set of vintage boxes and the second being the actual tape. A three minute segment shows Krapp handling the boxes, apparently looking for something. In Krapp's emotional scale its the first time a certain feeling of satisfaction is perceived by the viewer, by no special factor, just a set of boxes. Perhaps the importance of such insignificant symbol is that is the last considerable drive of attention from Krapp before focusing on the tape, and also, a breakthrough in Krapps interior, what can be judged from a elder who finds satisfaction in counting boxes? The interesting part is that at the end of this sequence of events, Krapp ends shoving the boxes from the table, a prolific ending point indeed.

From looking at these two minor symbols, one can conclude that the image striking in film is much stronger than in writing, or at least, more direct. Personally these two images introduced me to the general play, and were big motivators to "Krapp understanding". Despite being considerably less important to the overall meaning of the play, they constitute a strong presence in the viewers notion. 

Getting away from plain interpretation, I found myself really intrigued by some of the quotes in the tape, since it hugely juxtaposed the overall setting of the play, it was really sarcastic in a way, since in theory the objectives in a film are to portray images, but in the play, the true image provenience came from the tape, a voice, sound. I reiterate, I want to get away from plain interpretation, I mean, everybody knows Hamlets plot, but not everybody knows how to understand it, you know what I mean? I mean, everybody knows Krapp's last tale, but not everybody knows Krapp. I'm confused with myself by now.

-"Memorable Equinox"

-"Farewell to love" 

From a broad interpretation, the viewer (I) can assume a dismal perspective of the past, a fluctuated presented that is nurtured by better times. These are from the first quotes in the play, which come up strong. 

I want to quote the next paragraph entirely since I think it constitutes as the most important passage of the play, for being the most shocking, the most vivid and cruel portrayal of Krapps past, not Krapp as a character. It embraces entirely the conceptual truth of Krapps thought since it comes from the tape, and also directs to the tragedy of the self as a whole: 

 To drink less, in particular. (Brief laugh of Krapp alone.) Statistics. Seventeen hundred hours, out of the preceding eight thousand odd, consumed on licensed premises alone. More than 20%, say 40% of his waking life. (Pause.) Plans for a less . . . (hesitates) . . . engrossing sexual life. Last illness of his father. Flagging pursuit of happiness. Unattainable laxation. Sneers at what he calls his youth and thanks to God that it's over. (Pause.) False ring there. (Pause.) Shadows of the opus . . . magnum. Closing with a --(brief laugh)--yelp to Providence. (Prolonged laugh in which Krapp joins.) What remains of all that misery? A girl in a shabby green coat, on a railway-station platform? No?

I couldn't help on feeling a little unmotivated about life, since, in a way, this could be your life, a mediocre configuration of statistics and shattered hopes, a couple of memoirs of some chick called Byanca and another one which you cant really recall her name. I cant help feeling each one of us are a little Krapp, a freaky old fella with an exemplary remembrance of the past. Definitely, the play is a sick and unmotivated psychological internalization, pure scorn.

What remains of all that misery?

A memorable Equinox