Bridgeth’s Comments (group member since Jan 11, 2016)

Bridgeth’s comments from the Ms. A's Advanced English Book Discussions group.

I agree with Aric. Both Hamlet and Simba had a guide to help them make their decisions. Hamlet had the ghost of his father who told him the truth about Claudius and Simba had his dad appear in the clouds to remind him who he was. They were bother directed by their fathers to get their kingdoms back.

Cassidy wrote: "So the question remains, do you think Lion King can be considered an adaptation of Hamlet? Using your notes, use 5 specific examples (only two can be characters) on why you believe Lion King is, or..."

I think The Lion King can be considered an adaptation. I think there are a lot of similarities between the two. The characters are a major sign. Hamlet and Simba are related because they both are the main characters who lost their father. Hamlet wanted to avenge his fathers death and Simba needed to reclaim the throne. Another would be Claudius and Scar. They both were jealous of their brother and wanted the throne to themselves. To get this power they both killed their brother.

When Hamlet returned from England and Simba came back to the Pride Land were similarities. They were both coming home to fix what was wrong. Hamlet wanted to get rid of Claudius for good, and Simba wanted to get rid of Scar in order to save the Pride Land. Leading up to this event, Hamlet and Simba finally realized what they needed to do. Hamlet knew that he needed to stop Claudius. He needed to stop be a coward and actually kill Claudius. Simba needed to remember who he was. He needed to know that he was suppose to be king and help his friends and family. At the end of the movie the hyenas turned on Scar. They realized that he was just using them to get rid of Simba and Mufasa in order for him to be king. This was like the scene in Hamlet when Laertes realized Claudius was using him in order to kill Hamlet. So I do think The Lion King is an adaptation of Hamlet because the story lines are very similar.

BradR5595 wrote: "I thought I did good from where I started earlier in the week. I had to stop and think once but you have to assume that will happen. I felt I did good on keeping a good pace and not having to stop ..."

In response to Brad:
I agree with Brad when he said it is much different saying it to yourself compared to a crowd. It takes a lot of practice and you can't just wait and put it off. A lot of repetition helps when you are trying to memorize something, and I think you did a good job with yours.

Cassidy wrote: "How do you think you did? What is one thing you did well on. Explain why that was. What was a challenge for you in this assignment? Why? Do you think it would be difficult for people in Shakespeare..."

I think I did pretty well. I was really confident to begin with, but throughout the speech I got more shaky and scared. I think I was just nervous about messing up. I did a pretty good job memorizing the lines. I think this is because I actually didn't put it off to the very end. A challenge I had with this assignment was speaking the way they did, with all the "'tis and thus" it got a little confusing.

I don't think it would have been such a struggle for people to do this in Shakespeare's time because that is the way they spoke. They wouldn't have to figure out a whole different way to speak. I think it would be much more difficult to be an actor and perform Shakespeare today. It would be so difficult to memorize those lines especially when it isn't in modern English. After having to memorize these lines I give props to the actors who do this. It took me almost a week to memorize 16 lines, I couldn't imagine memorizing any more.

Cassidy wrote: "Which version of the soliloquy best represents the meaning and tone of the soliloquy and the message Hamlet was trying to get across? Why?"

When I imagined this, I was thinking more along the lines of Mel Gibson's version of Hamlet compared to the others. In this one he seemed to actually have emotions instead of being monotone. I imagined him being alone in a dark area because he was questioning if he should continue to live or just kill himself and I think the tomb that he was in helped set the mood. The other two videos just didn't give us a very good understanding as to how the actors were feeling. The actors didn't get into the part as much as they should have and that kind of ruined it for them. Although he was debating life or death, I think Mel Gibson was passionate about his lines. He seemed angry yet confused at the same time. So overall this version is the one that really gave the scene much justice.

Aric wrote: "I don't think Shakespeare really wore his plays. I think that he was a real person, but I think William Shakespeare is a pseudonym for somebody else. The education that the real William Shakespeare..."

I agree with Aric. The education level needed to write these plays would have been impossible for the real William Shakespeare. Without that education he could not have written the things claimed by him.

Kennedy wrote: "Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"
I believe that William Shakespeare was alive during the time of the wr..."

I agree. I think Shakespeare was alive at the time, but I think someone else wrote the plays. I think Kennedy makes a good point, it might have been someone who was scared to publish his own work, so they let William Shakespeare take the credit.

BradR5595 wrote: "Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"
I don't think that Shakespeare did write the plays. I think that he wa..."

I also do not think he wrote these plays. I read the article about the signatures, and I think if he were to have written the plays himself, then the signatures would have been very similar every time.

Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"

I do not believe that William Shakespeare wrote all the works in which it claims. I think that he was alive at the time being, but he could not have written these works, at least not by himself. He did not have the proper education needed to write these plays. There is evidence that he was an actor, but no proof that he was a paid writer. Plus every time in which his signature was written, it was either spelled differently or illegible. So I don't believe Shakespeare's works were his own.