@@sissybean8797 agreed mate. And it wasnt supposed to sound aggressive. But to even say this is good acting..... David Tennant is a good actor don't get me wrong, but not in this.
I just compared David to Kenneth Branagh's acting this same scene. I can't say which one is better. The difference is David puts much more energy, more emotion into it. He pauses here and there, creating tension.....I am not a big fan of Shakespeare, however, I see David Tennant is a really good actor and he portrays Hamlet so well I believe he should receive an award for it, if he hasn't already.
I KNEW THIS WAS TENNANT! XD It was bothering me the whole time I was watching this. I was like "This guy looks SO familiar, I feel like I should know him....He reminds me of Tennant..." And Lo and Behold, it is Tennant! He looks SO different without the trench coat, converse, and the wild hair.
I love the emotional honesty here. His father died an untimely death, and no one seems to care. Not even his mother. Big emotions happen like this, outburst, anger, tears, then steely resolve. I see where people are coming from with the "overacting" comments, but I respectfully disagree.
Just as a note for texts sake, the line is "Oh, that this too too SULLIED flesh". A lot people make the choice to have it almost sound like "solid" as an acting choice in response to the text. This is my favorite version of this piece.
+Max Aref Actually, according to the Norton Shakespeare, both Q1 and Q2 use the word "sallied," which is assumed to be an earlier form of "sullied." I'm pretty sure that this film uses only the second quarto, but either way, it still isn't "solid."
An absolutely legitimate point of debate, and differences exist in the sources; however, beyond the well-trodden discussion of the merits of the various texts, there is scope to insert some reason and interpretation: the contrast between solid flesh and thawing to a dew is a most natural one, whereas it is unclear how sullied flesh might be purified by being made liquid. Further, Hamlet does not seek purification of his sullied flesh, but its destruction ("that th'almighty had not fixed his canon 'gainst self-slaughter"). The idea of his destruction coming about by melting away is more sensible than that his sullied self might be made pure by melting.
I struggle with this interpretation. It has great emotional veracity, but I think emotional honesty can be taken too far. Let us not forget that one who reads Shakespeare speaks in verse. It is not realistic, and gains nothing by pedantic attempts at emotional verisimilitude. Let the text carry the emotion: it is splendidly written, and loaded with the stuff! Of course, do not be wooden, but don't either allow gasping for breath between sobs deny the rhythm of the verse. I have never been so disappointed in a play as when, in the Cumberbatch Hamlet, Horatio screamed "good-night sweet prince ..." like a wounded beast, such that is was almost unintelligible. Authentic, perhaps, but at what cost? I fear David here approaches such issues.
With all respect to what you are saying, Hamlet was never meant to be *read* but instead to be seen. On stage, with a crowd full of all sectors of society - including the riffraff, the uneducated, the drunks as well as the well-to-do, the merchants, civil servants and the lettered nobility. All in the Globe, all looking for a good night of entertainment and an unforgettable, largely visual spectacle. Not a poetry recital. Shakespeare was first and foremost a playwright and he knew what put bums on seats. Why have a ghost (for not for thrills), Polonius' ramblings (if not for laughs), and Hamlet's solliquies- if not to see the internal anguish he suffers and break your heart - and then sympathise with someone who destroys lives acting out revenge? So how do you convey that emotion to people who don't understand the language to the fullest or don't always hear every word spoken? We've read Shakespeare in study for so long. Have we have forgotten that the role of an actor is to play a part and not recite verse?
David does the best Hamlet ever. And I'm a fan of Branagh!
Fuck off! This is by far the some of the worst acting I've seen. Kenneth nails it and is miles better than this.
@@absmith12 You seem rather aggressive my friend, people can have different opinions
@@sissybean8797 agreed mate. And it wasnt supposed to sound aggressive. But to even say this is good acting..... David Tennant is a good actor don't get me wrong, but not in this.
That beginning, where he just stayed curled in the fetal position...oh, my God. *sob*
broke my heart, I wanted to soothe him.
I just compared David to Kenneth Branagh's acting this same scene. I can't say which one is better. The difference is David puts much more energy, more emotion into it. He pauses here and there, creating tension.....I am not a big fan of Shakespeare, however, I see David Tennant is a really good actor and he portrays Hamlet so well I believe he should receive an award for it, if he hasn't already.
GAWD I LOVE DIS
Mans just needs a hug
So there's a final coming up for English. I knew exactly where to go.
I KNEW THIS WAS TENNANT! XD It was bothering me the whole time I was watching this. I was like "This guy looks SO familiar, I feel like I should know him....He reminds me of Tennant..." And Lo and Behold, it is Tennant! He looks SO different without the trench coat, converse, and the wild hair.
I love the emotional honesty here. His father died an untimely death, and no one seems to care. Not even his mother. Big emotions happen like this, outburst, anger, tears, then steely resolve. I see where people are coming from with the "overacting" comments, but I respectfully disagree.
I'm learning about soliloquies, so this is helpful to me.
lovely!
what an actor!
Just as a note for texts sake, the line is "Oh, that this too too SULLIED flesh". A lot people make the choice to have it almost sound like "solid" as an acting choice in response to the text. This is my favorite version of this piece.
+Max Aref Actually, according to the Norton Shakespeare, both Q1 and Q2 use the word "sallied," which is assumed to be an earlier form of "sullied." I'm pretty sure that this film uses only the second quarto, but either way, it still isn't "solid."
The "solid" vs. "sullied" debate is a legit one and goes on to this day.
An absolutely legitimate point of debate, and differences exist in the sources; however, beyond the well-trodden discussion of the merits of the various texts, there is scope to insert some reason and interpretation: the contrast between solid flesh and thawing to a dew is a most natural one, whereas it is unclear how sullied flesh might be purified by being made liquid. Further, Hamlet does not seek purification of his sullied flesh, but its destruction ("that th'almighty had not fixed his canon 'gainst self-slaughter"). The idea of his destruction coming about by melting away is more sensible than that his sullied self might be made pure by melting.
kabiraltaf Absolutely love this debate.
Bravo David Tennant bravo 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I’m doing a test about this soliloquy 😂
David Tennant as Hamlet, The Doctor, The Fugitoid, Angus, and Scrooge McDuck
thanks for helping me on my essay!
But break my heart indeed.
Oh, that this so, so solid crew would melt.
Agreed!
thumbs up if you came here because you are depressed, and are now ugly crying because of the first stanza
Eileen Schulman I came here not only because it's beautiful, but also because he shows off his ass a lot.
How can I cry when I don’t understand what he is saying??
(I came here because of my homework)
nah im here with school
so so pretty
........holy shit.
I love David, but I believe that Branagh is much more experienced with Shakespeare.
I hath to disagree david has been benedick hamlet richard II
s/o to Ms. Martin she got da *DaNKEsT MEmEz* #memeOfTheWeek *#respek*
I struggle with this interpretation. It has great emotional veracity, but I think emotional honesty can be taken too far. Let us not forget that one who reads Shakespeare speaks in verse. It is not realistic, and gains nothing by pedantic attempts at emotional verisimilitude. Let the text carry the emotion: it is splendidly written, and loaded with the stuff! Of course, do not be wooden, but don't either allow gasping for breath between sobs deny the rhythm of the verse. I have never been so disappointed in a play as when, in the Cumberbatch Hamlet, Horatio screamed "good-night sweet prince ..." like a wounded beast, such that is was almost unintelligible. Authentic, perhaps, but at what cost? I fear David here approaches such issues.
You know I think you're right, I appreciate the execution but his emoting distracts from the text. Maybe dial it back two notches and we'd be good.
Agreed, agreed my liege!
With all respect to what you are saying, Hamlet was never meant to be *read* but instead to be seen. On stage, with a crowd full of all sectors of society - including the riffraff, the uneducated, the drunks as well as the well-to-do, the merchants, civil servants and the lettered nobility. All in the Globe, all looking for a good night of entertainment and an unforgettable, largely visual spectacle. Not a poetry recital.
Shakespeare was first and foremost a playwright and he knew what put bums on seats. Why have a ghost (for not for thrills), Polonius' ramblings (if not for laughs), and Hamlet's solliquies- if not to see the internal anguish he suffers and break your heart - and then sympathise with someone who destroys lives acting out revenge?
So how do you convey that emotion to people who don't understand the language to the fullest or don't always hear every word spoken? We've read Shakespeare in study for so long. Have we have forgotten that the role of an actor is to play a part and not recite verse?
I don't understand the crying in this scene
I don't agree with the way he tries to portray a depressed prince.
God. This is acting 101 basic mistake: start at 10 and leave yourself nowhere to go. No build. No arc.
Overacting at it's finest