Recent orders
the interpretation of Act 1,
Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course Tittle
Date
In this paper, I will choose the interpretation of Act 1, Scene III as a director. This is the scene of the interaction between Ophelia and Polonius. Hamlet happens to be an exclusively rich and complex stage history reflecting the captivation which the main character has awakened in all kinds of critic, partially since the excellent usage of his soliloquies attracts captivating attention to his indefinable personal identity. The uncertainties of the protagonist and the scheme have unlocked immeasurable interpretative options. This variety likely gives a challenge purposely made by the writer to provoke addressees interest. This scene presents tender, if somewhat humorous, conversation between sister and brother, father and daughter, and father and son. However, hidden in the dialog is the hint of love vs. betrayal, honesty vs. deceit, and reality vs. appearances that recur all the way through the play.
Being the director, in the scene of the Interaction between Ophelia and Polonius in Act I, Scene III, I intended Polonius to be strict and of power, with the manner, he talks to Ophelia and also for this to be made open and contrasting with Polonius’ association with Laertes. In the scene’s opening, I imagined Ophelia attempting to leave the room while being scared that her dad would want to know from her concerning what Laertes asserted. But on the other hand, Polonius would take her inside with his inquiry, and the dialog begins. I expected a neutral tone in Polonius opening lines when he asks about Hamlet as he says what he overheard, but for that to escalate gradually into a serious tone. As a director, from lines 98-102, “Marry, well bethought… Have your audience been most free and bounteous”, I imagined Polonius to stride towards Ophelia and lead her to a chair in a kindly way. Though, in his lines leading up to, “What is between you? Give me up the truth” (107), I had an imagination of him to be seated beside her, with his eyes sternly looking into her eyes with his brows wrinkled, and clutching her hands, quaking it in some way violently as he furiously demands the truth from her.
My imagination as a director for the rest of the scene would play out his anger. By use of a disdainful tone, Polonius talks quickly to dismiss Ophelia’s ideas of Hamlet’s love. To demonstrate this, he would have inflated gestures, for instance, his hand moving in the air as if he was attempting to frighten away insects near him, apart from his hand motion would be hasty and in control when he asserts, “Affection, puh!” (110), as if he were scooting away Ophelia’s idea. I imagined Polonius to have had a serious tone over an angered one talking slower for his words to sink in his last bit of dialogue.
Until ow the play, Ophelia appears to generally agree with and accept what individuals tell her, for instance, Hamlet’s proposals which she trusts to be affection in addition to the advice Laertes gives her. Because of this, my expectation of her manner is to be principally similar in this conversation with Polonius. Consequently, in her very brief replying lines, I had an imagination of Ophelia speaking somehow softly and thoughtfully, having a hesitation when she speaks initially on and develops confidence as she attempts to persuade her dad that Hamlet adores her, but ultimately giving a submissive tone when she comes to an agreement of doing what her dad decides. When it comes to staging directions, I decided to provide her with more hand gestures to provide a visual picture of what she feels and attempts to influence the father of her words. For instance, in lines 108-109, when she claims that Hamlet shows her a lot of love, “He hath, my lord, of late made many tenders of his affection to me.” I decided that she ought to hold her two hands to her heart when she asserts the term “affection,” and her and her facial appearance, having a smile, in a dreamy haze as she falls into thinking about Hamlet.
Another thing I imagined by being the director is some of the interactions to take place based off on the same situation whereby my younger sister was having a talk from my dad about dating. It was a very serious and civilized dating in which they sat at the living room acres each other. Forced to involuntary listen and learn, I noticed that my sister diverted her eyes, not actually interested in paying attention during the lengthy conversation. I picked the psychological note of other movements and the tone in voice during the dialogue and brought into the interpretation of the interaction between Polonius and Ophelia. I imagined Ophelia to be more submissive but opted for her to try to fight against her father’s ideas, all in the name of love. I would direct and add more had gestured to the characters to create more emphasis, make more interaction between the characters to demonstrate better what they feel, and add more liveliness in the play. Will try to be an excellent director in all the scene.
Works Cited
Evans, Rachel. “Hamlet by William Shakespeare, and: Saint Joan by George Bernard Shaw.” Theatre Journal 70.1 (2018): 92-94.
Shakespeare, William. “Hamlet: [1604].” Oxford Text Archive Core Collection (1991).
.
Practical Ways of Reducing Juvenile Crime
Practical Ways of Reducing Juvenile Crime
The date is May 26, 2000 in Palm Beach County in the state of Florida where Nathaniel Brazill walks into school, pulls out a .25 caliber handgun, shoots, and kills his teacher Barry Grunow in cold blood. He is tried as an adult by the Palm Beach County and found guilty of second degree murder. He gets twenty eight years in an adult prison facility and five more years of probation after he leaves prison. There are many people who still wonder whether the sentence was appropriate for 13 year old Brazill. Would it have helped to get specific details about his young life before sentencing him? He deserved to be punished for his crime but an analysis of his criminal history, if there was one, his motives for the murder, his neighborhood, or even his family situation would have helped considerably to avert future juvenile crimes of that nature. The shift towards trying juvenile cases as adults indicates that the juvenile system has ceased to work as it should and therefore a more practical approach to reducing juvenile crime is needed in our legal and justice systems.
By definition, juvenile crime is any act against the law that is perpetrated by individuals who are below what is referred to as age of majority. These young offenders are usually placed in several facilities like detention centers for minors, correctional camps owned and run by the government, or like in Brazill’s case, in adult penitentiaries. The place a juvenile offender is incarcerated at is determined by the seriousness of the crime committed. They can even be placed under the custody of a parent or guardian when they have committed minor offenses.
In an effort to improve the juvenile justice system, we need to first and foremost consider that these offenders are our own younger siblings or children gone astray. In order to be able to effectively deal with troubled teenagers or adolescents we have to first learn how to treat juvenile delinquents fairly and with their best interests in mind. We need to shape policies used to fight juvenile crime and violence in the ways that are concurrent with the rehabilitation of the young offenders.
There has been an emphasis currently on implementing a more punitive approach to juvenile crime. It has become the more popular approach today in line with our societal values like public safety, retribution on behalf of crime victims, and the notion that every individual’s actions should carry appropriate consequences. Federal legislation is also in support of the punitive approach. In showing juveniles the consequences of their actions, advocates of the punitive approach maintain that harsher punishments and treating juvenile offenders as adults will reduce crime. There are advantages and disadvantages in this approach. It is true that a punitive approach offers retribution to the victims of juvenile but it does not help the offender. Harsh punishment works only by the criminal behavior but does not change it. It does not solve the problem of finding ways to reduce juvenile crime but keeps the offender locked up until the next opportunity to commit crimes presents itself. A more effective approach would be one aimed at rehabilitation. Rehabilitation aims at changing the behavior of the offender and turning him or her into a useful member of the society.
The juvenile court was founded on the principles of rehabilitation and continues to apply rehabilitative methods in its operations. It supports the assertion that juveniles need to be rehabilitated besides being punished for their crimes. This is because it is a moral obligation of the society to make young offenders useful members of the society. Unlike adults children hardly understand the difference between right and wrong and are at times incapable of fully assessing the consequences of their actions before committing crimes. They probably have a hopeless or negative outlook on life and are therefore less culpable for their actions than adults.
Children are also more agreeable to rehabilitative treatment than adults. This amenability makes the rehabilitative approach more preferable than the use of harsh punishments in reduction of juvenile crime. Stakeholders in the juvenile justice system both at the national and state levels should work towards incorporating detentions and rehabilitation into the system to rid it of hopelessness and despair that has come to characterize it.
In conclusion, reduction of juvenile crime should not simply concentrate on punishing offenders but on preventing children from adopting criminal mentalities. The juvenile system needs to first adopt a localized approach. This means less federal involvement and increased community participation in the rehabilitation process. Localization would be more effective in reducing juvenile crime as it would complement prevention measures with early intervention. Another more effective approach to reducing juvenile crime would be the preventive approach that would address the problem from outside the court. The solution lies in preventing the crime before it occurs. This approach emphasizes on intervening in the lives of adolescents and other children who are at risk of committing juvenile crimes.