Courtney’s Comments (group member since Jan 12, 2016)

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

Jaydan wrote: "I agree with Spencer. The characters in Hamlet are very similar and have a lot in common with the characters in the Lion King. I agree that by the kings dying and many other events, peace was event..."

Nichole I agree with your opinion, I think Lion King is an adaptation of Hamlet. I liked how you brought up the ghost of the father appearing in both versions. I did not write about that, but I totally agree. That scene with him showing up and encouraging to redeem the throne and reveal the truth was incredibly similar.

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 believe it is a loose adaptation of Hamlet. Simba is obviously connected to Hamlet because he did things like kill his father and run away. While away he had a sudden realization that he needed to return to avenge his father, and a fight with his uncle. Scar is very similar to Claudius in that he killed his father in order to take the throne. He tried to order around Sarabi, some what similar to how Claudius and Gertrude ended up in Hamlet. He also tried to run the kingdom. In Hamlet it did not show much of the overall impact of the different leader, the book focused more one specific families. In Lion King, however, the change in leadership was very apparent throughout the kingdom.

An event that was somewhat similar in the Lion King and Hamlet was the dramatic fight at the end. Hamlet killed Claudius and Simba "killed" Scar but the difference was Scar was the only one killed in the movie, in Hamlet everyone died. The dramatic realization of the need to return to the Kingdom was also similar. Hamlet watched some soldiers and realized what he needed to do, and Simba was visited by his late father and that was enough to send him home. Both times there was a final push that lead the characters to return. Finally, I caught in one part of the movie, the talking to the skull scene. I found that ironically similar because it almost seemed as if Disney was throwing a bone out saying, "hey look, make the connection." Hamlet is very famous for that scene and the fact that Lion King almost seemed to make a play on it fuller drove me to believe that the two stories are connected.

Nichole wrote: "I think I did pretty good with saying my lines. I think I did good on not stopping while saying my lines. I felt pretty confident while saying them so that made it a little bit easier. My biggest c..."

I agree with what you said about the acting today vs. their time. I think it would be pretty hard for people of today to act with a completely different version of English than what we are used to. I would not want to do that! Do you think if the play was preformed today it would remain historically accurate? Do you think they would include women?

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 a pretty good job with the Shakespeare lines. I stumbled a little once but that is just because I got nervous. I practiced the lines at my house until I could say them all easily, but I knew I would probably get nervous. I believe I did well on speaking clearly. I worked very hard on memorizing my lines and practiced a lot so I would know how to pronounce all the words. The challenge in this assignment for me was that I was nervous speaking like that in front of the class. If I had something to read off of I think I would have been more calm, but it was good for us to do this. I also think it was a bit of a challenge because the type of English that it is written in is not what we are accustomed to speaking.

I think it would be difficult because there are so many lines, but it is written in the English they are used to speaking so I think that would make it easier. I think today it would be very difficult because there are a lot of lines and the play is not written in today’s English. It would also be different because people of today would have to learn how to carry themselves and act as if they were from that time period. In Shakespearean times people had many different customs and acceptable behaviors so actors would have to learn these things. I also wonder if the play was performed today if girls would be apart of it. That would be a major change from the original. This does cause me to have a newfound respect for the Shakespeare actors/actresses of today. I see that this is a very difficult play to perform and we only had to do sixteen lines. I can not imagine memorizing the whole thing.

I envisioned this speech in a dark creepy room. I expected it to be very dramatic and creepy. I expected Hamlet to be alone and deeply pondering life. I also thought there would either be a sense of defeat or a sense of a fight to live, depending on which way he was leaning. I think the 1990 version, the one we've been watching, represented my vision the best. It was dark and creepy and Hamlet was alone. I thought the bones and dark, dirty room set a very dramatic mood, which I expected. The other versions were either outside, too light, or the weren't alone. I thought our version was the most accurate.

Jaydan wrote: "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 William Shakespeare wrote the plays that he has cred..."

I found the article about the journal very interesting too. It would make sense that if he had wrote all the works that he supposedly did, his son-in-law would have at least mentioned it, but he didn't.

Liz wrote: "I believe that he did write the plays and should still be given credit for his work. If he had help, he still wrote it. I can see where people are coming from when they say that he did not have eno..."

Why, if he did write them, was there no record of him being an author? If he did defy all odds against him one would have thought that he would have left some of his stories in his estate or that some of his fellow authors of the time would have written something about the genius that he was out of respect for him when he died, but they did not do that.

Hunter wrote: "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 he was a..."

That is a really good point about the signatures. That factor would make the idea of him writing the stories very hard to believe. I agree that he was not responsible for his works.

I do not think Shakespeare wrote his plays. Based on the article he did not have enough experience to write at the level he supposedly did. Some of his original plays were written in many languages, which he would not have had the opportunity to learn. It is also a little concerning that there was no record of him even being an author. Also, the fact that he left none of his works in his estate seems to throw a red flag. I would have thought that if he did write those plays and books and poems some of the other great authors of the time would have wrote something for him after he died, but they did not. I think it does matter that he did not write the plays because whoever did write them did a fantastic job, but they will never get credit because everyone knows them to be Shakespeare's work.