REVIEW: Falling for Hamlet

I'm just going to skip how much
this cover bothers me, okay?

Hamlet is a story of betrayal, dealing with grief, politics and madness. In the play, Shakespeare is able to hit on many themes and emotions, giving actors much to work with leading to some intense performance from talented actors. 

Then there is this book. 

Falling for Hamlet takes the story of Hamlet, sloppily butchers it and stuffs the remaining corpse with teen fiction tropes. The book is told from the perspective of Ophelia and how she is so in love with Hamlet... etc... etc... Hamlet is so hot... etc etc. The usual. The core of the story, the atmosphere and the depth has been removed and sacrificed to make the story flashy and hip. Don't get me wrong, rewrites and novelizations of Shakespearian plays can work (For example, Fool by Christopher Moore) but the author needs to take care with what they are doing and how they approach it. 

In the case of this novel, it is modernized. It takes place in Denmark probably present day. Ophelia is still the daughter of Polonius, an advisor to the King. She has been friends with Hamlet and Horatio forever. She also has dated Hamlet off and on again, recently getting back together with him at the distain of Gertrude Hamlet's Mother. 

So Ophelia? Is she likeable? Meh. Is she relatable? Not in the slightest. On many occasions it is shoved in the Reader's face that Ophelia is hot. She's so hot that she doesn't have to do anything and she will look hot. She's blond, well dressed and lives the celebrity life. But she doesn't want to celebrity life, she wants to be normal. Ophelia is madly in love with Hamlet, which we are constantly reminded of. In the play, Ophelia is a side character. She is in love with Hamlet and Hamlet loves her too, but this isn't that crucial to the story line. Ophelia's purpose is to act as a foil to Hamlet's character and to be a comparison to him and his "decent into madness". In this novel Ophelia comes off as being unbelievable. She reminded me of Bella from Twilight judging her existence on how much Hamlet loves her. Which makes me wonder... Ophelia acknowledges that she is that girl, the girl who drops her friends and her life to run after a boy, does it make it worse that she knows this, or does it make it better in some way? 

Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet in the 1996 film adaptation.
More entertaining then anything....

Then there is Hamlet, as I mentioned earlier, Hamlet is "hot". When we are first introduced to him his main characteristics are that he is hot and he is a great boyfriend. All of Hamlet's story arch becomes unbelievable as his actions are forced. 

What really got to me, was how the author tried to incorporate the soliloquies into the novel. This didn't really work. The speeches lost their power after being translated into modern english. All of the eloquence lost. This novel took the plot strands of Hamlet and stripped it down to the bare minimum (the romance, Hamlet going crazy) and simplified the characters. I understand what Michelle Ray was attempting to do here, but it wasn't effective. This novel would have been much better if it wasn't a direct adaptation, instead stood on its own with different character names and different locations (pulling a Lion King if you will). 

I highly recommend you take a look at the original play.

The Matrix Still Has Me...

Meet Mr. Smith,

The Mob of Mr. Smith at the end of The Matrix: Revolutions (Wachowski Brothers, 2003)

Errrr well.... meet a bunch of him...

Yes you guessed it. We're in Sequel Territory people.

The Matrix Sequels, somewhere few Nerds wish to admit they have tred. The confusing films that try to pass off their psuedo-philosophical ideas on the unsuspecting masses. And why you ask did I willingly submit myself to rewatching these movies? Well I had to write a paper for one of my film classes and one of the films of choice was The Matrix. At first I was thinking about writing something about comparing the philosophies in The Matrix Films and Inception, and how it was commoditized and sold to the audiences. Interesting idea, but not what the class called for. So instead I decided to do something about the sequels.... Bad plan I know. I fired up the faithful laptop, put on a pot of tea and settled down to watch the movies with my partner in crime Lucy (Read wasn't around at this time. She apologized profusely saying she had to go to work... I have a feeling this was a lie and she was avoiding the apartment until I was done).

So, where do these movies go wrong? I have a theory, and I think I can apply it to other films and books that spawn unintended sequels (I'm thinking about Pirates of the Caribbean right now). It's almost impossible to capture what you had originally. Your plot is tight. Your characters face the challenge placed in front of them and learn their lesson bcome better people, die, I don't know. But they reach their destination. Look at Neo. A computer geek living in a hole in the wall becomes a Kung-fu-Gun-Master sporting his trench and his sunglasses. He rescues his Tutor and defeats his nemisis Agent Smith. Congratulations Neo you've reached max level!

Enter the Sequels... and the first problem you find is our poor protagonist possesses God-like abilities and has no where to go from there. He flies around doing nothing but looking pretty and having philosophical discussions with the Oracle until he finally decides to go to "The Source" and end the whole thing.

Which brings me to the philosophy of the sequels. In the first film you have a tight belief system based off of many things (Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation and René Descartes Brain in a Vat to name a few) but when we hit the Sequels... it falls apart which made me realize something. The Matrix wants to be philosophical so it is philosophical. Much of the "philosophy" discussed takes a very Baudrillard approach, they flip sentences. Therefore:

I watch TV becomes The TV watches me

How profound does that sound? Don't get me wrong, there are still the usual Christian symbols thrown in there plus our ever needed battle between Good and Evil.

So this brings us back to our buddy Agent Smith. I caught something when I was watching the film this time around. Smith has this little speech at the end of the last movie. He has Neo in the bottom of a pit and he looks down at him and just loses it:

"Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?"

I think this sums up my thoughts on the last two movies. Why do you keep fighting? You can't win? You're digging yourself a grave. Of course dear Neo fires off a one liner and defeats the audience in what can only be described as a metephorical pounding of the audience. At least we drag him down with us... but nope the Oracle hints that he'll be back.

Does this mean that the Wachowski Brothers have more Matrix films in store somewhere down the road? Are we all still plugged into the Matrix? Well I fully admit I am... and I question it every day.