Drama Exam.

Question 1
The tone of voice and the words spoken from Hamlet create the story. Without his agony, thoughts, and understanding this story would mean much less of what it is. Hamlet starts out as a man who desires revenge upon his father’s death. His own uncle murdered him and married his mother. This repulsive action brought fury to Hamlet, but he did not know how to act upon such a thing. He was very hesitant at first. He began to act strange and contemplate what to do. It was found that he needed something to push him to do this action of vengeance. His father’s ghost came to speak with him, and this brought him to the full realization that revenge was needed. The ghost spoke of how he needed such because of many reasons. One of these being, he had not received redemption as he deserved. Hamlet portrays his feelings on these things through the soliloquies he spoke. One of the most memorable was when Hamlet questioned “to be or not to be”. Hamlet felt as if he could not take it anymore. The emotions inside were building at an unbearable rate, suicide seemed a way out. Hamlet spoke out of such despair. He could not stand all of the things around him. Once Hamlet saw what this was doing to him and all of its effects on himself and his father he decided to take action. A play was formed as an explanation through performance to bring about the guilt. This plan was one that granted his understanding that his uncle did kill his father. The play showed almost an exact replica of how Hamlet’s father was killed. His uncle was completely convicted through this. He stopped everything in the middle of the play and left. If this was not proof enough, Hamlet saw through many other acts against him that did. His uncle, Claudius, tried so hard for him to leave, but through each thing Hamlet was still there one way or another. His ways were found threatening, and with those things in life that appear that way we do away with. No one wants to be uncovered or convicted. This feeling is awful beyond all else. It is like a teenager who will not admit that their parents were right. Claudius did not want to admit it. Worst of all, he did not want to give up what he now had either. Hamlet was driven crazy over the things he found. He ruined all relationships that meant anything to him. One in particular, Ophelia went mad at the way Hamlet treated her. Hamlet did not tell her the reasons for his acting strange. He encountered her on separate occasions, and his ways seemed directed towards Ophelia in her view. She did not know how to treat herself or even act anymore. Once her father was killed it began the last straw. She supposedly fell into the water, but it is easily inferred that she committed suicide. This was just one relationship that Hamlet’s actions and words affected. Through all of these actions many around him thought he had been driven completely and utterly mad. Hamlet was reacting to all of these things other knew not of. His actions would seem crazy because of this. Another thing that is often overlooked is how whenever Hamlet tries to tell another something they shut him out. They feel as if there is no way what he speaks is true because what they say is true. Towards the end you find that Hamlet is about to accomplish the goal set for vengeance on Claudius. As it unfolds and deaths occur, we see that the people start to see the reasons for Hamlet’s actions. It should make them wonder if this situation would have been different if the ending would have changed. It makes you question whether you would have changed views if you had listened to the way Hamlet said things and why he said them.
Question 2
John Wright’s wife appeared to have murdered him out of anger. She was mentally gone. It seemed John had taken out of her everything that had worth. She had been pushed and pushed, and her limit had been met. She kept a secret bird to hold the position of the last thread of happiness she had. John killed that bird, and the next thing we knew he was dead along with it. Through that action he took what was left of her. This makes the question of how could one think that this was okay. If you truly think about it though, you see that out of all the actions forced upon her it was the only thing she could do. The abuse laid upon her drove her to insanity. It was a necessity in her position to get rid of him. Many cases are found where this is true. The only ways of justifying your actions would be to say that it was out of self defense or plead insanity. In this, no action evidence can be found therefore, defense would not be easily taken. With the evidence found by the women in this story it is, however, easily seen that she had met insanity. The situation this woman was in gives us a different view of if it was right or not. Obviously she murdered her husband, but she did it because he drove her to do it. Can this mean that he brought it upon himself? That is for you to conclude. We see several different instances that provide a justification for a case. This is whether it is out of insanity, self defense, or any other point. You see that your view may change with the story. If you came right out with the exact facts that were found in the Wright’s story you would say that she was completely at fault and should be done away with. This does make you question though, did she have a reason that you would find okay? In my opinion, she is guilty and should be imprisoned unless insanity is pled. Just in my own opinion you view how there is always an “unless”. You can conclude from this that out of each situation the way you see things are different. Every thought is found dependent on the background information. This is true of “Trifles” and many other stories.