Four Hamlet's Soliloquies - John Gielgud - 1951
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- 0:06 - O that this too too solid flesh would melt (Act I, Scene 2)
2:20 - O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I! (Act II, Scene 2)
5:58 - To be or not to be... (Act III, Scene 1)
8:31 - There's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow (Act V, Scene 2).
Wonderful wonderful Thank you. I adore Gielgud esp. his clarity of his hamlet - a great renaissaince prince!
His Hamlet would make the Bard himself applaud. What a great voice. I can just listen to him read the phone book. Another great actor with such a voice is James Mason.
James Mason is a fantastic actor.
See The Shooting Party, where they share scenes. (God, that's a tongue-twister!)
Excellent recitation. Thanks.
What a marvelous voice
The Greatest Hamlet.
Thank you very much😊
A timeless actor and a classy gentleman who deserved greater acclaim.
Jesus. So good.
Thanks. Its a shame his Hamlet was not filmed.
you can see a few seconds of it in the old ww2 documentary 'a diary for timothy'.
Gielgud is the actor that most effectively emphasized the real, living dilemmas of a tormented feudal royal spirit.
Hamlet was an unsuccessful renaissance prince filled with grief, royal pride, sense of regal power and deep mistrust of things around him. That is Hamlet's complex REALITY. Nothing else.
Hamlet is not an upper class, erratic, modern posh boy suffering from depression due to the pressures of modern life. A 'modern reinterpretation' would reduce Hamlet, in the final analysis, to a rich, spoiled brat and noting much else.
Hamlet's reality was the enormous, bewildering and sole crushing weight a feudal price would carry on his shoulders when he questions the very foundations of that feudal aristocratic system. That was the concrete social-political-psychological truth HE had to face.
It might be acceptable to use modern cloths and props in a Shakespeare play. But don't misunderstand, even for a moment, that 'visual modernity' with the concrete, living reality brilliantly dissected in the play. We learn lessons for our time from that magnificent complexity and unrelenting liveliness with which Bard portrayed his time.
Bravo.
they may not be good cooks, they sure are a helluva a thespian when it comes to the theatre.
Tutto recitato da un fascio di nervi umani tesi dentro lo spirito.Questo e ' il suo marchio di fabbrica ....Attore di razza.Eccelso.
To be or not to be 6:02
A truly unique voice, masterful control of breath and tone, and a commanding understanding of the script, but yet, dated. Compare this to Kenneth Branagh and you see the shifts in technique from Naturalism to Realism. You can tell actors went from intoning and aurally choreographing a speech to LIVING it and reacting to it as a real person living a shared experience.
What a load of rubbish! Gielgud is the actor that most effectively emphasized the real, living dilemmas of that tormented feudal royal spirit.
Hamlet was an unsuccessful renaissance prince filled with grief, royal pride, sense of regal power and deep mistrust of things around him. That is Hamlet's complex REALITY. Nothing else.
Hamlet is not an upper class, erratic, modern posh boy suffering from depression due to the pressures of modern life. A 'modern reinterpretation' would reduce Hamlet, in the final analysis, to a rich, spoiled brat and noting much else.
Hamlet's reality was the enormous, bewildering and sole crushing weight a feudal price would carry on his shoulders when he questions the very foundations of that feudal aristocratic system. That was the concrete social-political-psychological truth HE had to face.
It might be acceptable to use modern cloths and props in a Shakespeare play. But don't misunderstand, even for a moment, that 'visual modernity' with the concrete, living reality brilliantly dissected in the play. We learn lessons for our time from that magnificent complexity and unrelenting liveliness with which Bard portrayed his time.
@@pandulagodawatta7398 An actor can justify taking ANY lines from the script to create their character's through line or action plan. Hamlet, as Shakespeare himself wrote, is a REVENGE play in the vein of Seneca, Kyd, Marlowe, et al. ANY good son in 15th Century Denmark REGARDLESS OF CLASS would seek and demand VENGENCE for the treacherous murder of their father and debauchery of his mother. The rogue & peasant slave speech is where Ham deviates from emotional reaction to committing to a plan of ACTION.
"...Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave, That I, the son of a dear father murder’d, prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words, and fall a-cursing, like a very drab, a scullion!....ABOUT, MY BRAIN".
From here on he has a plan and sets friends and foes alike on a path in service to his revenge. Be interesting to hear what Gielgud thought of his performance years after the fact, but that's the great thing about theatre, it's as ephemeral as the dew. I saw Gielgud act 6 times and loved his pace, his dignity, his humor and those dulcet tones, but he never had the fire of a Burton or the clockworks of Jacobi or fox like slyness of Redgrave, but that's one guy's opinion. ANY Shakespeare performed ANYWHERE these days has to be looked upon as a gift in our increasingly jaded society.
2:21
4:20
He reminds of Gilbert Gotfried
You remind of Carrot Top.