Well, I think this act has "The End is Near" written all over it. Orphelia has already kicked the bucket, and I don't think she will be the last. And I really don't know how well this duel that they have set will work either. The plan is only to kill Hamlet, but I don't see only one more person dying before this play concludes. Everything in this play seems to be narrowing down, as one by one characters are eliminated. And I also don't know how this attack on "Poland" will turn out. I have a feeling that they aren't planning on just passing through Denmark.

I'm having a hard time grasping the idea that the way the fourth act happened is the way it had to happen. There are some things that happened because of the third act. For example, it makes sense that Hamlet had to come back because in the third act, they plotted to make him leave for England. It also follows that Ophelia drowns herself due to the grief from events that occurred in the previous act. However, I'm not completely convinced that everything happened because it had to. There was a lot of room for things to go differently.

Unraveling is the perfect word to describe what is happening to Hamlet and the others around him in act four. Is everyone familiar with a Rube Goldberg (sp?) machine?

The fourth act of a five act play is often referred as the denouement, French for "unraveling" (sometimes this term is used for the end, the resolution, but we are looking at it not as what is unraveled, but the actual unraveling or unwinding of the action). This is where the action of the play rushes headlong toward the resolution, where the events precipitated by the climax of the third act head unstoppably toward the resolution. As you think about the fourth act, describe why the action of that act cannot unfold in any other way. In short, why is the fourth act an effect of a particular cause, the third act in this instance. Having posted your thoughts on this, complete with specific examples from the act(s) to illustrate your views, respond to at least two other journals and to at least one response to your journal.

Throughout act three, I see the action spiralling out of the control of any one character.
Near the beginning of the act, Ophelia and Hamlet have a falling out... Ophelia attempts to give back Hamlet's tokens of love, and Hamlet gives contradictory messages about never having loved her. This interaction kind of hints at the way things are going to end for the two of them.

(I read the whole play so spoilers are involved)

Honestly, what was running through my mind was that Hamlet was getting progressively more and more annoying and that it really was only a matter of time before someone decided to kill him. I was reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "He's not quite dead!". Hamlet's death was only a matter of time (and it took him long enough).

The Comedy of Errors is a comedy which should rely heavily on audience participation. In a representational interpretation I feel like the audience would consider The Comedy of Errors less of a comedy and find it more serious than intended. The Comedy of Errors relies heavily on the audiences knowledge of who the characters are in order to make the play a comedy.

So, after watching ACT Two yesterday in class, I figured I would write my journal on the differences between the two movies and how the charcters are presented. The play is written that whenb Hamlet enters the stage reading, he is "madly attired." However, it was only in Mel Gibson's version in which Hamlet was strangely dressed (He was missing his boot). In my opinion I also believe that his version better suited this particular act than the other movie did.

By the end of act three, it's pretty evident that stuff is starting to slide downhill. I mean, he kills Polonius on accident after chickening out to kill his uncle. In my book, a previous owner wrote in the side "excuses" next to Hamlet backing out from killing Claudius. That's an interesting way to look at it. Maybe he wasn't ready for it, but why would he then thrust at the curtain so willingly a few minutes later. Interesting.

Generally speaking, the third act of a five act play, particularly for an Elizabethan audience or playwright, is the play's climax. I tend to focus on the climax as the point at which the outcome or resolution of the play becomes inevitable. If this is your first encounter with Hamlet, having read Act III (and, of course, acts I and II), based on the first three acts, predict what you think might be coming, just what the outcome or resolution of the play might be. If you have already read or seen a performance of the play and know the outcome, describe why you think certain elements of the third act lead up to that outcome, how they make it inevitable (while trying to keep those who are encountering the play for the first time in the dark if you can). As usual, once you have posted your journal, respond to at least two others and respond to one response to your journal.