Anslem Kiefer Full Research

Anselm Kiefer

 

Anselm Kiefer is a unique artist in his central themes and style. His life leading up to his high status of an artist is nothing but unique as well. Although, much of his background is life in obscurity based on his preference of being paraphrased rather that quoted, having few interviews, and having no pictures. However, there is still plentiful amounts information about his life entering his art career. There is much information about Kiefer’s progression in the creation of his paintings and sculptures and his rise to become a well recognized artist.

 

            Kiefer was born in Donaueschingen, southern Germany, on March 8, 1945. The date is close to when Third Reich collapsed. He grew up in a generation of Germans that questioned the actions of their parents. By growing up in this particular generation, influenced the paintings he created. Anselm created his paintings to allow himself to vent his guilt and “question Nazism and try to understand how their parents let this happen.” (Jordan, Courtney 2^nd paragraph)

 

            He first began studying art in the 1970’s with another artist named Joseph Beuys. Although, Beuys was not his teacher he “acknowledges the spiritual influence of the older artist.” (Colpitt, Frances 3^rd paragraph) In the 1980’s he moved to Germany’s Oden Forest and owned a school house where most of his earlier works were created. His work first focused on mythical and historic German figures. He soon started to explore the taboo topic of the Third Reich. This focus on post-war Germany separated Kiefer from all other painters in the 1980’s. His expressive but controversial images made viewers decided if his images are “bombast or humble desire that leads him to explore and embrace the universe in paintings and sculpture...” (Paul, Steve 2^nd paragraph) One powerful set of paintings that focused on post-war Germany was centered around the poem “Death Fuge” by Paul Celan. Celan was a victim of the Holocaust and the only member of his family that survived. Before he took his own life, he created the poem which had the characters Margarete and Shulamite. These two characters appeared in Kiefer images. In his images he characterizes the two characters to represent Germany and its changes during the war. By going into the taboo subject, he separated himself from other artist during the 1980’s. Unlike other artists he combined history and literature to his art. His style made him well known and different from other artists.

 

            As time went on, he focused less on reflecting on post-war Germany. More recently, he focuses more on mystics, religion, and alchemy. However, his creations are still unique. Kiefer uses a different array of materials and techniques to create his paintings. He uses materials like “sunflowers, branches, pieces of cloth, terra cotta pottery, plaster, dried mud and lead objects often attached to thick layers of paint,” (Riding, Alan 2^nd paragraph) to create his images. Each of his materials also has a specific deeper meaning in it as well. For example, the use of wheat represent how things can be so easily burned down and how a new generation of wheat can grow right over it. He often traveled and took pieces of nature with him back home where he is able to store materials for later use.

 

            Anslem Kiefer uses unique materials and deep and saddening subjects to show life moves quickly but viewers cannot forget the past. Beside the use of ordinary paints, Kiefer uses items like sunflowers, wheat, dirt, and lead to create his art like the “Margarete.”  Each material he uses is unique and has a deeper meaning in it like the use of wheat and lead. Kiefer also focuses on certain subjects as well.  He focuses religion, the holocaust, and the development of the new generation. In each of Kiefer’s images deep messages are instilled in it for people to reflect and learn lessons from.

Through the use of wheat, contrast of colors, and a sensitive subject, Anslem Kiefer is able to deliver his message to the viewers of his view on how times passes quickly and how a new generation must learn from the past. For example, his set of images called “Your Golden Hair, Margarete” all uses similar themes to pass the message along. The images based on the poem “Death Fugue” by the Romanian poet Paul Celan the viewers can see how the image represents the ever moving world and its new generation.

 

            Margarete is one out of a set of images based on the poem “Death Fugue” by Paul Celan. Paul Celan was a victim of the Holocaust and the only member of his family that survived. He created the poem “Death Fugue” before committing suicide. Margarete and Shulamite was metaphoric protagonist in his poem, as well as Kiefer’s set of images released in 1981. Kiefer focused on the two characters and characterizes them and their two contrasting natures in his work. The golden wheat represents the golden hair and her Aryan background. Shulamite was portrayed by her black paint for her black hair and Jewish background. The painting Maragarete was created that depicted stems of wheat sticking out of the black ground beneath. The golden wheat stands up tall and reaching up to the blue sky, however with their tips on fire. The image has a very dark tone to it. The blue representing the sky is washed and mixed with grey. The ground is burnt and destroyed with patches of black and white. It looks like ashes of burnt plants. The wheat stands out from the rest of the image with its bright color and lit tips. However the wheat looks withered as well. Lastly, the name, “Margarete” written right in the middle of the painting. The combination of the colors and the themes make his image mournful and full of deeper messages about the history of the Holocuast.

 

The use of wheat catches the eyes of people as it has a deep meaning as well as being different from other images at the time. The materials Kiefer uses has a certain meaning to him. Wheat has a “potential to  be burnt and turn into ash, it not only implied a landscape scarred and formed by history, war and fire, but also the possibility of alchemical transformation.” (Hubbard, Sue 4th paragraph) Wheat can easily linked with people. Wheat is easily burned and then new wheat is grown in its place. Similar to humans, people eventually die, but a new generation will grow over the ashes of the past. Ashes can be linked to ruins of human society as well. To Kiefer “a ruin is not a catastrophe. It is the moment when things can start again.” (Riding, Alan 3^rd paragraph) It also shows how a new generation can easily forget its past because of how quickly time changes things. The ashes of the dead wheat give nutrients and help the new generation grow, however as time passes the wheat grows and covers the ashes from sight. In the end, “transforming raw materials into art and transforming raw history of Germany into a mythology of redemption and rebirth,” (Johnson, Ken 4^th paragraph) was the goal of Kiefer’s image. Combining the use of wheat and his knowledge of history, he is able to send a strong message about the continuing growth of a new generation.  

 

The colors used in the image were carefully picked out to give the meaning of the image in the most appropriate way possible. The contrast between the blue, gold, black, grey, and white allows the image to have this very mournful look. Most importantly, the black and gold of the wheat has a much deeper meaning to the history of the Holocaust. The use of the washed toned down blue with mixes of white and grey allows the image to look damaged and old. The sky does not look clear, but messy and blotchy. The use of black and white to represent the ashes also follows the sloppy look. The wheat also is dried and withered. However, the use of black and gold has a certain harmony in the image. Germany destroyed its harmony by separating the Aryans from the Jewish. Kiefer tries to bring it back together “By pairing these two women in paint, he attempts a restoration of wholeness.” (Hubbard, Sue 3^rd paragraph) By placing the black and gold that represent Shulamite and Maragarete together, the gap in the German population is brought together. It also shows how the wheat and ashes are all the same. Once burned the wheat will turn to ash, and once decomposed the ashes will be use for nutrients for the new generation of wheat. The combination of colors gives a saddening image, but under the gloomy colors there is a message for the new generation to see people as equals.

 

While it might be difficult to see the influence of the Holocaust in the painting as it is “not always readily open to interpretation, theses paintings too, resist it,” (Glueck, Grace last paragraph) but the use of the devastating event gives a strong message and reaches out to many people. By associating the images with the events of the Holocaust there has been controversy of the over all necessity of it. People believe that using the subject was a stunt and named him “as a commercially motivated purveyor of a bombastic nationalistic style.” (Colpitt, Frances Page 1) However, the use of his history was necessary to show the importance of remembering the pass and preserving it for the new and quickly growing generation. His paintings allowed people involved with the event to release their guilt, and a new generation to reflect on the devastation. Without the history, his images would be uninspired and lack meaning and depth.

 

“Margarete” is a prime example of how his images contain extensive layers of meanings. His unconventional use of wheat gave focus to the image a comprehensible link of the Aryan people. While the use of dull colors gives the image a serious and saddening tone while connecting it physical items and history. Lastly, the use of the Holocaust releases multiple meanings and emotions connected with its events. With the each individual part to “Maragarete” the message would not make the same impact and importance.

 

Similar to “Maragrete” the images from the The Aldrich exhibition, "Anselm Kiefer: Velimir Chlebnikov” has similar themes and techniques. The images in the exhibition do not have a name, but many of the paintings depict a seascape with low-key colors. Many of the images depicts battle taken over seas represented by one ore more rusted U-boats. Through the use of colors and lead Kiefer is able the violence of war and its affects.

 

In the Aldrich exhibition, thirty images by Anselm Kiefer are displayed. One specific image displays a U-boat grounded on the shoreline. Similar to Kiefer’s other works; the image is bleak and dark. Kiefer uses light browns, orange, metallic blue, grays, along with whites to give a lifeless and depressing image. The ground bland and has no life growing on it. It looks completely barren, flat, and dry, even if it is close to the water. The water looks metallic and cold. The use of metallic blues and grays makes it look uninviting. Meanwhile the whites used in the water gives the water a violent look. The waves look rough and unpleasant. The sky as well, is dark and depressing. There seem to be no sunlight, clouds, or birds; the sky is a dismal grey and barren sky. Lastly, the U-boat itself looks broken, beaten, and disabled. Beside the fact that it is stranded on a shore, it is left to endure crashing waves of the violent sea. Half of the U-boat is rusted and seems dead. The images are “restless, implacable, seascapes, most bearing an attached lead model of a disabled warship…,” (Glueck, Grace 4^th paragraph) that clearly represents the images of a battle at sea.

 

Through the use of colors, Kiefer is able to show the unattractiveness of war. Compared to the beaches people dream about going on vacation, the painting displays a dismal shore that looks completely lifeless. To create his disheartening images, Kiefer uses “a blending of paint other materials like sand, rust dirt, and straw…,” (Glueck, Grace 8^th paragraph) the combination of his low-key color paints with the lifeless dirt and rust gives the image a musty look. The use of a monotone brown to represent the earth shows that it is barren and lifeless. The saddening grays for the sky are bleak and have no trace of sunlight. The water does not display a clear blue ocean. Instead, Kiefer paints a polluted ocean by mixing in metallic grays, blues, oranges, and whites. Kiefer might ever “further toughened by deliberate exposure to weather.” (Glueck, Grace 8^th paragraph) The wear and tear adds to the image exceptionally well. Everything in the image looks like it has been worn out by time and the elements. The image shows how straining war is on the people and the enviorment. The U-boat symbolizes wars and the lifeless environment displays the affects of it.

 

Lead has a strong meaning to Kiefer and it is a unique choice to represent the U-boat in the image. Lead is unique in the fact that it has a strong connection with alchemy. Lead was sought to be the oldest metal in alchemy. To Kiefer an “artist was an alchemist, converting raw materials such as paint and canvases into objects of great profundity.” (Anselm Kiefer 10^th paragraph) With lead’s special role in alchemy, lead became an important material to Kiefer. He began to use lead in the 1980’s. Kiefer often created images centered with lead or even whole sculptures with lead. Lead is also especially fitting for his collection of U-boat images because of its ability blocking “radiation, yet poisonous itself.” (Temin, Christine 3^rd paragraph) It is fitting because of the role of the U-boat during World War II. U-boat was used to make sneak attacks and create naval blockades. While the U-boat was used in attacks, in the end, the purpose was to protect Germany by giving it the advantage in war. However, the very same advantage was killing and hurting other humans. This also creates the barren look of the painting. The U-boat is surrounded by a lifeless seascape to represent its destruction to life around it. Similar to lead’s ability to protect, it can also hurt people. While lead is an exceptionally important part of the images, other items like “loops of barbed wire, dried sunflowers, twine, [and] gloves,” (Genocchio, Benjamin 9^th paragraph) were used in many of his images on display. The use of lead gives a unique twist on his images.

 

The colors and materials Kiefer uses gives viewers a message by its soulful look. His lead gives war instruments a deeper meaning, as lead can be much like war it self. The use of going to war, using weapons, and lead is that it can damage the user as well at its victim. His worn down and dark colors allows the painting to display stress on both the Germans using the U-boat, as well as Germany itself, through the years of war. The images bring to memory of the events that occurred during World War II. Kiefer wanted to express the negative affects of constant combat by showing its end result.

 

Finally, the final image “Markische Heide” is a painting that displays dirt path in an area that is presumably Märkische Heide in Germany. This image is particularly different because of the color tones used in the paintings. By using contrasts of colors, the perspective, and the image’s location, he displays a seemingly endless road that can be associated with life.

 

“Markische Heide” is a rather unique image compared to his other images more closely associated with the Holocaust and its affects. The image itself displays a beaten down dirt path that starts right in front of the middle of the painting and reaches out to the horizon line. On the sides of the road in the front of the painting are low-key-color tones representing grass and wheat. On the right side, the grass seems short and flat with some random trees sticking out. On the left side, looks overgrown with wheat. While near the horizon line the grasslands and sky seems to mesh together. The grasslands in the back and the sky seem to almost come together and it is difficult to separate the two. The colors of the road, sky, and the grasslands in the back of the image are rather bright and hopeful for a painting that Kiefer created. With the use of whites, bright yellows, and light blues, the image has a more positive and lighthearted tone. At the horizon line, the land and sky seamlessly come together.  It is hard to see where the sky begins and where the grasslands end.  Lastly, the words “Markische Heide” is written right in the middle of the canvas, referencing to a small area in Northeastern Germany.

 

The contrast in colors in “Markische Heide” gives the image many different ways the image can be interpreted. The contrast in color of the grass, wheat, road, and the sky gives the image a hopeful look and a more light-hearted message compared to his other images. In the painting, the road and sky clearly stand out from the rest of the image. Compared to the dark yellows, golds, and blacks of the grass and wheat in the front of the image, the road and sky looks bright with the use of whites, light yellows, and light blues. The path seems like a road that leads to a much brighter future and the correct path to leave the depressing surroundings. The lightly colored path seems to reach out the sky, almost like reaching toward heaven. Looking at this image points out with “his paintings and installation to the potential of humanity for creation, destruction, and renewal.” (Craig, Yvonne 1^st paragraph) Even if people are surrounded by a disheartening surrounding, it is important to keep moving and find the renewal of life. Using the light colors to bring out the sky and road from the dark surrounding gives the message of a more hopeful surrounding down the road. The viewers can see how people need to keep moving on their path to find a brighter future later on in life.

 

The perspective in which the image is drawn gives a view of the path a certain meaning. By viewing it from the front into the horizon, the path almost seems endless as it reaches towards the sky. Meanwhile, the viewer cannot miss the depressing and dark toned immediate image of the grasslands in front of them. The viewers also view the image from Markische Heide, Germany. The image could depict “the land where historic events might have occurred,” (Hubbard, Sue 2^nd paragraph) during World War II in Germany. The land surrounding the front of road represents the past that people should not nor can forget. Similar to “Maragarete,” Kiefer once again brings gold and black together; bringing unity to the two part of Germany. The depressing area at the beginning of the path will still be there no matter how far the viewer’s eyes follow the path to brighter grasslands in the back. By look at the path from the angle that Kiefer has given the viewers, the viewer cannot ignore the dark present in front of them; meanwhile they can see the more hopeful future that seems to leads to the sky. Similar to many of his other images, “Markische Heide” reminds the viewers that they need to remember the pass, even the depressing part, as people continue move on down life.

 

The image’s location at Markische Heide gives deeper meaning to the image. By using Markische Heide which is located in Germany, there are connections to World War II. Markische Heide can be represent as Germany as a whole. The image of a beaten down dirt path with a depressing emptiness surrounding, might have been a common idea during the war. The image of the empty land represents Germany’s “upheavals of the war torn past.” (Hubbard, Sue 6^th paragraph) The image can be a reflection of some of Kiefer’s memories. The path is an escape from Germany and its past; however like how a viewer cannot look away from the dark toned grasslands in the front of the image, people cannot forget the affects of Holocaust to Germany.

 

People involved in the war cannot for the events that happened in the Holocaust and other events. It is possible that Markische Heide is an empty area that is soon changing and becoming a new settlement. The image “Markische Heide” represents the need to move on from the miserable past to a much brighter future. However, people cannot simply forget the past. New generations will move to the brighter future; however this painting is a reminder to remember and reflect back on the Holocaust.

 

Throughout Kiefer’s art career, he has challenged the limits on art to deliver powerful messages to the public. By being the next generation to be after the Holocaust, they had the duty of reflecting and comprehending the all the horrific events. As time passes on however, the ruins of the generation before them becomes covered and forgotten. The image “Maragarete,” displays how generations of people, who are represented by wheat and ashes, are all the same and quickly grown over each other. The lead U-boats in Kiefer’s images shows the affects of war, as it destroys everything in the process of defending. “Markische Heide” allows the viewer to see a bright future however, never be able to miss the gloomy area in the front of the image. In his images he is able to remind everyone that the past cannot be forgotten even with the quickly changing generation. With the quickly growing generation, it is even more important that they cannot forget so events like the Holocaust should never happen again.

 

 

            

Casting Claudius

            Claudius is the king of Demark, and was only able to gain his royal rank by being sneaky, untrustworthy, and heartless. In a play, his character should present his dishonest character. He should be the character that the audience easily sees as the antagonist who only cares about his own needs. Through the way how the way he dresses, the actor’s looks, and Claudius delivers his lines, the viewers should see his selfishness and his lack of empathy.

 

            Claudius should be a character that is not afraid to display his wealth. A way an audience can easily see his affinity to being powerful and rich, is to have needlessly expensive and flamboyant clothing. As a king, showing wealth and power is expected, however Claudius should even contrast with any other royal figures in the play. I easily envision him in layer after layer of clothing. Claudius should be wrapped in silks and furs and wear unnecessary amounts of jewelry. I can imagine him with a gold ring around each finger and many gold necklaces around his neck. Of course, Claudius should have a large extravagant crown on his head. I want to cast this character this way in order to show that he only cares about living an over extravagant life. Claudius only thinks about himself as he easily brushes off his brother’s recent death introducing his need by saying “yet so far hath discretion with nature that we with wisest sorrow think on him together with remembrance of ourselves.” (Act 1 Scene 2 Line 5) Readers can easily see his lack of sorrow in his brother’s death and his eagerness to fulfill his own needs. He should be dressed looking like that goal is the only thing on his mind.

 

            Claudius is a rather heartless and greedy character, but extremely cunning and fitting to be Hamlet’s nemesis. His character should be portrayed by an actor who has a face that can be taken seriously. The actor should be a respectable in height and weight. The actor should be around six feet tall and should not be over weight. His face should be untrustworthy and confident. I can imagine him with a constant stern face that gives him an unapproachable look. Claudius should have a look to show him as a character that is capable of killing his brother, creating lies, and being Hamlet’s target for the majority of the play. When the audience sees him they should know that he is a character that needs to be taken seriously unlike characters like Polonius. Claudius is a character that should be taken seriously and have an image to back it up, because he is a character that knows how to trick and kill people. He is able to give an argument that Hamlet’s sorrow is an “unmanly grief” and “it shows a will most incorrect to heaven, a heart unfortified, a mind impatient, an understanding simple and unschooled.” (Act 1 Scene 1 Line 94) Although cold-blooded, his argument and thought process is respectable. His ability create a scenario to Hamlet’s death is also proof that he should be taken seriously. Claudius creates a situation where Laertes and Hamlet have a duel with Hamlet’s chance of survival stacked against him due to the use of poison. By conjuring this cunning plan, he is able to avoid responses about Hamlet’s death because “even his mother shall uncharge the practice and call it accident.” (Act 4 Scene 7 Line 67) By his actions and thoughts, readers are able to see his is confident and cunning; however he is equally heartless and untrustworthy. He becomes a character that cannot be taken lightly, which can only made appropriate by having an image that equally demands respect as well as distrust.

           

            Lastly, the way the actor delivers Claudius’s lines will be the most important part for the audience to see the evil king and his ambitions. Claudius needs to deliver his lines in a very confidently and without shame. It is because he is able to deceive people, that he is able to become the new king. At the same time, he has to be proud of how his chain of lies allows him to become king. It is easy to imagine his proud and confident voice when he gave thanks to everyone that “gave” him the idea to marry his sister-in-law for the good of the nation or when he was able to devise a seemingly perfect plan to kill Hamlet. However, at certain points Claudius needs to be out of character, to allow the audience to see he is obviously lying to gain the favor of everyone. When Gertrude breaks the news that Hamlet kills Polonius, Claudius says that his love for him allowed Hamlet’s condition to become worse. Claudius should over dramatize the lines “but so much was our love, we would not understand what was most fit, but, like the owner of a foul disease, to keep it from divulging, let it feed.” (Act 4 Scene 1 Line 19) By overacting, the audience will see how Claudius is pretending to feel guilt for Hamlet’s actions. The audience would be able to hate Claudius’s personality more. Everyone would easily see he is lying in order to seem like a good man.

 

            Claudius is a character that has the greed and apathy of an antagonist and the intelligent mind to challenge Hamlet. It is appropriate that the actor that plays him looks and sounds like a confident, proud, and untrustworthy character. Claudius is a character that needs to be respected and recognized. His clothing and accessories should show his wealth and lack of shame of how he achieved his position. Seeing how he kills his brother only for power, he would probably take advantage of it and use it to have a rich life. The actor himself needs to be confident and worthy of respect. Claudius is the man that Hamlet finds worthy of killing. Claudius’s actor must lack sympathy is his visage and give an uneasy feeling. Lastly, he must deliver each line without any shame of lying and deceiving people. He must be the character that everyone in the audience knows that he is lying. By combining all these elements together, Claudius becomes a very fitting antagonist to Hamlet. The audience will be fully able to see his ability to kill and lie without showing any regret. By having Claudius seems so evil, it allows the viewers to cheer for Hamlet more, and dislike Claudius.

 

Hamlet's Soliloquy

Kenneth Branagh’s Act 3 scene 1 of Hamlet’s soliloquy is the representation of Hamlet’s current state of mind compared to the two different clips of the same scene by Laurence Oliver and Alexander Fodor. The scene makes the viewer question about his sanity but also allows the viewer to see his deep thoughts. Laurence Oliver and Alexander Fodor both portray Hamlet’s deep thoughts. However, Kenneth Branagh’s scene displays Hamlet’s questionable state of mind more than the other two.

               

In Kenneth Branagh’s scene, Hamlet starts out by stating the famous line “To be or not to be, that is the question.” (Act 3 Scene 1 Line 55) The actor delivers the line in a low and hissing tone. The Hamlet in this scene seems maniacal because of his hissing tone as he talks to himself whether it is worth living or not. As he goes further into his thoughts, his voice picks up and becomes quicker and louder. Hamlet seems to become angrier as he delves deeper into his own ideas. His voice picks up as he thinks about the people “who would bear the whips and scorns of time.” (Act 3 Scene 1 Line 69) He then proceeds to become happier as he talks about the undiscovered country in which “no travelers return.” (Act 3 Scene 1 Line 79)  The happiness in his tone as he talks about the afterlife also makes the viewers wonder about his mental state. Hamlet seems happy that he is able to view death in such a way but angry in which how little humans know about death. His combination of happiness and anger in his tone gives him a maniacal image as if he is ready to commit murder at anytime.

           

            The actor’s actions and facial expression also makes the viewer see Hamlet is this insane man. As Hamlet starts his soliloquy he intensely stares into the mirror image of himself and never breaks eye contact. In this scene he is literally talking to himself. The way Hamlet talks to his mirror image of himself as if only Hamlet’s reflection would understand his thoughts. As he stares into the mirror, he must feel proud of himself as if he is saner than anyone else.  He also brings up a tightly gripped fist by his side. The fist shows his anger and passion about humanity and the after life. He points out his fist in front of him like someone who is giving a passionate speech. He then quickly draws out his dagger and points it at his mirror image as he talks about the after life. With his blade, he seems proud and maniacal. He has such a powerful glare to his mirror image while bending his forehead forward with the knife tapping next to his head. He also expresses an evil grin that makes the viewer wonder what he is capable of. Just by his actions alone the viewers can see his mental state.

           

In Laurence Oliver’s clip, Hamlet is on a cliff and over-looking the rapid and aggressive water below him as he says his soliloquy. The clip gives the viewer and uneasy feeling because of the fast pace and chaotic music. The music seems to give a warning like a large storm is coming or something evil is brewing. The actor delivers the first line in a poetic and philosophical way. By listening to the actor the viewer can see that Hamlet is in deep thought and is questioning the afterlife. Hamlet questions if taking “arms against a sea of troubles” (Act 3 scene 1 line 58) is actually worth doing. If the sea in front of him represents his troubles then it seems that Hamlet is more troubled and worried than insane. As the actor shuts his eyes and begins the think with his knife, he is sweating and the music shoots up when he opens his eyes. He seems panicked about his situation and is trying to make the most sense. The scene is surrounded in fog, as if he is searching for an answer for his problems but it is hidden away in the fog. The scene gives the image that Hamlet is confused and is confronting his problems, rather than giving a menacing image of him.

           

In Alexander Fodor’s clip, Hamlet is a more modern person reciting the soliloquy to a voice recorder. In clip, Hamlet is a wide-eye young man that seems to be lost in his thoughts. The clip makes constant flashbacks to his dead father to incorporate his thoughts on death. Hamlet’s voice remains mostly philosophical throughout the clip as he records his thoughts. However he does express some anger when he realizes that “conscience does make cowards of us all.” (Act 3 scene 1 line 82). However, he never expresses any real insanity. It feels like he is just trying to get his thoughts straight. He seems sane as he is not talking to himself, but recording himself. His tone remains calm and thoughtful and his facial expression remains calm. The scene shows his deep thoughts but it does not make the viewers question his sanity.

 

Kenneth Branagh creates the best reenactment of Hamlet soliloquy. Branagh creates a scene where Hamlet expresses his thoughts and insanity simultaneously. While Hamlet makes the viewers think about death and the afterlife by his insightful thoughts, his tone and actions makes the viewers question his sanity. He allows the viewers to believe that he is in control of his insanity which becomes a major part later on in the play. Unlike the other clips, this scene gives the best foreshadowing that his is capable of murder himself. Branagh’s scene perfectly intertwines Hamlet’s philosophical ideas with his questionable state of mind. 

1000 Words Kiefer Image

 

In this image by Anselm Kiefer, Kiefer paints a long pathway far into the horizons. The painting itself looks like it has smudging technique for the sky and the background. The grass on the sides has a similar style. However the tall grass on the left a draw individually and all slant to the right. There are shorter pieces of grass painted in as well. They are placed near the pathway and all stand upwards. Kiefer uses different tones of teal, brown, green, yellow, and black to create a rather mucky grass. They are all dark and withered looking. The left side of the rode however looks murkier than the other side. The grass is taller and unmaintained. There is blacker in the grass as well. The right side looks more like a short grass meadow. It also has three trees sticking up. The trees are white and bare. They have no leaves and have black streaks going down it side. The grassland is mostly barren except for the trees and the road. There are no homes, no people, or buildings. The grassland just stretches to the horizon, uninterrupted. It is actually hard to see where the horizon line is, as the grass seems to just blend in with the sky while the road just continues.

               

The road greatly contrasts with the rest of the painting. The road lays right smack dab in the middle of the image and continues on to the horizon line. Compared to the rest of the painting the road has a much lighter tone. It has different shades of white, yellow, and even light blue. The white really makes it stand out away from the rest of the world which surrounds it in the mucky swamp colors. The random blue streaks, which give a relaxing tone, allow the road to look more inviting than the rest of the surrounding environment. The blue reminds me of flowers or even the blue sky.  The blue makes me think “that is the road I want to take.”  The road seems to continue on and even become bluer. Usually things that are farther away have a cooler tone. I believe that the use of the blue was more than just to give the image depth. It seems the use of blue gives the message that the road leads to a better place, even if it is a very long path.

               

The sky however is rather odd. There seem to be no real defining line between the grass and road to the sky above.  There is a large contrasting line about three fourths up the page. However the road continues regardless of the shift in color. Before the shift in color, the grass is incredibly dark and only contains green, yellow, black and some orange. However, after the line, blue starts to blend in with the mixture.  This creates the image of a sky above the horizon line. The path continues uninterrupted. The path looks almost like it is leading up to heaven. The grass seems to mix in with the sky and the path way seems to never end. The mix of the sky and the ground gives a message to the viewer. It seems to give the message that viewers should try and take a journey and try to find something new on the end of the road. Maybe Kiefer is referring to how life is like journey. Everyone takes a road that leads to somewhere. Maybe this road leads up to the world above.

               

As the road continues to extend upwards, it also has an incline towards the sky. It could be because the hill is rising up. However I believe Kiefer did this on purpose to show the road is reaching up to the heavens. As the pathway continues, everything around it becomes lighter and less murky. It seems more tranquil with the blue used in the background. However, the image becomes less detailed. The individual pieces of grass become mashed together to lines after lines of paint in the background. This allows the image to blend in with the sky. The lack of detail could be a message as well. It could show that viewers have less knowledge about the world far ahead of them compared to what is close to them. If I was on that road, and I could not see the details, I would only follow the road because it looks much more inviting. The land around me is barren, dark, and seems lifeless. The road ahead, although mysterious, contains the blue of the sky. Everything around the road seems bluer and lighter. The road seems to lead a path up and beyond the dark surroundings. It lacks detail and is mysterious, however it gives more of a reason to move on and explore it. To road seems to lead to a better place. It is almost like a road to the sky. It seems like it is a road to heaven. Every line seems to have it strokes towards the center of the page. The lines all flow to the brighter center of the canvas.

               

Lastly the image also contains odd words right in the middle of the image. I believe the words are “Markische Heide.”  It is written in cursive and written right on the center of the path. Märkische Heide is actually a part of Germany. This image could be a painting of a landscape from there. This image could have been from anywhere; however the location was very important for Kiefer. It also leads me to wonder why was the words placed there. Most of the time, background information would be placed outside of the image in its description. However, Kiefer felt it was necessary to include the name inside the image. I also wonder why the name placed right in the middle of the image on the road. The words could have been placed off in the dark grass where it would be harder to see. However, Kiefer placed it right in the middle where it contrasted with the white road and stood out right in the middle of the canvas.

Kenneth Branagh’s interpretation of Hamlet

Kenneth Branagh’s interpretation of “Hamlet” in Act 1 Scene 5 is the scene of Hamlet chasing after his father’s ghost in the dark woods. Branagh’s created a spine-chilling experience by creating a specific atmosphere, having the actors deliver their lines in a specific tone and emotion, and the characterization of the characters in the scene. By setting up the scene in this specific way, the viewers can envision the fear in Hamlet as he lies on the ground witnessing his father’s ghost.

 

Branagh created an eerie scene by manipulating the forest in which Hamlet runs though. Right from the start of the scene, the camera frantically chases Hamlet as he rushes though the forest. The scene also takes place in the night of a foggy night. As Hamlet runs though, the viewers can imagine being in a forest surrounded in darkness and fog. A sea of endless and leafless trees sticks their branches out from the ground and obscures the visibility as well. At the same time the earth shakes, cracks, and release smoke like hell was entering the human world. The camera keeps panning back and forth between the panicking Hamlet, the cracking ground, and the daunting image of a man in armor covered in the mists and the shadows of the night. Everything quickly comes at the viewer creating a frantic feeling while watching the scene. The background music also becomes increasingly louder and quicker adding to the eerie atmosphere. Everything becomes even more uneasy when everything stops. Once act 1 scene 5 begins with Hamlet deciding that he will “go no further” (Shakespeare 1) the background music becomes silent, the quick pandering of the camera slows down, and the explosions and the destruction of the environment stops as well. Once his father finally appears, the background music starts the pick up again with a slow and light sound of an instrument sounding like a flute and the steam flows from the ground again. The darkness fog, and trees makes it terrifying to be in alone, while the destruction, music, the frantic camera gives an uneasiness feeling. Branagh was able to create the uneasy feeling with just the stage setting alone.

 

Branagh also uses the deliverance of the lines to express the frantic tone of the scene. Hamlet is first shown in the scene yelling in a quick and panicked voice. Hamlet expresses his fear when he screams out “I’ll call the Hamlet, King, father, royal Dane. O, answer me!” (Shakespeare Act 1 Scene 4 Line 44). From lines 39 to 57 Hamlet speaks quickly and running out of breath. He has a shaky tone and occasionally raises his voice to express his fear and confusion. Meanwhile, Hamlet’s father’s voice expresses a much different tone. His voice echoes though out the forest giving off the same deep and ghostly voice. The ghost not only delivers a freighting message about hell he also delivers it in his low and hissing tone. He repeats his desire for revenge for the “foul and most unnatural murther,” (Shakespeare 25) and repeats “murther” in his monotone but ghastly voice. The viewers can easily see the fear when Hamlet screams out “O God!” (Shakespeare 24) The use of Hamlet’s fear and the ghastly voice of his father adds to the atmosphere by allowing to feel Hamlet’s fear while listening to his intimidating father.

 

            Lastly, Branagh uses characterization to add to the suspense and atmosphere. Branagh characterizes Hamlet by giving him a rather plain and relatable look. He looks like a very down to earth and human character which allows the viewer to able to relate to him and feel how he feels. The viewers can more easily empathize with Hamlet and immerse themselves in the scene. Meanwhile the characterization of his father allows the reader to easily feel terror. He is constantly casted over by a shadow and hiding from sight. He is encased in a cold and hard armor as if he is ready for way. His face shows no emotion and his eyes stare at Hamlet without even blinking. The ghost’s eyes are even colored ice blue and seem frozen. His lines and the tone he gives with it make him sound tormented and insane.

 

            Branagh is able to create a scene that depicts a very eerie event by the use of various affects in the environment, the tone of the characters, and the characterization of the characters. Each of these techniques allows the viewer to be immersed into the scene and empathize themselves with Hamlet. The uneasiness created by being surrounded in fog and darkness with an intimidating ghost is passed on from Hamlet to the viewers giving the viewers and immersive experience. 

Stephen Colbert and Charles Olsen

                Stephen Colbert uses witty satire and seemingly boundless energy to entertain his viewers. He brings up news and questions in a comedic way to attract people while enlightening them. His questions and responses may seem like jokes, but can insightful questions. In his interview with Elizabeth Alexander, he asked questions about the purpose of poems and its literary technique. Olsen’s response to Colbert’s questions would be based on his belief of what a poem is and its purpose.

           

Colbert quickly starts the comedic questions right when he sits down on the chair. He asks “poems aren’t true, are they?”(Colbert) While comedic and easily misunderstood, the question does have a reason more than just for laughs. Colbert follows his question will concern that a poem he recently read was an accurate description of his life and future. He was concern that if poems are actual facts. He was afraid that the poem was telling him “no matter what he achieves in his life that he is never really going to be great.”(Colbert) Colbert in the end is actually asking, what is the purpose of poems? Is it meant to be factual information or something else? If Olsen was to answer the question he would bring up his belief “a poem is energy transferred from where the poet got it.”(Projective Verse) Olsen believes that influences in a poet’s life allows the poet to the create poems. The poet has thoughts and believes from these influences and tries to express them in a form of a poem. The readers can then see the message in the poems. The poets beliefs feels true to the readers and it allows people to connect with poems. I believe his response would be similar to Alexander’s in the sense that poems is not “strictly factual, but a poem should be, in some way, emotionally true, [and] true to the language that it has.” (Alexander) Olsen would say that poems are not meant to state facts but gives a point of view and allow the reader to see that point of view and think about it. Just as his poems about the change in Gloucester were meant for people to see though his eyes, poems are the energy passed though the poets to the reader.

           

Colbert follows up with his question, “What is an occasional poem?” (Colbert) Alexander responds by responding with the factual answer being that an occasional poem is just for a certain occasion. Colbert then relates her poem to comical theme and goes deeper into how it “only makes sense when you are at Thunder Dome.” (Colbert) Alexander then proceeds to point out that the poem should be used to “mark the occasion but write words that will last afterwards and be useful afterwards in some kind of way.” (Alexander) Olsen would completely agree with Alexander’s idea of the occasional poem. Olsen’s Maximus poems are similar to “Praise Song for the Day.” Olsen’s Maximus poems were created for the occasion of the sudden change in the old city of Gloucester. Old buildings were being taken down and his town was changing from the once humble fishing community. He knew that Gloucester was changing, but the right change for the fishing community. His poems was specifically about Gloucester but is also meant to have a lasting affect. Generations later should listen to Olsen’s message and remember what Gloucester is and make the right choices for it. The poem can also be interpreted for other communities or even other elements of life. Even though poems can be occasional poems, both Alexander and Olsen would agree that words should be used in a way so that the lesson can be still used after the occasion is long past.

           

Colbert’s quick tosses of comedic questions and comments hold deep questions. When he asks if poems were real, he asked about the purpose of the poem and how it should be understood. Both Alexander and Olsen will have similar response in which they both believe that poems not facts but it can have a message that is true to the reader. When he brings up the point about occasional poems, Alexander relays her idea of how a poem’s lesson can still live on similar to the purpose of the creation of the Maximus poems. Although Alexander and Olsen created different poems from different occasions, they both would answer Colbert’s humor in a similar way.

Heart Of Darkness Poems Meta

                “Heart of Darkness” looks deep into the deception of an imagined outcome to the reality. Joseph Conrad created the story with unique phrases and descriptive imagery. Using the wide arranges of Conrad’s diction, powerful and meaningful poetry can be easily created. “Heart of Darkness” showed the harsh reality of life and people. Marlow’s journey became a sorrowful experience that that greatly contrasted the joy the thought he would have felt traveling. People he met also were deceitful and held their own secrets. In the poems “Escape,” “His Plans,” and the “Depth of the Forest,” I tried to capture Marlow’s journey in the poems.

Bound on other conquests.

Leading up the hill,

followed the sea,

down stony hills,

over the empty land.

 

The first four lines were meant to glorify the adventures of traveling. It always seems amazing when some goes off on a “conquest,” go over hills, and following the seas. I list the lines empathizing traveling to continuously add more and more dazzle to traveling. By listing it, it allows the reader to imagine it line by line and easily picture the fun in going out and exploring.  Using Conrad’s descriptive lines for imagery easily gives readers a pleasant image to think about.

 Human beings, hospitable and festive.

 As if by enchantment

 At the image of the pensive forest

We left at noon

So. Farewell.

In the first poem, I tried to make everything sound bright and enjoyable. Saying the human race are “hospitable and festive,” gives readers the thought of happy towns people welcoming travelers in. Using words like “pensive” gives a positive image of the forests and the world outside. I decided to end the first poem with a “So. Farewell,” and giving a good bye to allow the speaker of my poem to live a more rewarding life. All the positive messages are similar to how the Marlow thought of his journey. He thought of how rewarding it would be to fill in the blank spots of the map. Similarly, my poem talks about the joys of traveling to build up to the reality that will soon come.

Ordinary man,

factitious, no doubt.

Human beings,

nothing but black shadows,

savage or simply mean.

 

The second part of the poem follows the “Heart of Darkness,” in a way that suddenly, reality quickly comes in and shows that the world is not as perfect. I first took the example of an “ordinary man” and stated that he had façade. I go on deeper to show that humans are not “hospitable and festive” but “savage or simply mean.” This part ties to the secret thoughts of the manager and his thoughts on Kurtz. He stated his scorn for Kurtz just because he was able to acquire ivory at an extraordinary rate. He would even wish he would die.

Shoot you without

adequate motive.

Save the ivory,

they fancy for it.

The horror!

This part, gives the meaning of how people can be greedy and unethical. Similar to Kurtz, with greed, people can do anything to get what they want. People sometimes hurt other people in order to get what they want. Ivory is a prime example of why Kurtz chose to live the style he does. He would kill to get ivory. It is a horrible thought to think about. This part greatly contrasts to the first poem, similarly to how the first part of the story contrasts with the second part. I feel like the second poem breaks down the image of the perfect world similarly to the second part of the book.

        Darkness was here yesterday.

Deal with this shadow confused.

        Black shapes near the same tree.

Human beings,

Like the wilderness itself.

Embrace

intense blackness.

 

In the third part of the book, drawing up to the conclusion, there was secrets being held and kept away. I tried to give the image that people are hiding secrets and themselves by using words like “blackness,” “wilderness,” “shadow,” and “darkness.” Using the word “confused” gives the readers the hint of how information is left out and how characters in the story don’t find out every bit of information. 

Having a look around,

Then stop to listen,

in this fog.

 

Lastly, sometimes people are left with no other choice than to live and try their best in the “fog.” I used the fog to show the difficulty to find the truth. In part 3 of the book, many things were kept a secret. I tried to tie the book in the last poem about secrets and the unknown.

Conrad’s story and diction allow the creation of the poems to be completely easily. His descriptive words allowed perfect phrases to set an image to the reader’s minds. His shift in events and thoughts in the story allows it to become engaging. Lastly the open ended ending allows the reader to think and presume their own answers and ponder about them. I tried to show Conrad’s style in the three poems and I feel like I succeed.