The piece that Hamlet would most easily be compared and contrasted with is Oedipus, but that was done in class, so I guess I will use a little brain power and make some new observations. First of all The two stories run a different time line. Hamlet takes place in one coherent time line, while Laramie Project jumps between different interviews not necissarily in the sequence which they occured. Hamlet also has a much more defined setting with necessary props and scenery. The Laramie Project is much more subtle in where the play is taking place. Hamlet requires the audience to believe in fiction with a gohst where as in the Laramie Project everything seems to be factual or at least realistic. More differances are present with How the story is told. In Hamlet we have solliliquois where characters directly tell the audience what they are feeling or thinking. In Laramie project we learn about Mathew by other peoples observations of him. Laramie you never meet the central figure (protagonist), Hamlet the lead actor is the protagonist. My final differance between the two is in there ending with the Laramie project I feel like the end is really the begining. It feels as if the writers are just now going to go write this play and spread the word. In Hamlet however it end in tragic death, everyone one is dead there is nothing past this point. Some simalarities, they are both tradgedies revolving around death. They both take place in specefic cities.
Posted by shar0243 at February 9, 2005 1:49 PMGood observations, Jennifer...the best one here is the way the plays end--one as though it is the beginning, and one in a way that clearly signals the end of the story. Fascinating. How do you think this would perform, or have an effect on, on the audience distinctly in each play?
Posted by: Jessie at February 17, 2005 10:43 AM