Get Thee to a Bakery
by Benjamin Strate
According to Aristotle,” Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is admirable, complete and possesses magnitude; in language made pleasurable, each of its species separated in different parts; performed by actors, not through narration; effecting through pity and fear the purification of such emotions.” When one thinks of tragedy, one may think of the Euripedean and Sopholoclean dramas that imitated life in ancient Greece, or one may think of the tales of Danes and Kings written by the infamous Bard. Sondheim, however, is one name that isn’t often associated with the genre, despite having written the lyrics for West Side Story, a modern reimagining of Romeo and Juliet, and, of course, the tale of a Victorian barber who cut the throats of his customers. Although the two are not often compared, I believe that there are many similarities between Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Sondheim’s Sweeney Todd[1], and through these similarities, I will prove that Sweeny Todd is the “Revenger Tragedy” of Musical Theatre.
Hamlet is, perhaps, the most well known play in the world. In it, Hamlet attempts to vindicate the unjust killing of his father, the king, by the usurper, his uncle, Claudius. Although Hamlet means to do justice, he ends up killing everyone he holds dear, including himself. Hamlet’s actions are admirable, at least in Aristotelian terms, but every action has a consequence that is neutral to both parties, yet can cause pain and suffering or happiness and elation.
Sweeney Todd is one of Sondheim’s more-well known musicals. In it, Sweeny attempts to vindicate his unjust imprisonment by the adultery, Judge Turpin. Although Sweeny means to do justice, he ends up killing everyone he holds dear, including himself. Like Hamlet, Sweeny’s actions are admirable, yet that cause unforeseeable consequences.
The similarities in plot between the two plays are indistinguishable. The same can be said about the characters as well, especially between the two leads. “Haste me to know’t, that I, with wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love may sweep to my revenge,” exclaims Hamlet upon realizing that foul pay was involved in his father’s death. “Tell you Mrs. Loveit, tell you why: because the lives of the wicked should be made brief, sings Todd during the famous epiphany scene, in which he elects to slay his customers to satisfy his bloodlust before he can kill the Judge. Now, many may say that Hamlet is not a homicidal maniac, unlike Todd. To that I say, look at the numbers: Todd kills Turpin, Lucy, Mrs. Loveit, Beadle Bamford, Pirelli, and three unnamed customers, totaling eight. Hamlet kills Claudius, Laertes, Ophelia, Gertrude, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Polonius, making Hamlet’s kill count seven, a difference of one from Todd, yet Todd is the homicidal maniac?
Mrs. Loveit also has many similarities to Hamlet, specifically by acting as Todd’s conscience. Hamlet’s soliloquies serve the function of giving the audience an opportunity to peer into his mind. Being that Todd doesn’t get a lot of alone time on stage, he has to make the big decisions through Mrs. Loveit. “Easy now. Hush, love, hush. Don't distress yourself, What's your rush? Keep your thoughts Nice and lush,” sings Mrs. Loveit to keep Todd from doing anything rash. In fact, all of Mrs. Loveit’s decisions are with Todd in mind, including withholding the fact that his wife was alive and, in fact, the old beggar woman, a decision that would lead to her demise. With this in mind, one can make the assumption that Mrs. Loveit cares more for Todd’s well being, then for her own: Does a conscience not serve the same purpose.
Similarities can also be found between the two villains, Claudius and Turpin. Both villains steal something from the protagonist and use their positions of power to justify their actions. “Of those effects for which I did the murder: my crown, mine own ambition, and my queen,” Claudius confesses in defense of his heinous deeds. “A gentle man, who would shield you from all earthly cares and guide your faltering steps to the sober warmth of womanhood — a husband — a protector — and yet an ardent lover too. It is a man who through all the years has surely earned your affection,” says the Judge seductively to convince Johanna, his adopted daughter, to elope with him. In both quotes, it is obvious that the speaker is blinded from common sense by his position of power, and therefore believes he can do anything.
Todd’s wife, Lucy Barker and latter the old beggar woman, is Sweeney Todd’s version of Ophelia. Both Lucy and Ophelia are lovers to the revengers. Both also fall into madness; with Ophelia singing “He is dead and gone lady, he is dead and gone,” while Lucy sings in her own musical “Your father's at tea with the Swedish king. He'll bring you the moon on a silver string.” Both women’s deaths are also brought on by the protagonist of their respective play, with Todd slicing Lucy’s throat in a panic and Hamlet’s tirade leading Ophelia to madness and her eventual suicide.
Sweeny Todd also has it’s own version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. When the musical isn’t focused on all the bloodshed, it turns its attention to the romantic subplot between Anthony and Todd’s daughter Johanna. Although, Todd does want Anthony to take Johanna away since they are in love with each other, he still puts taking revenge on the Judge over anything else. During the “Pretty Women” scene, Todd has the Judge right where wants him and is about to exact his revenge, when suddenly Anthony bursts in and exclaims that he and Johanna are to leave tonight. The Judge, outraged, vows to never come again and storms off. Anthony, unintentionally, saved the Judge from the razor. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have the same function in Hamlet in that they attempt to protect the King from Hamlet’s revenge.
Another reason why Anthony and Johanna are the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of Sweeney Todd is their lack of intelligence. “I loved you even as I saw you, Even as it does not matter that I still don't know your name, sir:” Johanna sings, but how can someone rationally love someone without knowing one’s name? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern also lack in intelligence in that they were tricked into their demise by Hamlet.
The final character comparison to be made is between Pirelli and Polonius. First off, they are both the first to be killed in their respective plays. Second, they both serve as comic relief, whether it be Polonius talking through the Player’s rendition of Hecuba’s speech or Pirelli’s theatrics during “The Contest” scene. Third, their deaths are a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, with Polonius hiding in closet when Hamlet was at the peak of his blood lust, or Pirelli deciding to extort Todd for money right before the Judge was to see him.
Moving on from character, another aspect of tragedy that both Sweeney Todd and Hamlet share is there use of blood. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the player states, “I can’t do you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory--- they’re all blood you see.” Hamlet is filed with blood, being that he kills a lot of people. Sweeney Todd, on the other hand, is especially known for the blood. Todd doesn’t just kill his customers; he cuts their throats, which causes a substantial amount of bloodletting in a very short amount of time. Tim Burton, in fact, took this concept even further in his 2007 adaption of the musical. Stating in an interview with Entertainment Weekly: “I'd seen different Sweeney Todd productions on stage, and when they skimped on the blood, the production lost something. Everything is so internal with Sweeney that [the blood] is like his emotional release. It's more about catharsis than it is a literal thing.''
Another idea explored in Sweeney Todd that is found in plays like Hamlet, is the idea that tragedy is the great equalizer. Greek and Elizabethan tragedy always focuses on the rich and those in power to show that bad things don’t just happen to poor and normal people. For example, Hamlet is focuses it’s action on the Danish court. “How gratifying for once to know that those above will serve those below,” sings Todd, except in this case Todd is bringing the tragedy to his rich customers. This idea is further emphasized by the musical’s focus on Todd’s chair. “Is that a chair fit for a king, a wondrous neat and most particular chair? You tell me where is there a seat can half compare with this particular thing!” sings Todd as he makes the final adjustments to his fixed chair that slides his slain customers into Mrs. Loveit’s kitchen. It is very interesting that this chair is referred to as a throne, perhaps it is to let the rich be at their highest right before Todd slits their throats and sends them down to Mrs. Loveit to be cooked into pies for the poor, thereby “serving those down below.”
There is no doubt Sweeney Todd is a bloody play. If one goes beyond the blood, however, one will see that, not only is it a crowd-pleasing Broadway musical, but also a love letter to the tragedies of antiquity. It shows that no matter what medium is being used to broadcast the thoughts and ideas of an era, the genre of tragedy will have it’s place, for tragedy reflects real life, even if the story involves characters breaking out in song.
[1] Note: All references to Sweeney Todd are relevant to the 1982 Broadway production, unless otherwise noted.
by Benjamin Strate
According to Aristotle,” Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is admirable, complete and possesses magnitude; in language made pleasurable, each of its species separated in different parts; performed by actors, not through narration; effecting through pity and fear the purification of such emotions.” When one thinks of tragedy, one may think of the Euripedean and Sopholoclean dramas that imitated life in ancient Greece, or one may think of the tales of Danes and Kings written by the infamous Bard. Sondheim, however, is one name that isn’t often associated with the genre, despite having written the lyrics for West Side Story, a modern reimagining of Romeo and Juliet, and, of course, the tale of a Victorian barber who cut the throats of his customers. Although the two are not often compared, I believe that there are many similarities between Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Sondheim’s Sweeney Todd[1], and through these similarities, I will prove that Sweeny Todd is the “Revenger Tragedy” of Musical Theatre.
Hamlet is, perhaps, the most well known play in the world. In it, Hamlet attempts to vindicate the unjust killing of his father, the king, by the usurper, his uncle, Claudius. Although Hamlet means to do justice, he ends up killing everyone he holds dear, including himself. Hamlet’s actions are admirable, at least in Aristotelian terms, but every action has a consequence that is neutral to both parties, yet can cause pain and suffering or happiness and elation.
Sweeney Todd is one of Sondheim’s more-well known musicals. In it, Sweeny attempts to vindicate his unjust imprisonment by the adultery, Judge Turpin. Although Sweeny means to do justice, he ends up killing everyone he holds dear, including himself. Like Hamlet, Sweeny’s actions are admirable, yet that cause unforeseeable consequences.
The similarities in plot between the two plays are indistinguishable. The same can be said about the characters as well, especially between the two leads. “Haste me to know’t, that I, with wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love may sweep to my revenge,” exclaims Hamlet upon realizing that foul pay was involved in his father’s death. “Tell you Mrs. Loveit, tell you why: because the lives of the wicked should be made brief, sings Todd during the famous epiphany scene, in which he elects to slay his customers to satisfy his bloodlust before he can kill the Judge. Now, many may say that Hamlet is not a homicidal maniac, unlike Todd. To that I say, look at the numbers: Todd kills Turpin, Lucy, Mrs. Loveit, Beadle Bamford, Pirelli, and three unnamed customers, totaling eight. Hamlet kills Claudius, Laertes, Ophelia, Gertrude, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Polonius, making Hamlet’s kill count seven, a difference of one from Todd, yet Todd is the homicidal maniac?
Mrs. Loveit also has many similarities to Hamlet, specifically by acting as Todd’s conscience. Hamlet’s soliloquies serve the function of giving the audience an opportunity to peer into his mind. Being that Todd doesn’t get a lot of alone time on stage, he has to make the big decisions through Mrs. Loveit. “Easy now. Hush, love, hush. Don't distress yourself, What's your rush? Keep your thoughts Nice and lush,” sings Mrs. Loveit to keep Todd from doing anything rash. In fact, all of Mrs. Loveit’s decisions are with Todd in mind, including withholding the fact that his wife was alive and, in fact, the old beggar woman, a decision that would lead to her demise. With this in mind, one can make the assumption that Mrs. Loveit cares more for Todd’s well being, then for her own: Does a conscience not serve the same purpose.
Similarities can also be found between the two villains, Claudius and Turpin. Both villains steal something from the protagonist and use their positions of power to justify their actions. “Of those effects for which I did the murder: my crown, mine own ambition, and my queen,” Claudius confesses in defense of his heinous deeds. “A gentle man, who would shield you from all earthly cares and guide your faltering steps to the sober warmth of womanhood — a husband — a protector — and yet an ardent lover too. It is a man who through all the years has surely earned your affection,” says the Judge seductively to convince Johanna, his adopted daughter, to elope with him. In both quotes, it is obvious that the speaker is blinded from common sense by his position of power, and therefore believes he can do anything.
Todd’s wife, Lucy Barker and latter the old beggar woman, is Sweeney Todd’s version of Ophelia. Both Lucy and Ophelia are lovers to the revengers. Both also fall into madness; with Ophelia singing “He is dead and gone lady, he is dead and gone,” while Lucy sings in her own musical “Your father's at tea with the Swedish king. He'll bring you the moon on a silver string.” Both women’s deaths are also brought on by the protagonist of their respective play, with Todd slicing Lucy’s throat in a panic and Hamlet’s tirade leading Ophelia to madness and her eventual suicide.
Sweeny Todd also has it’s own version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. When the musical isn’t focused on all the bloodshed, it turns its attention to the romantic subplot between Anthony and Todd’s daughter Johanna. Although, Todd does want Anthony to take Johanna away since they are in love with each other, he still puts taking revenge on the Judge over anything else. During the “Pretty Women” scene, Todd has the Judge right where wants him and is about to exact his revenge, when suddenly Anthony bursts in and exclaims that he and Johanna are to leave tonight. The Judge, outraged, vows to never come again and storms off. Anthony, unintentionally, saved the Judge from the razor. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have the same function in Hamlet in that they attempt to protect the King from Hamlet’s revenge.
Another reason why Anthony and Johanna are the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of Sweeney Todd is their lack of intelligence. “I loved you even as I saw you, Even as it does not matter that I still don't know your name, sir:” Johanna sings, but how can someone rationally love someone without knowing one’s name? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern also lack in intelligence in that they were tricked into their demise by Hamlet.
The final character comparison to be made is between Pirelli and Polonius. First off, they are both the first to be killed in their respective plays. Second, they both serve as comic relief, whether it be Polonius talking through the Player’s rendition of Hecuba’s speech or Pirelli’s theatrics during “The Contest” scene. Third, their deaths are a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, with Polonius hiding in closet when Hamlet was at the peak of his blood lust, or Pirelli deciding to extort Todd for money right before the Judge was to see him.
Moving on from character, another aspect of tragedy that both Sweeney Todd and Hamlet share is there use of blood. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the player states, “I can’t do you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory--- they’re all blood you see.” Hamlet is filed with blood, being that he kills a lot of people. Sweeney Todd, on the other hand, is especially known for the blood. Todd doesn’t just kill his customers; he cuts their throats, which causes a substantial amount of bloodletting in a very short amount of time. Tim Burton, in fact, took this concept even further in his 2007 adaption of the musical. Stating in an interview with Entertainment Weekly: “I'd seen different Sweeney Todd productions on stage, and when they skimped on the blood, the production lost something. Everything is so internal with Sweeney that [the blood] is like his emotional release. It's more about catharsis than it is a literal thing.''
Another idea explored in Sweeney Todd that is found in plays like Hamlet, is the idea that tragedy is the great equalizer. Greek and Elizabethan tragedy always focuses on the rich and those in power to show that bad things don’t just happen to poor and normal people. For example, Hamlet is focuses it’s action on the Danish court. “How gratifying for once to know that those above will serve those below,” sings Todd, except in this case Todd is bringing the tragedy to his rich customers. This idea is further emphasized by the musical’s focus on Todd’s chair. “Is that a chair fit for a king, a wondrous neat and most particular chair? You tell me where is there a seat can half compare with this particular thing!” sings Todd as he makes the final adjustments to his fixed chair that slides his slain customers into Mrs. Loveit’s kitchen. It is very interesting that this chair is referred to as a throne, perhaps it is to let the rich be at their highest right before Todd slits their throats and sends them down to Mrs. Loveit to be cooked into pies for the poor, thereby “serving those down below.”
There is no doubt Sweeney Todd is a bloody play. If one goes beyond the blood, however, one will see that, not only is it a crowd-pleasing Broadway musical, but also a love letter to the tragedies of antiquity. It shows that no matter what medium is being used to broadcast the thoughts and ideas of an era, the genre of tragedy will have it’s place, for tragedy reflects real life, even if the story involves characters breaking out in song.
[1] Note: All references to Sweeney Todd are relevant to the 1982 Broadway production, unless otherwise noted.
A Transition from Elegant to Eccentric: Helena Bonham Carter
by Kelly Davis
Helena Bonham Carter is the prime example of a versatile actress. From Lady Jane to Bellatrix, her commitment is constant, no matter her role. Watching her play the role of Ophelia, in Franco Zeffirelli’s Hamlet, allowed me to see her more classical acting roots. Normally known for playing sadistic, bizarre characters, Carter’s portrayal of Ophelia showed a classical style of acting, much like her acting in The King’s Speech. Her lengthy career is fascinating, in that she has been able to do so much, and has been able to pull off both classical and peculiar characters. Most know Helena Bonham Carter for the dark roles she has played, but it is important to reflect on her classical roles as well. Her ability to transition is praiseworthy, and deserves reflection.
Carter’s first major role was her portrayal of Lady Jane Grey, in the 1986 film, Lady Jane. Lady Jane is a film depicting Lady Jane Grey’s illegal ascension to the throne. Not even twenty, Carter had to make the imminent execution of her character believable. She was able to purely capture the innocence of the young queen through her spot-on acting. The most innocent part of the film comes on the day of Lady Jane’s execution, when she is blindfolded and asked to kneel in order to be beheaded. The youth of the character comes through when Lady Jane is unable to find the block to place her head on to be decapitated. She whimpers and panics, and must be led to the wooden block. My stomach was in knots during the entire scene. Helena Bonham Carter’s innocence throughout the film definitely contributed to her role as Ophelia, in Franco Zeffirelli’s rendition of Hamlet.
In this portrayal of Hamlet, much like her role as Lady Jane Grey, Helena Bonham Carter’s role as Ophelia is very innocent. In the scene where she must end her courtship with Hamlet, Carter’s Ophelia displays the reactions an adolescent would act out during a tough breakup. She seems deeply distraught when she witnesses Hamlet’s madness. Every rash move Hamlet makes results in pure shock from Ophelia. Her guilt is obviously, because Ophelia seems heartbroken in deceiving Hamlet. Throughout the film, Carter is wide-eyed and is depicted as youthful and stubborn. It is easy to see how the role of Lady Jane could have led to her being cast as Ophelia. The innocence of Lady Jane is very similar to that of Ophelia. Carter’s classical ability made her a shoe-in for a Shakespearean piece. Her classical work is very often overshadowed by her more peculiar roles.
The earliest dark role I associate Helena Bonham Carter with is her role as Marla Singer in the film Fight Club. Singer is a pill-popper that feeds off of others' pain, often attending support groups for diseases she does not have, in order to feel emotion. She has short, ratty hair, a gaunt face, and dark circles under her eyes. She makes many poor decisions, and partakes in high-risk behaviors, as she is constantly smoking. This was, in my opinion, one of Helena Bonham Carter’s first major breaks from her classical, English roles. Here, her character was drippy, and lacked every bit of innocence, the complete antithesis of Lady Jane Grey or Ophelia. In my mind, Fight Club was what first showed off Carter’s unbelievable versatility. It was the beginning of her eccentricity and diversion from normalcy.
Helena Bonham Carter began her relationship with director Tim Burton in 2001. Since then, she has appeared in many of his films. Her relationship with Burton influenced her appearance in theatrically darker roles. Although Fight Club was her first dark role, her level of theatrical and character acting increased when she began seeing Tim Burton. Her first Tim Burton film appearance was in 2003, as the witch in the film Big Fish. The witch in the film could show one their future through her glass eye, which was covered by an eye patch. She did not speak in the short period that she was on screen as the witch, but the creepiness and visual impact of the character was unbelievably frightening.
Shortly after her first Tim Burton film, Helena Bonham Carter became known for her role as Bellatrix Lestrange in the Harry Potter films. Carter became well known to an entirely new crowd for her role as an immensely cruel, twisted witch that followed around the main antagonist of the series. She continued playing this character for four films, until the series’ end in 2011. In the same year as her character’s debut in the Harry Potter films, she played an equally cruel character, Mrs. Lovett, in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, which was directed by Tim Burton. In this film, Carter’s character serves meat pies, human meat that is, to her paying customers. She works alongside Johnny Depp, whose character kills the people she makes the pies. Her appearances as Bellatrix Lestrange and Mrs. Lovett serve as Carter’s two darkest roles, in a theatrical sense. She is incredibly sadistic, and believably evil. Even though she is so wicked, one ends up loving the characters, because they are so perfectly portrayed. These two characters both eventually die in their respective movies, and although one is happy to see the evil character killed, it is hard to say farewell to such a dynamic character. Helena Bonham Carter’s characters leave an impact.
In 2010, Carter returned to her more classical acting roots, playing King George VI’s wife Queen Elizabeth. The film centered on King George Vi’s real-life speech impediment, and his difficult journey on the English throne. Queen Elizabeth served as the dedicated wife, and King George VI’s constant motivator. Carter’s portrayal added spunk, freshness, and undoubted humor to the uplifting film. When portraying a real person, like she had with Lady Jane Grey, it is vital that it is done correctly. Carter was portraying the mother of the current Queen of England; that is something you do not want to mess up. Her depiction of Queen Elizabeth lived up to determined, sarcastic, and steadfast woman that Queen Elizabeth was. She was nominated for many awards for her role as Queen Elizabeth, and the movie, as a whole, won the Academy Award for “Best Picture.” She received honor from the Queen at Buckingham Palace, in 2012, for her portrayal of the Queen’s mother.
After her role in The King’s Speech, Helena Bonham Carter went back to playing well-known, theatrical roles. She played Miss Havisham in Great Expectations, and Mme. Thénardier in Les Misérables. In both roles, Carter had to take on well-known characters, which both have very specific characteristics. Miss Havisham is a lonely, old, ghost of a woman, who was left at the altar. She dresses in white rags, and serves a peculiar, protective role. Mme. Thénardier is a cruel woman that takes very poor care of the child, Cosette, that is put in her care. Her and her husband treat Cosette as a slave, and cause her harm, from time to time. Carter had to take well-known roles, and make them her own, but also the characters many know. She successfully kept each character’s known characteristics, but portrayed them her way.
Helena Bonham Carter has gone from being a run-of-mill English actress, to an actress that could make any character believable. She used her mother’s work in psychotherapy to accurately depict every character she has played, by assessing the psychological motivations of each of her roles. Her preparation for roles is much more in-depth than just merely reading the script. If she did not get so involved with the characters she plays, she would not be able to pull of such versatile roles. She dedicates all of her time to being one with any character she must portray.
Looking through her lengthy career, it is easy to see clear transitions between each character’s genre. She can portray any character she is given. Although she has more recently been given more unconventional character roles, it is important to know her classical past. Many are unaware of Carter’s traditional origins, which make her past and current work more impressive. She can do it all, and can do it all well. She is a remarkable actress, and the face of versatility.
by Kelly Davis
Helena Bonham Carter is the prime example of a versatile actress. From Lady Jane to Bellatrix, her commitment is constant, no matter her role. Watching her play the role of Ophelia, in Franco Zeffirelli’s Hamlet, allowed me to see her more classical acting roots. Normally known for playing sadistic, bizarre characters, Carter’s portrayal of Ophelia showed a classical style of acting, much like her acting in The King’s Speech. Her lengthy career is fascinating, in that she has been able to do so much, and has been able to pull off both classical and peculiar characters. Most know Helena Bonham Carter for the dark roles she has played, but it is important to reflect on her classical roles as well. Her ability to transition is praiseworthy, and deserves reflection.
Carter’s first major role was her portrayal of Lady Jane Grey, in the 1986 film, Lady Jane. Lady Jane is a film depicting Lady Jane Grey’s illegal ascension to the throne. Not even twenty, Carter had to make the imminent execution of her character believable. She was able to purely capture the innocence of the young queen through her spot-on acting. The most innocent part of the film comes on the day of Lady Jane’s execution, when she is blindfolded and asked to kneel in order to be beheaded. The youth of the character comes through when Lady Jane is unable to find the block to place her head on to be decapitated. She whimpers and panics, and must be led to the wooden block. My stomach was in knots during the entire scene. Helena Bonham Carter’s innocence throughout the film definitely contributed to her role as Ophelia, in Franco Zeffirelli’s rendition of Hamlet.
In this portrayal of Hamlet, much like her role as Lady Jane Grey, Helena Bonham Carter’s role as Ophelia is very innocent. In the scene where she must end her courtship with Hamlet, Carter’s Ophelia displays the reactions an adolescent would act out during a tough breakup. She seems deeply distraught when she witnesses Hamlet’s madness. Every rash move Hamlet makes results in pure shock from Ophelia. Her guilt is obviously, because Ophelia seems heartbroken in deceiving Hamlet. Throughout the film, Carter is wide-eyed and is depicted as youthful and stubborn. It is easy to see how the role of Lady Jane could have led to her being cast as Ophelia. The innocence of Lady Jane is very similar to that of Ophelia. Carter’s classical ability made her a shoe-in for a Shakespearean piece. Her classical work is very often overshadowed by her more peculiar roles.
The earliest dark role I associate Helena Bonham Carter with is her role as Marla Singer in the film Fight Club. Singer is a pill-popper that feeds off of others' pain, often attending support groups for diseases she does not have, in order to feel emotion. She has short, ratty hair, a gaunt face, and dark circles under her eyes. She makes many poor decisions, and partakes in high-risk behaviors, as she is constantly smoking. This was, in my opinion, one of Helena Bonham Carter’s first major breaks from her classical, English roles. Here, her character was drippy, and lacked every bit of innocence, the complete antithesis of Lady Jane Grey or Ophelia. In my mind, Fight Club was what first showed off Carter’s unbelievable versatility. It was the beginning of her eccentricity and diversion from normalcy.
Helena Bonham Carter began her relationship with director Tim Burton in 2001. Since then, she has appeared in many of his films. Her relationship with Burton influenced her appearance in theatrically darker roles. Although Fight Club was her first dark role, her level of theatrical and character acting increased when she began seeing Tim Burton. Her first Tim Burton film appearance was in 2003, as the witch in the film Big Fish. The witch in the film could show one their future through her glass eye, which was covered by an eye patch. She did not speak in the short period that she was on screen as the witch, but the creepiness and visual impact of the character was unbelievably frightening.
Shortly after her first Tim Burton film, Helena Bonham Carter became known for her role as Bellatrix Lestrange in the Harry Potter films. Carter became well known to an entirely new crowd for her role as an immensely cruel, twisted witch that followed around the main antagonist of the series. She continued playing this character for four films, until the series’ end in 2011. In the same year as her character’s debut in the Harry Potter films, she played an equally cruel character, Mrs. Lovett, in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, which was directed by Tim Burton. In this film, Carter’s character serves meat pies, human meat that is, to her paying customers. She works alongside Johnny Depp, whose character kills the people she makes the pies. Her appearances as Bellatrix Lestrange and Mrs. Lovett serve as Carter’s two darkest roles, in a theatrical sense. She is incredibly sadistic, and believably evil. Even though she is so wicked, one ends up loving the characters, because they are so perfectly portrayed. These two characters both eventually die in their respective movies, and although one is happy to see the evil character killed, it is hard to say farewell to such a dynamic character. Helena Bonham Carter’s characters leave an impact.
In 2010, Carter returned to her more classical acting roots, playing King George VI’s wife Queen Elizabeth. The film centered on King George Vi’s real-life speech impediment, and his difficult journey on the English throne. Queen Elizabeth served as the dedicated wife, and King George VI’s constant motivator. Carter’s portrayal added spunk, freshness, and undoubted humor to the uplifting film. When portraying a real person, like she had with Lady Jane Grey, it is vital that it is done correctly. Carter was portraying the mother of the current Queen of England; that is something you do not want to mess up. Her depiction of Queen Elizabeth lived up to determined, sarcastic, and steadfast woman that Queen Elizabeth was. She was nominated for many awards for her role as Queen Elizabeth, and the movie, as a whole, won the Academy Award for “Best Picture.” She received honor from the Queen at Buckingham Palace, in 2012, for her portrayal of the Queen’s mother.
After her role in The King’s Speech, Helena Bonham Carter went back to playing well-known, theatrical roles. She played Miss Havisham in Great Expectations, and Mme. Thénardier in Les Misérables. In both roles, Carter had to take on well-known characters, which both have very specific characteristics. Miss Havisham is a lonely, old, ghost of a woman, who was left at the altar. She dresses in white rags, and serves a peculiar, protective role. Mme. Thénardier is a cruel woman that takes very poor care of the child, Cosette, that is put in her care. Her and her husband treat Cosette as a slave, and cause her harm, from time to time. Carter had to take well-known roles, and make them her own, but also the characters many know. She successfully kept each character’s known characteristics, but portrayed them her way.
Helena Bonham Carter has gone from being a run-of-mill English actress, to an actress that could make any character believable. She used her mother’s work in psychotherapy to accurately depict every character she has played, by assessing the psychological motivations of each of her roles. Her preparation for roles is much more in-depth than just merely reading the script. If she did not get so involved with the characters she plays, she would not be able to pull of such versatile roles. She dedicates all of her time to being one with any character she must portray.
Looking through her lengthy career, it is easy to see clear transitions between each character’s genre. She can portray any character she is given. Although she has more recently been given more unconventional character roles, it is important to know her classical past. Many are unaware of Carter’s traditional origins, which make her past and current work more impressive. She can do it all, and can do it all well. She is a remarkable actress, and the face of versatility.
Want to Live Forever?
by Nihad Musovic
All our lives there’s been talk of the gangland myth of the fountain of youth, the dream of living forever. We chase the notion, no matter how unreal we know it truly is. Some of us move on from that notion, but we often still stop and wonder if anyone would remember us when were gone. Then you slowly come to the realization; we have already found the antidote for life. Story telling, it’s the elixir of life, the fountain of youth, the dream of living forever. It has been around from the beginning of time. Pictures drawn on walls, words carved on stone, kids gossiping on the play ground, are all perfect examples of story telling. How could something never lose its importance? Simply because it is the most important thing humans have ever created. Story telling has altered this world permanently, and we wouldn’t be where we are without it. The importance of story telling is duly noted in many literary works such as Big Fish and Hamlet. Using these two literary masterpieces, I will exemplify the importance of story telling in both modern and historical culture.
Big Fish, a novel made into a film, tells a story about a man’s life. In the telling of his life, there are multiple narrators who take us through the many stories and happenings of Edward Bloom’s life. These stories aren’t your usual stories; they delve much deeper than the normal eye could see. Edward Bloom told his son, Will, stories about his life from when he was a very young man until he reached his ripe old age. He fascinated him with these tales of grandeur. These stories ranged from all moments in his life, fantastic ones, and some much less fantastic, but no matter the story, Edward found a way to make the listeners stand on the edge of their seats. His son believed these stories and loved them to an unimaginable extent. However, the older Will got, the less he believed these stories. The truth was, most of Edward’s stories were real, but he exaggerated them to make them seem wonderful, because he believed, “Most men, they'll tell you a story straight through. It won't be complicated, but it won't be interesting either.” (Big Fish) His son disagreed with him greatly; he yearned to know the real truth about his father’s life. They disconnected due to this disagreement, Edward and Will chose not to speak to each other for years, simply because they were too different from each other. They probably would have never spoken, had Edward not developed a very bad cancer that was due to take his life in a very short period of time. Will goes to live with his father in his last few weeks and even in those circumstances, they argue about the truth and how Will needs to hear the real stories. His father sticks to his stories though, swears that they are nothing but the truth. As the film moves on and his life unravels before our eyes, Will comes to face the facts that the stories will never change, but he also comes to start believing the stories again. Will meets some of the people from his fathers past, and most of them confirm the stories to be true. The ending of the film proves that most of his stories were indeed true, just dressed up with a little more glitter than one would usually sparkle on. Famous author Alan Moore, writer of V for Vendetta, sums up what Edward was trying to do the whole time. He believes, ““Artists use lies to tell the truth. Yes, I created a lie. But because you believed it, you found something true about yourself.” Will fully realizes everything these stories meant to his father, and his ending line in the movie wraps it all up, “A man tells his stories so many times that he becomes the stories. They live on after him, and in that way he becomes immortal.” Will becomes appreciative of his father stories, knowing that it wasn’t all about the details that mattered, it was the fact that someone was willing to listen and pass the story on.
In Hamlet, we find a prince who has lost his wits, and rightfully so. His uncle, Claudius, murdered his father, and his mother then married his uncle. His whole life was turned upside down and he turns mad trying to sort it out. Hamlet, much like Will, cannot believe his father’s story at first. He cannot figure out if his father’s ghost was a demon or an angelic figure, and was torn on what he should do. He springs into action ever so carefully just so he could make sure his father’s story was indeed the truth. Hamlet proves Claudius to be the killer, and is fed up with the way he is being treated. Revenge is the only dish he feels that is right to serve to his betraying uncle and mother. He never truly gets to set his plan of revenge on fire because his uncle was quicker in deciding he should kill Hamlet first. In a scene that has chaos written all over it, Hamlet, Claudius, his mother, and Laertes all die. Right before Hamlet dies a very painful poisoned death, he grabs his best friend Horatio and says, “Absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain, to tell my story.” (Hamlet Act V Scene 2) Hamlet needed the public to know that he died fighting a valiant battle. A battle that ensured justice was the only reason being for his killings of a king and queen. Hamlet died knowing his story would be told for generations to come, and that was fine by him.
In both these examples we see the meaning of story telling come to life. It is the only after life we know of, and it’s the only way we can ensure we make it there. Society has thrived off of storytelling. Some of the worlds most revered historical figures were built up upon legends wilder than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. George Washington has wooden teeth, Abraham Lincoln could not tell a lie, Moses split the red sea, Mary conceived baby Jesus without having sex, and the list goes on and on. Imagine that we didn’t believe in the stories. Catholicism, along with many other religions would not exist, past presidents would just be plain men, and Moses would have disappointed a lot of Jewish people. It’s crazy to think that people fully believe in the stories, because they don’t, but they do believe in enough of it to see the truth behind the grand mess of things. The point in all these stories is to find the silver lining, the reason why they were told in the first place. They all hold value, no matter how ridiculous they may seem. The proof is in the outcomes of each of these stories. The massive effect they had on history is unbelievable. Imagine no one passed these stories on? They would’ve died right then and there.
Storytelling, at the root of both these literary examples, was indeed the main theme. Hamlet was a play dominated with revenge and other things, but perhaps that last line unlocks the reader into a whole other thought process. Big Fish was a film and novel littered with storytelling and its sheer importance in our lives. Storytelling will always be a staple of our lives, and its clear we wouldn’t be in the position we are in now without it. History wouldn’t exist, the bible would be unwritten, books would be worthless, and movie theatres would be nonexistent. As humans we yearn for stories, both false and true. We can never get enough of them because of their importance in our lives. They’ve changed history, rewritten the past, and mold our future. Stories have comforted us to sleep when we were toddlers, and they keep us wide-awake at night as adults. Perhaps the story doesn’t have to be as grand as they were in Big Fish, or as starkly true as Hamlet’s, but the stories must be told. At the very worst, you’re remembered for years to come, and at the best, you have mass amounts of people following you as the next Jesus Christ. No one put it better than renowned author, Sue Monk Kidd, “Stories have to be told or they die, and when they die, we can't remember who we are or why we're here.” Stories are there to comfort us, make us believe, and sometimes change our lives. They can bring a son and father apart, they can set a man to lose his mind and kill the royal family, have millions of people believe in a movement, change the course of history, and make for an ending that is worth waiting to hear. What’s vital to realize is that storytelling truly is the elixir of life. So long as our stories are heard and told, we have the chance of living on forever.
Bibliography:
Wallace, Daniel. Big Fish: A Novel of Mythic Proportions. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 1998. Print.
Shakespeare, William, and Harold Jenkins. Hamlet. London: Methuen, 1982. Print.
by Nihad Musovic
All our lives there’s been talk of the gangland myth of the fountain of youth, the dream of living forever. We chase the notion, no matter how unreal we know it truly is. Some of us move on from that notion, but we often still stop and wonder if anyone would remember us when were gone. Then you slowly come to the realization; we have already found the antidote for life. Story telling, it’s the elixir of life, the fountain of youth, the dream of living forever. It has been around from the beginning of time. Pictures drawn on walls, words carved on stone, kids gossiping on the play ground, are all perfect examples of story telling. How could something never lose its importance? Simply because it is the most important thing humans have ever created. Story telling has altered this world permanently, and we wouldn’t be where we are without it. The importance of story telling is duly noted in many literary works such as Big Fish and Hamlet. Using these two literary masterpieces, I will exemplify the importance of story telling in both modern and historical culture.
Big Fish, a novel made into a film, tells a story about a man’s life. In the telling of his life, there are multiple narrators who take us through the many stories and happenings of Edward Bloom’s life. These stories aren’t your usual stories; they delve much deeper than the normal eye could see. Edward Bloom told his son, Will, stories about his life from when he was a very young man until he reached his ripe old age. He fascinated him with these tales of grandeur. These stories ranged from all moments in his life, fantastic ones, and some much less fantastic, but no matter the story, Edward found a way to make the listeners stand on the edge of their seats. His son believed these stories and loved them to an unimaginable extent. However, the older Will got, the less he believed these stories. The truth was, most of Edward’s stories were real, but he exaggerated them to make them seem wonderful, because he believed, “Most men, they'll tell you a story straight through. It won't be complicated, but it won't be interesting either.” (Big Fish) His son disagreed with him greatly; he yearned to know the real truth about his father’s life. They disconnected due to this disagreement, Edward and Will chose not to speak to each other for years, simply because they were too different from each other. They probably would have never spoken, had Edward not developed a very bad cancer that was due to take his life in a very short period of time. Will goes to live with his father in his last few weeks and even in those circumstances, they argue about the truth and how Will needs to hear the real stories. His father sticks to his stories though, swears that they are nothing but the truth. As the film moves on and his life unravels before our eyes, Will comes to face the facts that the stories will never change, but he also comes to start believing the stories again. Will meets some of the people from his fathers past, and most of them confirm the stories to be true. The ending of the film proves that most of his stories were indeed true, just dressed up with a little more glitter than one would usually sparkle on. Famous author Alan Moore, writer of V for Vendetta, sums up what Edward was trying to do the whole time. He believes, ““Artists use lies to tell the truth. Yes, I created a lie. But because you believed it, you found something true about yourself.” Will fully realizes everything these stories meant to his father, and his ending line in the movie wraps it all up, “A man tells his stories so many times that he becomes the stories. They live on after him, and in that way he becomes immortal.” Will becomes appreciative of his father stories, knowing that it wasn’t all about the details that mattered, it was the fact that someone was willing to listen and pass the story on.
In Hamlet, we find a prince who has lost his wits, and rightfully so. His uncle, Claudius, murdered his father, and his mother then married his uncle. His whole life was turned upside down and he turns mad trying to sort it out. Hamlet, much like Will, cannot believe his father’s story at first. He cannot figure out if his father’s ghost was a demon or an angelic figure, and was torn on what he should do. He springs into action ever so carefully just so he could make sure his father’s story was indeed the truth. Hamlet proves Claudius to be the killer, and is fed up with the way he is being treated. Revenge is the only dish he feels that is right to serve to his betraying uncle and mother. He never truly gets to set his plan of revenge on fire because his uncle was quicker in deciding he should kill Hamlet first. In a scene that has chaos written all over it, Hamlet, Claudius, his mother, and Laertes all die. Right before Hamlet dies a very painful poisoned death, he grabs his best friend Horatio and says, “Absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain, to tell my story.” (Hamlet Act V Scene 2) Hamlet needed the public to know that he died fighting a valiant battle. A battle that ensured justice was the only reason being for his killings of a king and queen. Hamlet died knowing his story would be told for generations to come, and that was fine by him.
In both these examples we see the meaning of story telling come to life. It is the only after life we know of, and it’s the only way we can ensure we make it there. Society has thrived off of storytelling. Some of the worlds most revered historical figures were built up upon legends wilder than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. George Washington has wooden teeth, Abraham Lincoln could not tell a lie, Moses split the red sea, Mary conceived baby Jesus without having sex, and the list goes on and on. Imagine that we didn’t believe in the stories. Catholicism, along with many other religions would not exist, past presidents would just be plain men, and Moses would have disappointed a lot of Jewish people. It’s crazy to think that people fully believe in the stories, because they don’t, but they do believe in enough of it to see the truth behind the grand mess of things. The point in all these stories is to find the silver lining, the reason why they were told in the first place. They all hold value, no matter how ridiculous they may seem. The proof is in the outcomes of each of these stories. The massive effect they had on history is unbelievable. Imagine no one passed these stories on? They would’ve died right then and there.
Storytelling, at the root of both these literary examples, was indeed the main theme. Hamlet was a play dominated with revenge and other things, but perhaps that last line unlocks the reader into a whole other thought process. Big Fish was a film and novel littered with storytelling and its sheer importance in our lives. Storytelling will always be a staple of our lives, and its clear we wouldn’t be in the position we are in now without it. History wouldn’t exist, the bible would be unwritten, books would be worthless, and movie theatres would be nonexistent. As humans we yearn for stories, both false and true. We can never get enough of them because of their importance in our lives. They’ve changed history, rewritten the past, and mold our future. Stories have comforted us to sleep when we were toddlers, and they keep us wide-awake at night as adults. Perhaps the story doesn’t have to be as grand as they were in Big Fish, or as starkly true as Hamlet’s, but the stories must be told. At the very worst, you’re remembered for years to come, and at the best, you have mass amounts of people following you as the next Jesus Christ. No one put it better than renowned author, Sue Monk Kidd, “Stories have to be told or they die, and when they die, we can't remember who we are or why we're here.” Stories are there to comfort us, make us believe, and sometimes change our lives. They can bring a son and father apart, they can set a man to lose his mind and kill the royal family, have millions of people believe in a movement, change the course of history, and make for an ending that is worth waiting to hear. What’s vital to realize is that storytelling truly is the elixir of life. So long as our stories are heard and told, we have the chance of living on forever.
Bibliography:
Wallace, Daniel. Big Fish: A Novel of Mythic Proportions. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 1998. Print.
Shakespeare, William, and Harold Jenkins. Hamlet. London: Methuen, 1982. Print.
