Magnifying and applying come I,
Outbidding at the start the old cautious hucksters,
Taking myself the exact dimensions of Jehovah,
Lithographing Kronos, Zeus his son, and Hercules his grandson,
Buying drafts of Osiris, Isis, Belus, Brahma, Buddha,
In my portfolio placing Manito loose, Allah on a leaf, the crucifix
With Odin and the hideous-faced Mexitli and every idol and image,
Taking them all for what they are worth and not a cent more,
Admitting they were alive and did the work of their days,
(They bore mites as for unfledg'd birds who have now to rise and fly
and sing for themselves,)
Accepting the rough deific sketches to fill out better in myself,
bestowing them freely on each man and woman I see,
Discovering as much or more in a framer framing a house,
Putting higher claims for him there with his roll'd-up sleeves
driving the mallet and chisel,
Not objecting to special revelations, considering a curl of smoke or
a hair on the back of my hand just as curious as any revelation,
Lads ahold of fire-engines and hook-and-ladder ropes no less to me
than the gods of the antique wars,
Minding their voices peal through the crash of destruction,
Their brawny limbs passing safe over charr'd laths, their white
foreheads whole and unhurt out of the flames;
By the mechanic's wife with her babe at her nipple interceding for
every person born,
Three scythes at harvest whizzing in a row from three lusty angels
with shirts bagg'd out at their waists,
The snag-tooth'd hostler with red hair redeeming sins past and to come,
Selling all he possesses, traveling on foot to fee lawyers for his
brother and sit by him while he is tried for forgery;
What was strewn in the amplest strewing the square rod about me, and
not filling the square rod then,
The bull and the bug never worshipp'd half enough,
Dung and dirt more admirable than was dream'd,
The supernatural of no account, myself waiting my time to be one of
The day getting ready for me when I shall do as much good as the
best, and be as prodigious;
By my life-lumps!
I believe in those wing'd purposes,
And acknowledge red, yellow, white, playing within me,
And consider green and violet and the tufted crown intentional,
And do not call the tortoise unworthy because she is not something else,
And the in the woods never studied the gamut, yet trills pretty well to me,
And the look of the bay mare shames silliness out of me.
"The Lion King" changes my perspective on Hamlet because as an allegory, it represents some of the major people in any individual's life (such as Rafiki, meaning friend and Nala meaning gift), and throughout the movie, they continue to embody those roles. Everyone has a constant friend in their lives, assisting them relentlessly, and a person they consider a gift, who changes their life in a more positive direction. At the same time, you can replace characters from Hamlet with characters from "The Lion King," for instance, Mufasa is Hamlet's father and Nala is Ophelia. This is interesting because you really can parallel these two seemingly very different stories. I did not realize "The Lion King" was based on the plotline of Hamlet until I read the book, which gave me a new perspective on what the stories represented and how they interact with one another. You can see the contemplation in both Simba and Hamlet's minds as they plan their courses of revenge against their uncles and how both characters do embody naivete that only Simba has the chance to outgrow. However, if a lesson were to be learned, it would probably be found in the morals "The Lion King" has to offer.
Looking deeper in to Hamlet I realize it is just too far-fetched to truly believe it. Any son, believing his father was unrightfully killed, would have exposed his death to society, but of course reckless Hamlet chose to use the most round-a-bout procedure in uncovering his uncle. In "The Lion King," the young Simba was tricked into feeling responsible for his father's death, so he fled, but once he realized Scar's deception, he immediately returned to Pride Rock to attain what was rightfully his and restore his lands. In reality, Simba was far braver and smarter than Hamlet ever was because the lengths he went to reestablish his old life in the name of his father were phenomenal. Hamlet was known to be crazy and insane because of his self-destructive thoughts, which drove Ophelia to her death. Almost all the actions in this play seem to be the most extreme and radical of behaviors, which is frankly unrealistic.
Hamlet and Simba Hamlet and The Lion King - Free Essays, Term Papers, Research Hamlet and The Lion King Many perceive The Lion King, Disney's most successful movie to date, as Disney's only original movie; the only movie not previously a Hamlet vs Lion King Essay - 593 Words - StudyMode Hamlet vs Lion King Essay.
Disney's, "The Lion King," an adaptation of William Shakespeare's, Hamlet, is the story of the "circle of life." Beginning with the birth of Simba, the movie embodies symbolically similar characters to that of Hamlet. The death of Simba's father, Mufasa, at the start of the movie was planned out by Scar, the king's brother, in order to assume the thrown. Scared, believing he was responsible for his father's death, Simba fled claiming he would never return, while Scar basked in his stolen authority. Upon making friends and growing up far from his homeland of Pride Rock, Simba learns of Scar's transgressions through his father's spirit and plans to avenge his death with the song, "I just can't wait to be king!" Meanwhile, Scar is destroying what was left of the lands as an evil dictator. With Simba's homecoming, he turned Scar's loyal army of silly hyenas against him, and eventually forced Scar to fall to his deserved death after all the animals were aware of his crime. Simba becomes the rightful king and the "circle of life" is completed with a newborn male lion and a sunrise of a new optimistic day to come.
Although there is a clear parallel between the play Hamlet and the movie, "The Lion King," the adaptation was made for a family audience so young children can also be included; therefore, with a milder plotline and the "happily ever after" conclusion, the darker themes of Hamlet were for the most part forgotten and the movie itself can stand on its own. Hamlet relied heavily on the themes and ideas of vengeance, murder, and selfish motivations; however, the only theme truly explicitly represented to "The Lion King" audience was the selfish agenda Scar had to become king by murdering his brother. Even this simple reference was stifled by Simba's retaliation, which was glorified through song and dance about becoming the next king after Scar was out of the picture for good. All actions in the movie were justified. In addition, animals, especially lions, are expected to be a bit more vicious than humans; therefore, the occurrence of death is more inevitable in "The Lion King" than in Hamlet.
"The Lion King" can stand on its own as a classic childhood movie that represents some common morals, such as "good always conquerors evil" and, as Simba puts it, "Step down... or fight!" Functioning on its own, this movie represents a small lion persevering against all odds and acting out for the common good of all the lions and other animals of the kingdom, whereas Hamlet is a tragedy, leaving most of the characters, both protagonists and antagonists, deceased at the end, including Hamlet himself. The film also is a circular narrative that teaches children of birth, rebirth, and death, some natural life occurrences in a foreign setting. Choosing to use Africa as the setting for this animation was a great learning tool as well because the grandiose and vivid color and abundance of exotic animals made children engrossed in the piece. The light versus dark aspects of the film forced kids into realizing the difference between good and bad and how to triumph when unethically wronged.
In reference to the original, Hamlet, "The Lion King" is clearly not a tragedy, and although life does not always have a happy ending like the Disney film depicted, Shakespeare's original version ends in almost complete and utter despair. In a way the story was almost static with constant betrayal, sadness, and murder, which is increasingly depressing and morbid and not totally accurate either. In retrospect, Hamlet was actually really naive and made impromptu decisions that caused far more destruction than good. For example, when he blindly stabbed Polonius through the curtain while he was talking to his mother, he instigated far more chaos to ensue because Polonius' blood was now on his hands and his head on the chopping block. If he had simply checked behind the curtain initially, he probably would have been alive at the end of the story, still attempting to avenge his father by killing the evil Claudius. This play was a string of random, extensively coincidental actions linked together; creating some sort of hectic story that was taken to rather drastic and unnecessary measures.
"The Lion King" was a far better representation of Hamlet even though it was the modern version because it included a more perfect balance of tragedy (with Mufasa's death) and success (with Simba becoming the victorious king and continuing the "circle of life"), whereas Hamlet was predominantly heartbreak and relentless desolation. The animated flick was a more accurate vision of life and death, despite its animated decor, anthropomorphized animals, and odd interactions.
Hamlet and The Lion King are two literary works in which the characters and Comparison of The Lion King and Hamlet | Kibin Get ideas from this essay and see how your work stacks up.