Hamlet is the greatest. He is the ultimate person; completely aware of his own inner workings. I read once that the sign of a deep person is when he can not keep all his thoughts in his head, even when no one can hear him.Originally Posted by Janine
The only thing worse than the thought that it may all come tumbling down is the thought that we may go on like this forever
-Violet('Feed' by M.T. Anderson)-
There is something greatly claustrophobic and disturbing in Hamlet with regards to the construction (or the dithering) of the play. We are party to the guilt of Claudius and have to, along with Hamlet “play along” with this man’s speech and character, even though we are sure in the knowledge that he is a murderer. Added to this is the stench of incest between Claudio and Gertrude, and indeed between Ophelia and Laertes, we are party to this as well – as well as the plotting to ensnare Hamlet. So as the play slowly develops this anxiousness of feeling is only increased, bit by bit, very slowly, and it is a very dark and uncomfortable feeling. Even now thinking about this has an affect on me, it is quite a disturbing and it pulls you into the perfect atmosphere in which to explore some of Hamlet’s musings on life and death.
With this in mind therefore to start editing chunks of the play because it is “too long” just seems entirely ridiculous to say the least and people may be missing the point altogether. I could well understand that for certain types of performance, but as a whole the feeling which is communicated to me by a reading or viewing of this play is one that I wouldn’t change a bit, to even think of it is nearly as disturbing as the play itself.
WHOA! Stop right there!
For one; Hamlet does not "Whine" if you've noticed he does not say any of this to other people(except the "I have of late, etc" to Rosencrants And Guildenstern). He does not seek pity from anyone. As for Macbeth, he is just some powerhungry brute who folds under peer pressure and feels too guilty to fess up. Hamlet may not be ale to make a decision, but could you say you would be able to kill your mothers husband so qiuckly. Hamlet is Human, he defies the stereotypical vengeful heroes who rush in, guns blazing, moments after they find something out.. Hamlet is also torn because of his feelings for Ophelia and has no one urging him on unlike Macbeth. (No offence, Macbeth is a great play)
The only thing worse than the thought that it may all come tumbling down is the thought that we may go on like this forever
-Violet('Feed' by M.T. Anderson)-
My main quarrel with Hamlet I guess, apart from the feeling that Julius Caesar keeps creeping in, is that as tragic hero, we are meant to sympathise with him. Everyone takes that interpretation- why? Hamlet is narcissistic and immature- he doesn't want to avenge his father's death for a good reason; he is just disgusted that his mother would choose Claudius as a sexual partner. He turns Ophelia mad because he just toys with her...he doesn't want to make decisions because then he'd have to act, make a choice. He'd be a dreadful king.
I loved the gravestone bit- here is a bit where we feel real sympathy for Hamlet, as he is a sort of outsider in a corrupt world.
Hamlet also bugs me because it doesn't have a great tragic structure- it's an epic, but not an acute tragedy.
What you are reading is not every word of the play. Everybody is obsessed with the idea that Shakespeare is untouchable. There's loads of disputed lines/meanings in Hamlet.
Maybe if I watch a decent production, the text may not seem so convoluted. I understand that Polonius is supposed to be a convoluted character and Orsic unnecessarily formal/ornate.
I will come back and answers other's posts later on. I don't have the time currently, but I am highly interested in this debate/discussion. I like what you all have said.
Kelby, first off Hamlet is not equipped to be judge and jury; he is mearly a man and a scholar, educated and trained in some physical defense such as fencing. What I am trying to say is that Hamlet is refined and has been brought up with refinement and sent to school in England. He is a trained lawyer or anyone reading to pass judgement on another human being. He therefore, needs to take the time to be sure his uncle is indeed the culprit and murderer that the ghost has proclaimed him to be. The ghost could be a farce himself; an imposter. Read the scene, when Hamlet first encounters the ghost of his supposed father carefully, and you will see clearly the warnings of what the ghost may and may not be. No one in that scene truly knows if the ghost is to be believed. Hamlet believes it at first, but then he falls back into being unsure of it's truthfulness or it's validity as his true father's ghost. Hamlet has a questioning sort of mind. Now, here lies 'the shadow of doubt' that would be present in a court of law. Think of this as a trial and Hamlet is forced to play the lawyer, witnesses, jurors, and the judge, not to mention the executioner. Now take his hands and bind them behind his back (enter the conniving king, Polonius, Ophelia, even his mother, not to mention his two school chums); now he has to go about this all alone (he has been alienated from all he once loved). He must also hatch a plain to revenge his father's death; if he find his uncle truly guilty. I guess, if any one of us had this task before us, it would pose the greatest of dilemas.
Think of the characters as the witnesses that Hamlet must interview and seek out the answers from. First off, Ophelia's motives are not quite clear. It used to bother me to think that Ophelia was cut off so brutally, until I thought greatly on the subject. Ophelia is not so unspotted herself. First off, right after telling her brother she will keep their discussion "locked forever" inside her breast or heart, she turns around and tells her father what they were secretly speaking of - "something concerning our Lord Hamlet"...so, is she being untruthful to her brother in being truthful to her father? She is definitely caught in the middle here. It comes right on the heals, of the the words she swore to her brother, that she reveals her affections and Hamlet's for her to her questioning father; she also swears to her father not to have anything further to do with Hamlet; then later he sets her up to meet with Hamlet; so right there Polonius is false. She then involves herself in the plot that Polonius hatches, with King Claudius, to spy on her boyfriend...not a nice thing to do, if you think about it. She also says to Hamlet first - "here are the letters, I have long wished to return to you"...now if that is not blantant rejection, I am not sure what is. Everyone thinks that Ophelia is the one being rejected, but in truth is she? Didn't she strike a blow to Hamlet's heart in returning his letters? I think this part of that scene is a sort of turning point for Hamlet. He softens to her one minute, and then rejects her the next, but if you read the lines carefully, he is rejected as well. He is spied on and he counts her into that conspiracy ring against him, when he realises her father is indeed "not at home!" Polonius is a 'pratting fool' and it's clear to see that from the beginning. He is very two-faced. He gives his son what seems like sound advice on the subject of his living abroad and then he gets Renaldo to spy on him in France in a backhand sort of maner. He follows Hamlet around trying to get to the bottom of Hamlet's supposed madness, but what made Polonius into this obnoxious snoop? He did it himself. He offers his services to the king - why? Is he trying to advance himself in the King's favors? He is not so noble a person, afterall. The stabbing behind the aris is not something intended for Polonius. Hamlet says in that scene, that being busy is sometimes a dangerous thing. If you found some man in your mother's bed chamber, wouldn't you think it a bit odd? Also Hamlet is now convinced the king killed his father; he has the proof in the play and his uncle's blantant reaction. He believes this to be Claudius and then takes action only to find out the 'pratting fool' is behind the aris.
Definitely that would help. I think a full reading, or better yet a full viewing of this play on film would aid you greatly in understanding the little nuances of speak, that have such great importance in this play. I would recommend either Kenneth Branagh's full length 4 hour production, which is stunning or the earlier Derek Jacobi BBS version, which is also the entire text. Forgo and I reiterate this, any of the cut versions; because many of the important elements of the play are left out and that may be why you can't understand other elements and their significance, which adds up to more than a fruitless epic but a great tragedy -Shakespeare's very best.Maybe if I watch a decent production, the text may not seem so convoluted. I understand that Polonius is supposed to be a convoluted character and Orsic unnecessarily formal/ornate.
As to comparing Hamlet with Macbeth, first off Macbeth is driven onto murder by his wife and once out of control he continues on that course of wrong action. It is tragic for everyone in the play, even Macbeth himself. However, the crafting of the play is not as fine tuned as in Hamlet in my and many others' opinions. I believe Hamlet to be Shakespeare's finest production; his finest hour.
Last edited by Janine; 10-20-2009 at 03:46 PM.
"It's so mysterious, the land of tears."
Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Hamlet was a student at Wittenberg, and not a lawyer as far as I remember.
Nonetheless, considering the nature of academia of that period we can think of Hamlet as someone who is probably one part Christian theologian and one part logician. I agree with Janine that he is definitely bound by his past to search for proof. Moreover, he is caught between two conflicting forces, the immorality of vengeance, and his father's request. I find his dithering perfectly understandable.
I hope you didn't think I was implying Hamlet was a lawyer or even studying to be one. I was using it as an example of what was expected of him when really he was a scholar and probably - my guess would be - studied literature and languages; not law at all. Hamlet was polished. He was upstanding and he was fair-minded. He was smart and knew not to accuse anyone of his father's murder until he had solid proof. The proof was in the play he stages for the sole sake of his uncle and mother.
Thanks OrphanPip, for giving credence to what I have said. I agree with your assessment of his studies. He was learned and he was introspective and theological in his thinking. This is evident from his speeches and inner dialogues, when he is questioning what is happening around him and then his deeper questioning concerning life and death, mortality and immortality. Absolutely, he needs proof before he can act; even then he must think first how to act and not do it rashly, as for instance, Macbeth does and later pays the ultimate price for. Hamlet does die at the end and his life is lost. Hamlet wants to live; he never truly wishes to die. He has a lot going for himself, but by the ending of the play everything is lost, including his kingdom; this is the true tragedy. I don't think there is any other way that this play could have ended. It seemed to me the logical conclusion. Hamlet's loses began with his father, then he lost the love of his girlfriend, then his mother, his girlfriend's brother (who he also refers to before the duel as 'my brother'), his two friends from school (whom he may not have been that close to but whom I would assume he had at one time trusted). He is stripped of all of closeness to himself, all but Horatio and Horatio is employed by Hamlet to stay alive to tell of all he has seen and knows to be true. Hamlet's death is inevidable in my own opinion; so that when it happens at the end it is no great surprise the play will end in this tragic way.Nonetheless, considering the nature of academia of that period we can think of Hamlet as someone who is probably one part Christian theologian and one part logician. I agree with Janine that he is definitely bound by his past to search for proof. Moreover, he is caught between two conflicting forces, the immorality of vengeance, and his father's request. I find his dithering perfectly understandable.
The dithering that some say he is doing is to me not dithering or whining at all but carefully planned out logical thinking on Hamlet's part to get to the real root of this deception and murder and find the proof to reveal his uncle as the true villan. Along the way, things go wrong which leads to unexpected actions which divert Hamlet from his true course. Eventually, all comes full circle and Hamlet's father is avenged.
Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Maybe he's sort of struggling to be rational and thus is fighting his human/emotional side. Cassius is politically minded but his love for Brutus' Roman honour means that they let Marc Antony speak- bad move.
If you are talking about Hamlet, there is definitely a conflict there. The whole play is driven by conflict between logic/rationalization and emotions. Now, as far as Julius C is concerned, I have never read the play; although, I well know the history behind it. I don't know how to compare the two here. They don't really seem to line up for me personally.Maybe he's sort of struggling to be rational and thus is fighting his human/emotional side
Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
The idea of Denmark being 'rotten' and a 'prison' echoes Cassius' view on Rome: 'What trash is Rome!'
Julius Caesar's actually referenced- Hamlet probably came right after JC.
Oh true; I see now what you are getting at. I think the Roman's are indeed mentioned throughout Hamlet. They are also mentioned in other plays by the Bard. I am thinking of Henry V in particular, when the rules of war is mentioned often by Captain Fluellen.
Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Yes, Hamlet is somewhere between noble avenger and pathetic narcissist. And "To be, or not to be" are the words of one bravely facing the consequences of his destiny, the words of one suicidal, or the words of one morosely yearning for death.
While Hamlet is obviously a work of genius, I have heard so many interpretations that are convincing yet diametrically opposed that Hamlet seems like a Goosebumps choose-your-own-ending book. In that sense the play seems 'just...dithery', and I thoroughly agree with the following.
Coming back to this thread two years down the line, my opinion has changed greatly. I do now admire Hamlet as a play and find it enticingly enigmatic. My initial misgivings were due to the fact that it is meant to be a tragedy and yet never reaches the tragic heights of Shakespeare's other tragedies.
It does....just less subtle. Unlike other Shakespearean tragedies such as Romeo and Juliet or Othello - there isn't the build up before the fall in Act III. But from the time Hamlet sees Claudius' reaction in the play until the end, the decline and fall that is a Shakespearean tragedy is present.
I wrote a poem on a leaf and it blew away...
But what is Hamlet's tragedy? The closest point to a traditional tragedy is the closet scene.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
