There is hardly a single play in the world that is as well-known and popular as Hamlet. One might enjoy it or hate it, but either way, one will definitely find something strangely attractive about it. Perhaps, the given effect owes much to the palette of emotions that Shakespeare uses in his play; it has something for everyone, starting with the pain of losing a father to the dilemma between betraying a friend and being killed, which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have to deal with.
The most powerful emotion that makes the play work, however, is the desire of taking revenge. Viewed from several perspectives in Hamlet, it was and still is one of the most complicated feelings to deal with. Exploring the many ways of how revenge shapes the lead characters lives, Shakespeare offers a unique journey into the troubled mind of the protagonist, showing how tragic and at the same enthralling vengeance can be.
Overview
The idea of revenge has always been controversial, allowing both to feel sorry for the leading character and at the same way to see him/her as an outsider crossing the line between good and evil. As a wise man, Shakespeare knows it and uses the given idea not only as a plot device, but also as a perfect foil for the character development.
Therefore, Shakespeare allows for viewing revenge as both the drastic measure that signifies Hamlets gradual descent into madness and as dispensed justice. Therefore, the double-sidedness of the argument adds controversy to the leading character, bringing the torture that Hamlet goes through into the light.
The plot of the play is known worldwide; a power-hungry brother of the monarch of Denmark kills the latter, marries the widow and plots to kill the monarchs only son, Hamlet. The latter, after seeing his fathers ghost and learning the truth, feels that he is taken over by revenge and sets up a performance that copies Claudiuss, the murderers, plan and results in a tragic denouement and the untimely death of Hamlet and the rest of the characters.
Therefore, the story is basic enough; however, one more element at times seems to be on par with the leading characters of the play. To be more exact, the emotion of revenge that seizes Hamlet nearly becomes an independent being. Setting the theme for the entire story, it turns Hamlet into a three-dimensional character and creates a moral dilemma mentioned above, i.e., the explanation though not a moral justification for Hamlets actions.
The revenge theme gets the plot of the story off the ground, helping the readers view Hamlet as both a victim and a villain, bringing the XXII-century audience to the prehistoric eye-for-an-eye idea of justice: Hamlet, in fact, is not represented at this point as a virtuous character (Gottschalk 156). In fact, Kastan points out that Hamlet is never quite as apt as a revenger (Kastan 112).
Theme of Revenge
Shakespeare seemed to have conducted research on personality and how it influences human behavior at various levels. This play has focused mainly on the theme of death that has been propagated by the desire to seek revenge by different characters.
It is necessary to state that while reading this book an audience may be persuaded to think that the main theme is death but this is not the case. This play has focused on death through its major cause and not in its entirety. Therefore, this book presents death as an effect and not a cause as some readers may believe.
The story begins with the scene of a Ghost that speaks to Hamlet and informs him that the present king killed it. Apparently, this Ghost is the spirit of Hamlets father who was the previous king of this land before he was killed. It reveals to Hamlet that Claudius was responsible for its death and thus he should seek revenge to fulfill his fathers wish. Old Hamlet is very angry because his brother killed him to become the King of Elsinore.
Therefore, it can be concluded that Hamlets revenge mission is motivated by the need to seek justice and expose the evil deeds of his mother, as well as bring back the honor to his fathers name (Skulsky 78). Naturally, it is expected that when a husband or wife dies the other partner should at least wait for sometime before getting married. However, in this case the opposite happens when Gertrude rushes to marry Claudius even before the burial ceremony is over.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the idea of revenge that seizes Hamlets mind is self-destructive. Even though the audience would probably be happy to see the main antagonists of the play, i.e., Claudius and Gertrude, being punished and finally getting what they deserved, the ending does feel devastating, which must signify the fact that vengeance is a pointless end in itself; once it has been achieved, there is nothing left to live for.
It is necessary to state that Hamlet is seeking revenge just to prove that he is not a coward. His emotions betray him and he does not see why he should kill Claudius apart from the fact that he killed and took his late fathers wife (Shakespeare). However, after the First Player expresses his concern about Queen Hecubas misfortune Hamlet is convinced that this character is more concerned about his fathers death than he ought to be (Riley, McAllister and Symons). This challenges him to evaluate whether or not he should kill Claudius.
On the other hand, King Claudius uses underhand ways to seek revenge against his enemies. He convinces Laertes that Hamlet is to blame for his sisters madness and that he should seek immediate revenge (Shakespeare). However, Laertes is not convinced that Hamlet deserves to die even though he is later persuaded to kill him. His anger is not sufficient to warrant his vengeance against Hamlet and he finally tells him about his plans. However, Hamlet manages to persuade him to stop his plans and together they plan to kill the king.
Revenge has other effects on the characters apart from causing death and suffering to victims. First, it changes their perception towards life and other people (Gottschalk). Gertrude learns that all men are ruthless due to what she witnesses in her surrounding and vows never to get married again. Secondly, Hamlet is not persuaded to kill King Claudius but since this will be a show of brevity and loyalty he decides to do it just to make his father happy and prove that he is not a coward.
Works Cited
Gottschalk, Paul. Hamlet and the Scanning of Revenge. Shakespeare Quarterly 24.2 (1973): 155170. Print.
Kastan, David Scott. His Semblable in His Mirror: Hamlet and the Imitation of Revenge. Shakespeare Studies 19.14 (1987): 111124. Print.
Skulsky, Harold. Revenge, Honor and Conscience in Hamlet. PMLA 85.1 (1970): 7887.
Riley, Dick, Pam McAllister and Julian Symons. Hamlet. Young Prince Takes Revenge on Murderous Uncle. The Bedside, Bathtub and Armchair Companion to Shakespeare. London, UK: Continuum, 2001. 255259. Print.
William Shakespeare lived in extremely uneasy time, marked with the transition from medieval to Renaissance values in governance, political and social life; therefore, the reality was quickly changing. In the 16th century, medieval feudalism was quickly declining, moreover the feudalism was dying an honorable death; the aristocracy began using increasingly more cruel and tough measures to support its authority and with the help of that to back up the hierarchical order which aristocrats thought had served them very well. The sixteenth century showed the consequent unrest and a great feeling of suspicion that in most cases resulted in different kind of surveillance and betrayal in people relations in the social and political spheres. Several attempts to kill both Elizabeth I and James VI brought about cruel and really brutal retaliations. According to Shakespeare, only a man is able to improve the world, so the central focus of his plays is human emotions and psychological life, doubts, mistakes and suffering. His tragedies King Lear, Hamlet and Othello are consistently based upon the central theme of fatal mistake, resulting from blind anger. However, the specific drives for these mistakes are different: whereas in Hamlet, the striving for revenge is the most apparent motivator, in King Lear and Othello, anger gives rise to frustration, sorrow and psychological abandonment, which, however, bring the same outcome.
Main body
Before discussing Shakespearean notion of anger as expressed in the three literary works, it is important to note that his protagonists are unordinary people, who achieved considerable social success either by birth (Hamlet) or by wise deeds (King Lear, Othello) (Gurr, p.119; Bloom, p. 87). Therefore, these characters tend to emphasize their personal dignity and overprotect it so that this aristocratic quality turns into vanity and self-importance. Hamlet is a Prince of Denmark, so his background forces him to protect both his own and his familys pride. For instance, after his fathers sudden death, he learns his mother is creating family with Claudius, his uncle and apparently reproaches the women for the lack of respect for the memory about the deceased king (Hamlet, 1.2). Othello, in turn, is basically a military man, who established himself through heroic deeds (Othello, 1.1), whereas King Lear is so egotistic that decides to divide his kingdom among his daughters after evaluating each womans love for him. Thus, given the characters exaggerated self-esteem, they acutely react to the situations, which ostensibly challenge their self-respect. For instance, Othello fails into a truly hysterical state when he finds out the handkerchief, his gift to Desdemona, is missing, believing that the loss of the present is an indicator of his spouses infidelity. When Desdemona begins to appeal to his common sense, he shows nothing but rudeness: A man that all his time/ Hath founded his good fortunes on your love, / Shared dangers with you/ The handkerchief!/ In sooth, you are to blame./ Away! (Othello, 3.4). Moreover, when he detects the accessory it Cassios hand, Othello loses control and strikes his wife publicly (Othello, 3.4). Iagos reports and the loss of the handkerchief appear to Othello reliable proofs of Desdemonas unfaithfulness, and under the effect of anger the protagonist is both unable and unwilling to do further investigation. Similarly, King Lear seems equally impetuous after his older daughters deliver beautiful speeches about their love for him, whereas the youngest, Cordelia, fails to say anything. Objectively Cordelia understands that the three girls are merely competing in rhetoric, and the true love can be expressed exceptionally through specific deeds, but when she tries to explain this obvious fact to the king, her father falls in even greater rage and damns her: Let it be so; thy truth, then, be thy dower; / For, by the sacred radiance of the sun,/The mysteries of Hecate, and the night;/ By all the operation of the orbs/ from whom we do exist, and cease to be;/ Here I disclaim all my parental care,/ Propinquity and property of blood,/ And as a stranger to my heart and me/ Hold the, from this, for ever (King Lear, 1.1). In Hamlet, anger is also caused by the perceived abuse of his own and his familys dignity: as the ghost reports, Hamlets father was slaughtered by his own brother, the closest blood kin. Hamlet is apparently infuriated with the fact that the murdered of his father is now freely living in his castle, ruling his motherland and, most importantly, shares royal status with his mother, who willingly agreed to marry him: O most pernicious woman! /O villain, villain, smiling damned villain!/ My tables, meet it is I set it down, /That one may smile, and smile and be a villain (Hamlet, 1.5). Further, all the characters appear to be consumed by their anger, so that it becomes a destructive force which substantially changes the persons mind and causes fixation on the object (Bradley, p.414; Gurr, p.197). This is Shakespeares anatomy of anger.
In spite of the obvious similarity of the background feeling the three characters experience, the actual motivators of their further actions differ substantially in the three literary works. Whereas Hamlets anger is associated rather with hatred and striving for revenge at any price, the protagonists of Othello and King Lear are driven by disappointment and sorrow, or the disappearance of their idealistic perception of the closest person. After hearing the ghosts monologue, Hamlet kills Claudius first and foremost in his imagination: So, uncle, there you are. Now to my word/ It is Adieu, adieu! remember me. I have swornt (Hamlet, 1.5). From this passage, one can derive a conclusion that the Prince of Denmark is likely to receive satisfaction from his vengeance, as opposed to King Lear and Othello, whose anger is greatly associated with frustration and sorrow (Heilman, p. 39; Rosenberg, p.46). In particular, King Lear is astonished and greatly disappointed, realizing that Cordelia does not love him, as he always believed his daughters have similar feelings for him and even divided his territory into three parts in advance so that Regan, Goneril and Cordlia receive a domain. The same obviously happens to Othello, as the moor compels himself to despise Desdemona, still loving her: I am abused; and my relief/ Must be to loathe her. O curse of marriage,/That we can all these delicate creatures ours, /And not their appetites! (Othello, 3.3). As one can assume, both Lears Othellos erroneous actions are driven by the loss of trust.
Naturally, given the alteration of consciousness, the characters make serious mistakes, which bring about tragic outcomes. In particular, Hamlet, in the blindness of rage, stabs Polonius, whereas the servant decided to supervise Hamlet in order to prevent him from impulsive acts and check whether his alleged madness is associated with the princes romantic feelings for Ophelia. Hamlet, in turn, loses his trust for people around him and thus treats everyone, who believes in a strange way, as a betrayer. Following Poloniuss death, his daughter Ophelia commits suicide, so Hamlets blindness and egoism take one more life. Further, Poloniuss son Laertes comes to Denmark in order to combat with Hamlet and given Claudiuss plot of poisoning beverages and blades, the whole royal family including Hamlet, as well as Laertes, pass away one after another. Obviously, Hamlet would be able to avoid this sequence of deaths and preserve his own life, if he controlled himself better and approached the issue in a more thoughtful and comprehensive way. The only evidence he relies on is the ghosts testimony, which might have been a hallucination, but his arrogance makes him believe himself as the highest resort. Similarly, Othello and King Lear actually die of their own conceit and lack of trust for their nearest and dearest. Othello gives credit to perfidious Iago, showing himself as a superficial person and a slave of emotions (Adamson, p.58; Rosenberg, p.52). As he decides Desdemona has betrayed him, Othello kills her without mercy and regret; as the moor reveals that he has murdered the wrong person, Othello commits suicide. Similarly, King Lear creates his tragedy by himself: by dividing the reign between two-faced Regan and Goneril, he causes a war, in which his youngest daughter, found to have the greatest integrity, is killed. Most saddening, the tragedy is entering Lears life gradually, so that he is able to identify it and repent as a result, regretting about his moral blindness. After being rescued by Cordelia, he admits his acts were foolish : You must bear with me:/ Pray you now, forget and forgive: I am old and foolish (King Lear, 4.7). Likewise, Othello and Hamlet also seem remorseful at the end, as the former learns his deceased spouse was innocent, whereas Hamlet finally obtains clear vision and realizes he is to be charged with the deaths of his closest relatives and friends (Hamlet, 5.2)
Conclusion
As one can conclude, the essential point of the three literary works is that Shakespeare presents anger as the emotion that makes people regret making and putting into practice certain decisions in the past. Whereas the gamma of emotions underlying and supplementing this anger is unique is each protagonist, the cause and effect relationship between anger and fatal mistakes is drawn in Hamlet, King Lear and Othello quite lucidly. Therefore, Shakespeares key message in the three plays is that arrogance and self-reliance are not constructive personality traits and result in the brutalization not merely at the individual, but also at the social level.
Works cited
Adamson, J. Othello as Tragedy: Some Problems of Judgment and Feeling . In Booth, S. (ed.) King Lear , Othello : Indefinition and Tragedy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980,. 55-79.
Bradley, A. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. Toronto: Macmillan, 1916.
Gurr, A. The Shakespearean Stage, 15741642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Heilman, R. Magic in the Web: Action and Language in Othello. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1956.
Rosenberg, M. The Masks of Othello. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961.
Bloom, H. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. Essex: Longman, 2001.
Chapter XX-XXII of Aristotles poetics are devoted to tragedy, a definition is given and its formative elements are discussed. Aristotle lists four kinds of tragedy according to their constituent elements. The 1-complex tragedy with reversals, 2-the tragedy of suffering dealing with painful events arising out of incidents of a pitiable and fearful nature, 3- the tragedy of character, and 4-tragedy of spectacle.
Shakespeares famous play Hamlet belongs to the third category of Aristotles classification of tragedy. The story of the play revolves around the hero Hamlet, who is rather than being an action hero is (contrary to the expectations of the audience) a hero of INACTION. Revenge is the main motive in the play. So Aristotles formula of (intension action-consequence) works here. But it is the delay in action rather than action that brings about a great downfall in which the hero also meets a tragic death along with his revenge victim, involving many more deaths, which could have been avoided. Shakespeare owes the revenge theme to the influence of Seneca the ancient Roman dramatist.
Hamlet
Hamlet is the story of Prince Hamlets revenge against his uncle Claudius, the prince of Denmark. On his return from Wittenberg where he was a scholar, Hamlet comes to know that his father is dead and that his uncle Claudius has become the king. He also finds that his mother Gertrude has married Claudius. Soon his fathers ghost appears before him and tells him that he was murdered. The ghost tells him that it was a murder most foul, strange, and unnatural. Hamlet, shocked by the revelation and shaken to the core by the knowledge of his mothers role in the act, immediately makes his intention clear in the presence of the ghost.
Haste me to know, that I with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love
May sweep to my revenge. (Acta.SceneV.L 29-31)
Thus the revenge motive is established in the exposition itself. Hamlets intention to take revenge for his fathers murder is also established. The ghost agrees and says, I find thee apt.
Hamlet considers it his duty to protect the honor of the queen, his mother. The ghost narrates to Hamlet how Hamlets mother was Claudius accomplice in the murder. But neither the father, not the son wish to punish her. Hamlet thinks that his uncle has married his mother because she is the jointress and Claudius has used her to usurp the throne. Nevertheless, she was a party to murder and no one else must know it. So he makes Horatio and Marcellus take an oath to keep this knowledge a secret. This shows Hamlets good intentions.
The knowledge affects Hamlets behavior as it changes his entire attitude towards King Claudius and Gertrude in particular and human life in general. So when the king addresses Hamlet as my cousin Hamlet and my son, Hamlet reacts.
A little more than kin, and less than kind. (Acta.SceneII.L65)
However, Hamlet is a learned and judicious man. He can not kill a man following a ghosts testimony. He must first satisfy his conscience and confirm his uncles guilt with solid evidence. Hence he decides to feign madness.
As I perchance hereafter shall think to meet.
To put an antic disposition on. (Acta.SceneV.L179-80)
Hamlet is a sensitive young man. He is deeply disturbed by his mothers act of being a party to his fathers murder and later, her marriage with Claudius. Yet he cannot be rude to her. In the third act he says:
soft, now to my mother,
&let me be cruel, not unnatural.
I will speak daggers to her but use none.
(Act I.SceneIII.L383-7)
In the third act He also tells his mother:
My pulse as yours doth temperately keep time,
And makes as healthful music. It is not madness
That I have uttered. Bring me to the test,
And I the matter will re-word, which madness,
Would gambol from. Mother, for love of grace,
Lay not that flattering unction to your soul,
That not your trespass but my madness speaks.
(ActIII.SceneIV.L142-8).
His harshness then finds vent in his behavior with Ophelia. He hurts her deeply. At the end of his famous soliloquy To be or not to be he sees Ophelia coming. He says to himself:
Soft you now,
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remembered. (iii.SceneI.L87-9).
Some critics believe that in the process of feigning madness Hamlet turns mad. This is debatable. But when Ophelia comes he is very rude to her. He remarks that beauty and chastity cannot coexist. He tells her, go thee to a nunnery. This is a reaction to Poloniuss remark that to find out the cause of Hamlets madness, he will loosen his daughter to him. In a bitter exchange in the second scene of the third act, he tells her that the actor will show anything that you show him.
ay, or any show that you will show him. Be not you ashamed to show (private parts) he will not shame to tell you what it means. (iii.SceneII.L140-2).
This act of throwing such insults at Ophelia shows his unbalanced mind. But there is no doubt that Hamlet loves Ophelia. In the fifth act, Ophelias dead body is brought for burial. Hamlet is shocked to the core to know that she is no more.
Hamlet is a great scholar. The second scene of the third act shows Hamlet as an erudite dramatic critic. He talks with absolute authority.
o, it offends me to the soul to hear a
robustious previewing pated fellow
tear a passion to tatters, to very rags,
to split the ears of the groundlings,
who for the most part are capable of nothing but
inexplicable dumb shows and noise.
I would have such a fellow whipped for overdoing Termagant. (Acta.scenario.Ll8-24)
Hamlet goes on to say that the purpose of art is
to hold as twere the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her feature, scorn her image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure . (Acta.SceneIII.L21-24).
Indeed this is what Hamlet attempts to do in real life. This leaves us with no doubt that he is perfectly sane. His madness was only the antic disposition he has assumed to find out whether his uncle is guilty of his fathers murder.
Hamlet is honest to the core. He is very judicious. It could be that Hamlet is upset because he is deprived of his rightful ascendancy to the throne. When Rosencrantz wants to know the reason for Hamlets madness. He urges Hamlet to take Him in confidence or he will surely end up in jail as a madman. Thereupon Hamlet answers:
Hamlet. Sir, I lack advancement.
Ros. How can that be, when you have the voice of the king himself for your succession in Denmark?
Hamlet. Ay, sir, but while the grass grows the proverb is something musty. (iii.SceneII.L330-5).
Hamlet means that there is an old stale saying according to which the horse will starve if he has to wait till the grass grows for it to feed upon. This shows Hamlets desire to be the king.
Hamlet is a philosopher and not a man of action. But we must note that although Hamlet is not capable of planned and premeditated action as seen in his procrastination, he is capable of impulsive action. There are many things that we did not expect him to do because he is meditative and philosophical. But in these cases, he acts purely on impulse. He kills Polonius on the spur of the moment. He boards the pirate ship alone; he leaps into Ophelias grave after Laertes does so. Finally, he stabs Claudius. None of these actions are premeditated. Moreover, Hamlet is completely disregardful of the consequences of these actions.
While Hamlet is speaking daggers with his mother he kills Polonius taking him to be the King hiding behind the arras. When he finds that he has killed an innocent man Hamlet has no remorse. He says:
The Revenge act is not accomplished as quickly as expected because Hamlet keeps procrastinating. Every time he finds an excuse to put off the act. He will wait till his conscience is fully satisfied he is not punishing an innocent man. This shows Hamlets philosophical nature and his intellectual depth as it also shows his unpredictable nature. Therefore he devises a plan. Hamlet engages the Gonzago players to perform an act called the Mouse Trap.
Ill have these players
Play something like the murder of my father
Before mine uncle&
The play is the thing
When Ill catch the conscience of the King.
(ActIII.SceneI.L590-601)
The play the murder of Gonzago convinces Hamlet of the truth of the Ghosts story.
Hamlet is a philosopher and an idealist who lacks the courage to act. He puts off the revenge act when he sees his uncle alone praying. He does so on the ground that if he were to kill the king during prayer, he will send him to heaven.
Thus Hamlets irresolution is unmistakable. During the play, many circumstances goad him to action but Hamlet lacks the capacity for vigorous action.
Hamlet, by his ill luck, his error of judgment, and by his involvement in evil, has been the cause of misery to others. If he had been single-minded or ruthless like Fortinbras or Laertes he might have been able to accomplish his revenge without the trail of tragic deaths which he left behind. The more he thinks the more he is incapable of action. Thus, this noble prince, popular among the people of his country, drags himself and all those around him to untold misery and tragic death.
Laertes
Laertes, son of Polonius and the brother of hamlets beloved Ophelia is a noble young man. Laertes is a young man, just setting out into the world, full of youths sap, and eager for life; fond of his sister, and jealous of her honor and his own; obedient to his father, but scarcely listening to his advice and with a certain worldly wisdom and insight into affairs of state, which left him above the ordinary, and prepare us for the swift action he takes when the sister he loves is drowned of her pain, and the father he honors is slain by Hamlet. He has suffered bitter sorrow at the murder of his father and the madness and the death of his sister, and we realize that any impetuous man would behave as he does to avenge these losses. He loves his father and his sister.
After the wedding celebration of Hamlets mother Gertrude and uncle, Claudius Laertes prepares to leave for France. Before leaving Laertes gives a long speech to his sister Ophelia instructing her to stay away from Hamlets profanation of love. He intends to protect his sister.
Hold it a fashion and a toy in blood,
A violet in the youth of primary nature,
For Hamlet, and the trifling of his favor,
Forward, not permanent, not lasting,
The perfume and suppliance of a minute,
No more. (Acta.SceneIII.L5-10)
He warns her against being taken in by the advances that Prince Hamlet has been making to her and tells her that, even if Hamlet is in love with her, the Prince may not be able to marry her because his choice of a wife is circumscribed by the position that he occupies as heir to the throne. Again, when he is bidding adieu Laertes warns his sister against Hamlets responses
&weigh that loss your honor may sustain
If with too credent ear you list his songs,
Or lose your heart or your chaste treasure open
To his unmastered importunity. (Acta.SceneIII.L29-32)
Again before leaving for France Laertes reminds Ophelia:
Farewell Ophelia and remember well
What I have said to you. (Acta.SceneIII.L84-5)
This shows how much he cares for his sister. His good intention of protecting her against evil is seen here.
When he returns from France he finds a reversal of the situation. His sister has gone mad, she is gone into depression which later transpires into suicide. Laertes says:
And so have I a noble father lost,
A sister driven into desprate terms,
Whose worth, if praises may go back again,
Stood challenger on mount of all the age
For her perfections. But my revenge will come.
(Act IV.SceneVI.L25-9)
The murder of Polonius incites Laertes to revenge. On his return, to Denmark, Laertes quickly goes to the King and accuses him of the murder of Polonius. Why, he asks, did the King not take action against Hamlet so far if Hamlets guilt is so certain? He wants quick action and is determined to take revenge. Laertes is a man of action. He declares:
Let come what comes, only Ill be revenge
Most thoroughly for my father. (Activ.SceneV.L135-6)
Hamlet is the cause of all this. Laertes is determined to take revenge on him. He swings into action. Being a popular youth it is easy for him to acquire popular support in a rebellion against the King himself. In the fourth Act a messenger tells the queen:
&young Laertes, in a riotous head,
Oerbears your offices. The rabble call him lord,
And, as the world were now but to begin,
Antiquity forgot, custom not known
They cry, choose we! Laertes shall be the king. (Activ.SceneV.L101-6)
Thus we find that Laertes, despite the smoldering passion in him, is in full command of his senses.
Laertes is a noble-minded person. Even Hamlet talks most reverentially of him Hamlet, however, speaks of Laertes with utmost regard:
That is Laertes, a very noble youth. Mark. (V.SceneI.L217)
Laertes wants to have revenge on the guilty. He wants to punish only his fathers enemy and nobody else. This shows his sense of justice.
none but his enemies. (Activ.SceneV.L143)
The king instigates Laertes against Hamlet. His scheme is that as soon as Hamlet returns to England Laertes should challenge Hamlet for a fight and kill him. Laertes says:
I will dot.
I bought an unction of a mountebank
So mortal that but dip a knife in it,
Where it draws blood. (Activ.SceneVI.L138-42)
He will dip his sword in poison that will prove fatal for any mortal creature. This shows Laertess honest desire to take revenge on Hamlet.
Hamlet, however, speaks of Laertes with utmost regard:
That is Laertes, a very noble youth. Mark . (A5 Sc 1 L 217)
Towards the end when Hamlet is on the verge of death, he says to Horatio:
But I am very sorry, good Horatio,
That to Laertes I forgot myself;
For by the image of my cause I see
The portraiture of his. Ill court his favors .(V.SceneII.L75-8)
Comparison
While Hamlet and Horatio are in some respects complementary in character, Laertes is a complete contrast to Hamlet. These three persons seem to form a triangle of forces, with each exerting strong pressures on the others. The character of Hamlet is many-faceted and very complex. Scholars have forever been analyzing it from different angles and they continue to have hairsplitting arguments. They will never tire of doing so. And there lies the success of the play.
The revenge motive is common among Hamlet and Laertes. Hamlet makes it a matter of scholarly study and keeps analyzing it, seeking evidence, and so on. The character of Laertes, on the other hand, is straightforward. He wants revenge and loses no time in going about it.
Both Hamlet and Laertes are judicious men. Both have been seriously wronged. Each has lost a father he loved. What aggravates their grief is that these murdered men were innocent.
Both want revenge. But Hamlet is a philosopher who broods over the murder. Hamlet lacks the capacity for vigorous action. He cannot react instantaneously. On the contrary, he misses the chances where he could have taken his revenge by killing Claudius. But every time he puts off an action. It is his procrastination that is the cause of his tragedy and also of those around him. In the revenge act of Laertes Hamlet saw the reflection of his revenge motive against King Claudius. When they come face to face Hamlet apologizes to Laertes.
Unlike Hamlet, Laertes has no scruples and needs no evidence to support his courses of action. This is clear from his readiness to believe Hamlets ultimate responsibility for all the tragic events that have taken place at the court during his absence and his willingness to go farther than the King to make sure that Hamlet is killed in the fencing match.
Structurally, the play of Hamlet is dominated by the pairing of various characters to reveal one as the foil of another. Ill be your foil, Laertes , says Hamlet, punning on the resemblance that elsewhere he seriously acknowledges. Laertes has returned from abroad to help celebrate the royal wedding; he loses his father by violent means and seeks vengeance. The common people, usually loyal to young Hamlet, are roused to new hero worship upon the occasion of Laertess second return to Denmark. Laertes is burdened with a responsibility like Hamlets, moves to expedient action without scruple. He turns at first on Claudius, who is technically innocent of Poloniuss death. The popular insurrection will simultaneously feed Laertess revenge and his ambition. Presented with untested and partial evidence concerning Hamlets part in Poloniuss murder Laertes would cut his throat in the church . He does grapple with Hamlet in the graveyard, striking the first blow and prompting Hamlet to assure his rival that he is not splenetic and rash . More than that, Laertes connives with the King in underhanded murder; it is Laertes who thinks of poisoning the swords point with an unction already bought of a mountebank.
In the revenge act of Laertes Hamlet saw the reflection of his revenge motive against King Claudius. When they come face to face Hamlet apologizes to Laertes. He pleads with madness as an excuse for his misbehavior. He admits that he has offended Laertess sense of honor and aggravated his grievance against himself. He should be forgiven because he was not in his senses.
Wasnt Hamlet wrongd Laertes? Never Hamlet.
If Hamlet from himself be taken away,
And when hes not himself does wrong Laertes,
Then Hamlet does it not. Hamlet denies it.
Who does it then? His madness. (V.SceneV.L 228-35)
While playing the fighting match, Laertes gets a chance to kill Hamlet as Hamlet is talking to his mother who is urging him to have a drink. As Hamlet is distracted a little, Laertes tells the king that it is his chance,
Laertes. my lord, Ill hit him now.
King. I do not think
Laertes.
[Aside]And yet it is almost against my conscience.
Throughout the play, while Hamlet keeps us wondering and puzzled, especially his so-called antic disposition or feigned madness, his procrastination, Laertes takes our sympathy and admiration. Both Hamlet and Laertes are successful in their revenge plots, and they both pay for these plots with their lives.
Finally, While Hamlet seems to believe in the proverb that Vengeance is the dish that should be eaten cold, Laertes agrees with the saying that Revenge is a kind of wild justice
The early Elizabethan period saw an intellectual revival of interest in the Latin and Greek classics. Seneca, the Roman dramatist produced the tragic effect by horrifying incidents e.g. arrival of the ghost, bloody actions, and ranting speeches.revenge was the main motive in his works.
The word protagonist stands for the leading or principal character in the literary work either it is poetry, drama, fiction, and legendary story (Protagonist, 2009).
A protagonist is the central or main character of the story or drama which plays a leading role according to the theme or central idea. The antagonist is the person who struggles or opposes the protagonist of the drama, an adversary of the hero in any literary work e.g. Iago is the antagonist of Othello (Antagonist, 2009). The Protagonist plays a major part to achieve the goals of the story while the antagonist is an adversary who struggles against the efforts of the protagonist. In a literary sense, the protagonist stands for irresistible force while an antagonist is an unbending object (Phillips, 2009).
The conflict between the protagonist and antagonist embodies the inner conflicts. The protagonist characterizes the motivation and impetus efforts to change the status quo. The antagonist personifies the discretion and silence to revolutionize the position. They are the true depiction of the most significant human traits, representing our social environment and personal trends (Phillips, 2009). The story of the drama or any other literary genre revolves around the protagonist, undergoing a series of dramatic events and he is shown to some extent weak when the climax reaches in the story, a culmination of the story. At the moment, the protagonist would try to stop his efforts to pursue his aims but eventually, he will be motivated again to achieve his goals (Phillips, 2009).
The protagonist is the most powerful personality with extraordinary qualities who overcomes all obstacles successfully, having courageous and audacious spirits. What are the goals or targets of the protagonists; these may be compared with the nature of that character (Phillips, 2009). The antagonist is the character who strives hard to prevent or hinder the protagonist from achieving the goals. Without the role of the antagonist, the story has no influential impact upon the readers or viewers. The protagonist as a good character or antagonist as a bad character enhances the story of the drama exclusively. The protagonist is judged by the volume of hindrances or obstructions which he or she overwhelmed valiantly without subduing himself under the heavy pressures of the antagonist (Phillips, 2009).
In many literary works, the most effective and major roles are depicted by the protagonist and antagonist. These main characters are very complex and magnificent portraits while the minor characters are taken as one-dimensional and flat characters who move forward smoothly without any change. During the process of characterization, the personal features of the opposite characters (protagonist and antagonist) often may cause conflicts between them (Kurtus, 2007).
The protagonist is the central character who has to struggle with the force of his opponent or antagonist, creating the conflicts and there is a climax of the story when both confront each other (Kurtus, 2007). These characters are well-developed with their complex and distinct personal features, a true representation of a credible character or person. How the reader of the story may find out the hopes, skills, fears, favorite activities, affinity, personal aptitudes or habits, etc. This is the process of characterization of how they undergo different changes according to the circumstances and how they have the capacity to deal with the conflicts (Kurtus, 2007).
Elizabeth Bennet is the most intellectual and quick-witted protagonist of Pride and Prejudice, having the most commendable traits, honesty, loveliness, liveliness, brilliance, and sharpness. Elizabeth has to deal with an incorrigible mother, ignorant father, ill-mannered younger siblings, snobbish and antagonistic females while undergoing familial as well as social commotion (Pride and Prejudice -Character Analysis, 2005). Oedipus Rex is the Greek protagonist of the Greek mythological legend series and the hero has to undergo a lot of transformations from potent to feeble person, suppressed by fate. All other characters of the play, Oedipus Rex struggle to resolve the complex problems apparently but all their efforts remain futile due to the antagonistic influence of powerful fate.
In Hamlet, Shakespeares famous play, Hamlet plays the central role while facing all kinds of tragedies of his life, and here his uncle, Claudius plays the role of antagonist, having intense antagonism and rivalry against his nephew, hamlet to overpower kingship of his deceased father. The conflicts that arise between the protagonist and antagonist are the conflicts between goodness and evil. There are a lot of famous heroes in the literary works which are developed gradually from the very beginning to the end of the story. All the protagonists have to face a number of difficulties in life but they encounter all problems of life bravely. Their courage and passions remain intact in spite of all pressures of a tragic life, having very strong and powerful personalities. They have to face external as well as internal conflicts throughout their life, leading life of bravery and adventure. Without the role of antagonist, there is no more interest or influence in the story of drama or fiction.
References
Protagonist, 2009, Web.
Antagonist, 2009, Web.
Phillips, 2009, The Archetypal Characters: Protagonist and Antagonist by Melanie Anne Phillips, Web.
Kurtus, 2007, Developing Fictional Characters by by Ron Kurtus, Web.
Pride and Prejudice -Character Analysis, 2005, Article Review by: vas, Published: Web.
By far, one of the most notable works in English literature, Hamlet by William Shakespeare, written in 1599, incorporates a range of ideas on a variety of topics. However, when analyzing the poem, one must admit that the themes addressing the failure of human relationships stand out the most. This paper will argue that, although the concepts of hypocrisy, lying, and acting are brought up directly only a few times in Hamlet, the manifestations thereof can be found throughout the poem, the Dutch prince himself along with the King and the Queen being the embodiment of these ideas. I will prove the above statement by examining the ways in which characters in Hamlet develop and interact with each other. By taking a look at how they change throughout the play, I will spot the instances of lying, acting, and hypocrisy, therefore, making a point.
It could be argued that Hamlets descent into madness is a sort of deception implied by the author and, therefore, can be interpreted as a variation on lying. On the one hand, the tormented soul that the lead character could be described as was clearly showcasing the instance of psychological turmoil. On the other hand, the elaborate plan that Hamlet designed in order to take revenge on his murderous uncle and avenge his father evidently showed that Hamlets madness was somewhat overstated: I am but mad north-north-west (Shakespeare 1460).
In addition, the very concept of staging the performance that would lure the king into fearing the revenge of the prince can be interpreted as an elaborate lie. First and most obvious, the very concept of performance is often rendered as a lie as in the reimagining of the truth through a specific perspective: The Mousetrap. Marry, how? Tropically. This play is the image of a murder done in Vienna (Shakespeare 2131-2132). The quote above points to the fact that the play is the process of reimagining reality and, therefore, in a way, is a combination of a lie and acting. Thus, the environment, which the creation of the play suggests, implies a significant amount of acting.
Weirdly enough, the same element of the poem may also be viewed through the lens of lying. Although the acting is supposed to look as the reimagining of a specific play, it, in fact, creates the veneer of mystery that is supposed to deceive the King and the Queen into being alarmed about their secret being disclosed: You are welcome: but my uncle-father and aunt-mother are deceived (Shakespeare 1457-1458). Despite the fact that the purpose of the play is not explained to the viewers, it clearly plants very specific fears into them, therefore, serving as the means of deceiving them into confessing their crime. In fact, at some point in the development of the plot, Hamlet states directly that deceit is the primary reason for the play to exist in the first place.
Moreover, speaking of the same staging process, the purpose thereof as a disguised attempt at revealing the lies of the murderous King can and should be considered hypocritical (Kafanelos 74-76). At this point, however, one might argue that lies often imply the idea of meanness and, thus, are rendered as something despicable. Hamlet, in his turn, is not typically viewed as the character that would stoop so low as to act in a despicable manner. The above vision of the event, therefore, suggests the interpretation that does not involve lying and, instead, focuses on the concept of revenge. Nevertheless, a closer consideration of the subject matter will reveal that the very phenomenon of acting can be deemed as a form of lying (Williamson 131). Consequently, setting the stage play can be interpreted as the epitome of hypocrisy, acting, and lying in the play. In fact, the very name thereof discloses its purpose as the tool for trapping the king and the Queen with the help of elaborate deceit (Dodsworth 152).
Additionally, apart from setting an elaborate and deliberate trap that will trick them into confessing and paying the price for their murder, the lead character also deceives the Queen as they meet: My tongue and soul in this be hypocrites (Shakespeare 2273). It is remarkable, though, that most of the examples above include mostly the elements of deceit and lying, whereas little hypocrisy is involved when Hamlet himself takes certain actions. The observed phenomenon can be attributed to the character design; being the vengeful hero and the troubled soul that Shakespeare saw him, Hamlet could not possibly commit any act of hypocrisy; anything that pointed otherwise would have broken his character and destroyed his credibility (Levy 117). The rest of the characters, however, are oozing with hypocrisy, therefore, contributing to the creation of a unique, very suspenseful, and rather brooding atmosphere (Clemen 221). First and most obvious, the King and the Queen need to be referred to as the core of hypocrisy in the poem, positioning themselves as decorous and decent yet being, in fact, guilty for the death of Hamlets father: My tongue and soul in this be hypocrites; How in my words soever she be shent, To give them never seals, my soul, consent! (Shakespeare 2273-2275).
Another element of a hypocritical attitude towards life, in general, and the situation that the people in the castle are in, in particular, can be traced to the Prince of Denmark himself. Surprisingly enough, at some point, Hamlet accuses himself of being hypocritical and tampering with the truth: My tongue and soul in this be hypocrites; How in my words soever she be shent, To give them never seals, my soul, consent! (Shakespeare 2273-2275). Although the above statement is voiced in anguish, under the spur of emotions, and, therefore, cannot be deemed as the argument against the lead character, the reasons behind his sorrow are rather obvious. Instead of pointing the finger at the treacherous murderer of his father and making him pay the debt, Hamlet resorts to mental gymnastics in order to make justice take its toll (Wells 29). Therefore, the contrivances that he is forced to make are interpreted by the honest lead character as the manifestations of his own hypocrisy.
The actions of Ophelia, whom Hamlet claims to be his dear sister (Shakespeare 515), could also be viewed through the lens of lying, hypocrisy, and deceit at the same time. The fact that the lead character confides in her as she knowingly betrays him is the prime example of the combination of the three concepts above: Fear it, Ophelia, fear it, my dear sister, And keep you in the rear of your affection (Shakespeare 515-516).
Last but definitely not least, the fact that Hamlet deceits his friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to carry his death warrant and practically dooms them to death needs to be brought up as the crowning achievement in the range of hypocritical steps taken by the characters. As it has been stressed above, the mere act of watching Hamlet doing something that does not align with the principles of common morals may distort the readers perspective of the character. However, after a thorough analysis of the latter, one must admit that Hamlet, being psychologically traumatized and driven by anger, fear, and despair, should not be judged on the traditional scale of moral dimensions.
Even though the elements of lying, hypocrisy, and acting are not made evident in Hamlet, the poem includes a range of scenes enveloping the concepts of hypocrisy, deceit, and lies, therefore, addressing a range of controversial issues, fratricide, vendetta, and madness is only the tip of the iceberg. Nevertheless, these are the scenes with Hamlet, the King, and the Queen that shape the notions mentioned above and contribute to their understanding to the greatest degree. Representing the epitome of hypocrisy, lies, and acting, they and every other character in the play contribute to the desperate, dark, and brooding feeling that the play creates.
Works Cited
Clemen, Wolfgang. The Development of Shakespeares Imagery. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Dodsworth, Martin. Hamlet Closely Observed. New York, NY: A&C Black, 2014, Print.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. The Northon Shakespeare (1-130). 3rd ed.
Williamson, Claude C. Readings on the Character of Hamlet: Compiled from over Three Hundred Sources. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Annotated Bibliography
Levy, Eric P. Hamlet and the Rethinking of Man. Plainsboro, NJ: Associated University Presses, 2008. Print.
Levy addresses the mythology that presumably created the foundation for the play, connecting the narration by Shakespeare with the events and ideas touched upon, mentioned, or described in religious texts (particularly, in the Bible, as well as in the books written by philosophers, including the ancient ones (e.g., Plato) and the modern ones alike. The author makes it quite clear that, addressing the issues brought up by both the ancient philosophers and his contemporaries, Shakespeare created a deeply philosophical drama that addresses complex timeless issues by setting the characters into a conundrum of lies, acting, and hypocrisy.
Particularly, Levy stresses that the poem is filled with references to the deception that is related to the main characters in one way or another. More to the [point, the author locates the nature thereof, stressing that the concept of deceit is epistemological as opposed to moral. In other words, the traditional battle of good vs. evil is interpreted as a battle between great minds.
Serving as the means of discovering the very nature of deception as a concept in Hamlet, the study carried out by Levi was essential to the further analysis. The connections to the previous theological and philosophical works made it possible to understand the implications made in the poem and identify the elements of the play that showcased the instances of deception in Hamlet. Although the author did not point directly to the scenes in which the phenomenon under analysis emerged, it created prerequisites for their successful discovery.
Kafanelos, Emma. Narrative Causalities. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 2006. Print.
Kafalenos creates a list of consecutive events that include the instances of lying and deceit in Hamlet, therefore, allowing one to track down the actual stages of deceit development in the play. By outlining the essential dialogues that address the issue of deceit and lying in Hamlet, the author makes a very valid statement concerning the subject matter.
According to Kafalenos, every single act of the play can be split into a succession of small lies that build up to become a grandiose deceit. In other words, as the play progresses, the deviations from the truth that the characters take snowball, making the latter suffer from the dishonesty that they created and got caught in.
The author also addresses the issue of sin as the inevitable outcome of lies. As a result, Kafanelos trails off into a theological debate, also bringing up the issues related to the Christian philosophy and linking them to the essential events in the play. Particularly, Kafanelos mentions Hamlets idea of the ghost being the devil and, therefore, urging him to commit a sinful action.
Creating a solid premise for a detailed analysis of Hamlet as a conundrum of lies and deceit, the book allows assuming that there is a pattern to the hypocritical actions of the people involved. In other words, the link between a lie as a distortion of ones self and a lie as an attempt to invite others to participate in a sinful act can be created. Intriguing and shedding a lot of light on the innuendoes of Hamlet, the book by Kafanelos offers a lot of food for thoughts.
Wells, Stanley. William Shakespeare: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015. Print.
Wells chooses a rather safe means of addressing the issue of lying, acting, and hypocrisy in Hamlet by focusing on the rest of the characters and their deceitful actions. On the one hand, the above course of analysis aligns with the traditional interpretations of Hamlet. Indeed, most of the acting, lying, and deceit centers around the rest of the characters, whereas the Prince of Denmark is typically viewed as the victim. However, Wells takes very few chances with exploring Hamlet as a character from the perspective of lying, hypocrisy, or even acting. As a result, the outcomes of the analysis seem somewhat flaccid.
Nevertheless, by outlining the environment of deceit and lies that Hamlet is trapped in, Wells does a very good job of analyzing the rest of the characters. Though offering little challenge, the traditional approach to the analysis of the play that Wells adopts serves as the foundation for a further and a more detailed study. Particularly, the fact that aaa needs to be brought up.
Therefore, the book was used primarily as the tool for founding the analysis on. Wells created a solid platform, on which the further assessment of the problem and the identification of the essential details could be built on. The focus on the social isolation that Hamlet was in and that bordered ostracism, Wells allowed the readers understand what the lead character was going through and, thus, understand why he resorted to acting a one of the forms of deception to uncover the lying of his uncle in the first place. Allowing for a deep insight on the character and the turmoil that he was in, the book served as an essential addition to the existing list of sources.
Hamlet is one of Shakespeares most revered plays since the Elizabethan time. It has managed to garner various literary analysis, criticisms and appreciations. Most literary analysis entails authors interpretation of various reasons behind happenings in the play. This argumentative essay aims at arguing out the reasons for Hamlets choice of Fortinbras as his successor as Act V Scene II ends.
The contemplative stance taken by Hamlet at various scenes in the play presents us with the idea that there exist reasons for him to name Fortinbras as his successor (Mays and Hunter 50). Hamlet was an intellectual, witty and full of natural tendency of doing right, hence must have had his reasons for choosing Fortinbras as his heir to the throne.
First, the main reason for Hamlets selection of Fortinbras as heir to his throne is personal experiences. Hamlet and Fortinbras suffered the same fate when their rightful place as heirs to Denmark and Norwegian thrones respectively were taken away by their uncles (Jackson 127). This makes the two seek revenge, but the methods and dedication to the revenge differs entirely. Fortinbras is extremely dedicated and has to be restrained against fighting Denmark to avenge his fathers death, while Hamlet is reluctant until prompted by the ghost (Prosser 293).
Further, the reason for Hamlet to choose Fortinbras as an heir was because Fortinbras was strong and courageous as he showed in his part as army commander. Hamlet observed that the delicate and tender prince (Jackson 126), risks his life when honor is at stake (Jackson 126). He is moved by Fortinbras willingness and courage to die for in Act VI Scene 4 line 19-20 as he says little patch of ground that hath in it no profit but the name (Jackson 128).
This admiration of his courage could be the reason he bestows his rightful throne to a courageous person who will do whatever it takes to ensure the thrones safety. Through Fortinbras, he ensured the throne was in the safest hands, one with courage and honor, than to fall in the hands of unworthy and callous characters as his uncle, Claudius.
Choice of Fortinbras is an act to usurp his place as the rightful king and avenge for the injustice done to Fortinbras, as well as him. He admires Fortinbras courage and dedication to his course that it motivates him to seek revenge for his fathers death. He demonstrates this effect when he is informed of the purpose of Fortinbras army in Poland by saying My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth! (Jackson 127). He decides to avenge the death of his father as it is a just course and noble than that Fortinbras has in risking, in Poland, hence may have influenced his decision to select him as a successor.
The other reason is because Hamlet believed that by selecting Fortinbras power shall be passed into capable and worthy hands. He admired Fortinbras as demonstrated by his hate of procrastinating avenging his fathers death whereas Fortinbras was restrained from fighting against Denmark in vengeance of his own fathers death (Stuart Club and Tudor 267). Fortinbras is dutiful, respectful to his parents and determined to serve the royal course as demonstrated by his willingness to fight for Norway and readiness to avenge the deaths of his father. This willingness and readiness Hamlet admires and would be the reason for his decision of appointing him to be his successor.
Additionally, the reason could be for Fortinbras to continue with the restoration of the kingdom where he had reached. Selection of Fortinbras acts as a sign of restoration to its fallen state from integrity to corruption cunningness and treachery. The phrase in Act I scene 4 line 90, Something is rotten in the state of Denmark (Richardson 173), serves to depict the woeful state of Denmark leadership.
This is also evidenced by Horatios request for the coronation of Fortinbras to be quick to avoid other people taking advantage of the chaotic Denmark (Mays et al 203). Another argument for Hamlets selection could be because Fortinbras has the capability to lead Denmark to greater prosperity than Claudius. His expertise is demonstrated at the beginning of the play; Act I scene 1line 95, through the phrase young Fortinbras Of unimproved mettle hot and full (Richardson 173). He could have envisioned a better person in Fortinbras than the conniving Claudius or any member of the council as an heir to his throne.
Another reason could be an act to reconcile with Fortinbras for the death of his father. Hamlet could be trying to be kind and reconcile with Fortinbras having had gone through the pain of losing a father first hand. This will ensure the same atrocities committed to them shall not happen in the next regime. He seeks to make peace and leave the throne a better one than the Claudius leadership.
In conclusion, the choice made by Hamlet in choosing Fortinbras as his successor is wise. This is due to personal affection to him, personal life of suffering the same fate and aim to safeguard the interest of the nation. Other reasons include reconciliatory effort, ensure a continuation of the thrones restoration and that he believed that Fortinbras was capable and worthy of holding the throne.
Works cited
Booth, Mays and Paul Hunter. The Norton Introduction to Literature, New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2005. Print.
Prosser, Eleanor. Hamlet and Revenge, California: Stanford University Press, 1971. Print.
Richardson, David. Revolutionary Theater and the Classical Heritage: Inheritance and Appropriation from Weimar to the GDR, New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2007. Print.
Tudor and Stuart Club (Johns Hopkins University). Journal of literary history, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press 15 (1948): 260-273. Print.
T.S. Eliot in his famous essay points out that the character of Hamlet in Shakespeares play Tragedy of Hamlet, should not be solely linked to the guilt of the mother unlike Coriolanus, whose characteristic pride was acquired from his mother (Eliot 98). Eliot categorically refutes the idea of Hamlets character being solely shaped by Gertrudes guilt. Eliot is correct when he says that Hamlets character cannot simply be expressed through his mothers guilt. However, I believe, the maternal influence creates various complexities in his character that cannot be explained solely by the guilt theory. The inclusion of the maternal figure in Hamlet breaks the fragile compact that otherwise allows Shakespeare to explore familial and sexual relationships. Hamlet assumes the role of both the father and the son and the need to detect his identity about his idea of the father becomes problematic in the presence of his mother. Further, the presence of the mother figure and the sexual power she has over her son creates a clash in Hamlets character.
Therefore, Shakespeare gives Gertrude, Hamlets mother, the power to contaminate her sons heart with hatred such that her presence creates a dramatic conflict in Hamlets character. Similarly, the character of Coriolanus in Shakespeares play of the same name is also influenced by the presence of the maternal figure. Here, I must disagree with Eliot in his assertion that Coriolanus was the product of his pride. Though pride was the reason for his demise when his life is put under the microscope it becomes apparent that his pride was the mirror image of that of his mother, Volumnia. Her indulgence of her sons pride and rage, even as a child, had shaped the man he had become. I believe that in both the Shakespearean tragedies, the maternal figure plays a strong role in the mold of the characters of their sons. In Hamlet, Gertrudes hasty marriage to Claudius and in Coriolanus, Volumnias encouragement of her sons ego resulted in the decisive tragedy in both the plays.
The Thesis
The paper will enumerate the relationship between the mother and son in Hamlet and Coriolanus. The objective of the paper will be to understand the relation between Hamlet and Gertrude, and that between Coriolanus and Volumnia. The mother-son relation has a strong influence on the characters and the outcome of the sons fate. Further, the mothers in the two plays are flawed in their role as a traditional mother and wife that creates an identity crisis in their sons. Promptly discarding her widowhood, Gertrude fails to become the mother who remains the source of the fathers ideal image (Adelman 13). She does not mourn him; instead, she marries her dead husbands brother. Thus, Hamlet fails to assume the masculine identity through the image of his dead father by killing the false father (Claudius), as he remains incapable to distinguish between his father and brother because his mother fails to distinguish properly between her two husbands. Gertrudes inability to differentiate creates a considerable strain on Hamlet. Her loss of memory creates the necessity in Hamlet to rely on his memory to reconstruct his dead father and assuming the burden of differentiating and affixing the past in the present. He, therefore, takes a vow to avenge his fathers death as a tribute to this static memory. Thus, Gertrudes failure results in Hamlets madness.
Coriolanus, unlike Hamlet, is the creation of the omnipresent mother and her affection. For Coriolanus, Volumnia becomes a source of extreme masculinity as her overbearing personality forces him to become blatantly ferocious, to guard his helplessness in her presence. Coriolanus becomes the product of his mothers will and therefore, in search of his male identity, he assumes the excessively aggressive masculine demeanor. Thus, Coriolanuss ego and masculinity are a means of escape from the over-exerting maternal presence that cannibalizes his mind, actions, and identity. The other difference in the framing of the mothers, in these two plays, is that in Coriolanus the mother figure is androgynous.
In this paper, I propose the thesis that in both Hamlet and Coriolanus, Shakespeare uses the threat of maternal power to create the crisis of manhood in the persona of Hamlet and Coriolanus that arises as a result of the absent father.
Hamlets Instability and his Mother
Ernest Jones believes that to understand the personality of Hamlet, it is necessary to use the Freudian theory that opens a window into the unconscious part of his mind that had remained buried since his infancy, signifying the mental conflict still operational in his adulthood (Jones 140). Lacan, Miller, and Hulbert study Hamlets character in the presence of the Mother as the Other, and the identity crisis that asserts itself in hamlets character is due to the desire of the mother confronted by the idealized and exalted dead father-figure and on the degraded uncle as the despicable father (12). Thus, a psychological analysis of Hamlet shows a definite affinity of Hamlet towards his mother that he had experienced even as a child.
Gertrude is an affectionate mother and so she has been since Hamlets childhood. However, when he has to share that affection with his treacherous uncle, something he had found hard to share even with his father, fails to endure it and his subliminal jealousy grips his persona, driving him to insanity. Memory plays a vital role in the resurrection of these repressed feelings after the death of his father and his mothers hasty marriage to his uncle. In the whole process, he blames his mother for being disrespectful of not only of his fathers memories but that of his affection towards his mother. Thus, the feeling of affection towards his mother and his desire for her that was repressed in childhood emerged after his mothers second marriage. But now, it was no longer a source of love but that of hatred and repulsion. Thus, his long-repressed desire to take his fathers place and become the unchallenged recipient of his mothers affection pushes him to hate the one person whose affection he has craved since childhood. Thus, when his fathers Ghost declares that he was murdered, Hamlets stability is disturbed.
The awareness of his mothers marriage to the murderer of his father becomes another source of instability in Hamlets character. However, it must be born in mind that Hamlets instability does not arise out of his desire for his mother, as Freudian analysis would suggest. Instead, it is due to his mothers desire that becomes the cause of Hamlets instability. After his fathers death Hamlet is thrown into melancholia and in his despair seeks his mothers affection. When in depression, the general tendency of a man is to identify himself with the object of his affection, and when this object fails to stand up to his esteem, it creates a crisis in his identity. Thus, Hamlet feels dejected and betrayed upon hearing his mothers decision to marry his uncle and his frustration finds a voice in acrimonious irony:
Must I remember? why she would hang on him,
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on; and yet, within a month,
Let me not think on t: Frailty, thy name is a woman! (Hamlet 1.2.143-146)
His mothers presence is absolute in all that he speaks. His mother is omnipresent in Hamlets fantasies about Gertrude with Claudius or in his memory of her love for his dead father. Gertrudes overhasty marriage (Hamlet 2.2.57) to his uncle is the primary source of Hamlets anger towards his mother. While describing his ardent feelings on the death of his father, Hamlet ends up describing his disgust of his mothers second marriage. He loathes the hastiness of her decision to remarry and calls her relation to Claudius incestuous:
& within a month,
Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
She married. O, most wicked speed, to post
With such dexterity to incestuous sheets! (Hamlet 1.2.153-157)
Hamlets aversion towards his mothers second marriage is made abundantly clear in the excerpt from his soliloquy. The passage indicates that Hamlet is more distressed with his mothers marriage than his fathers murder. Hamlet feels that he has lost the affection of his mother just when he had acquired sole access to it. Further, his second marriage brings forth the question of his mothers sexuality that leads to an intense sexual revulsion that has been expressed with the usage of the phrase incestuous sheet . The anger and jealously he feels towards his mother at the sight of her giving herself to another man whom he is not obliged to love or respect. This creates Hamlets distrust and extreme resentment against women that is abundantly shown towards Ophelia.
Hamlet reproaches Ophelias puritanical hypocrisy that makes her follow all her fathers wishes. He hates her affiliation with another man. Consequently, Ophelia too falls from his good opinion, just the way his love for his mother is poisoned. Hamlet is suspicious of Ophelia and convinces himself that she has been sent to deceive him by another man. So when he admonishes Ophelia, he is expressing his bitterness towards his mother. Thus, Hamlets mothers second marriage creates a dichotomy of the maternal image he had painted in his infantile mind. The child sees his mother as the virginal Madonna, solemnly pure and beyond carnal allure. However, when his mother marries another man that image is shattered marking the birth of his stifled sensual awakening. Hamlet is thus, a product of his repressed feelings towards his mother, a misogynist who resents both the pure and the sensual image of women. His relation with his mother is the key reason behind the insecurity and madness of Hamlets character.
Coriolanus and his Mother
Coriolanuss character is shaped by his subliminal desire to ward off the dominating maternal presence to hide his weaknesses (Adelman 130). Coriolanuss mother, Volumnia, is a Roman aristocrat. By her birth and status, she shows a highborn attitude in the nurturing of her son. She has a large ego like her son, but she does not have her sons temper. Volumnia is the androgynous parent with the pride and egotism of an aristocratic man. She is infected with the thoughtless militarism of her class and her son falls prey to this arrogance. She loves to see her sons wounds that reflect her sons bravery and might. She has no care for the wounds of his men, who have fought valiantly to earn fame for her son. She is proud of her sons victories and boasts of them by describing the woes he causes with terrible phrases describing the terror. Thus, Volumnia, unlike Gertrude, dedicates her attention solely to her son but she shows no love or affection towards him.
The relationship between Coriolanus and his mother is very close. They stand together on an isolated island, an alcove of their own, away from all other. Their relationship underlines the character traits of Coriolanus. Shakespeare glorifies the love of mother and son by creating a conceited woman and an excessively aggressive warrior. Coriolanus is brought up in the cocoon of his mothers care. It is not until he is away from her does he realize that he is lost. The persona of the mother resides within her son. She was the one who had created him. She had given birth to him and that has been Coriolanuss identity for a long time. He is the mother in a mans body. He fights the battles that she would have fought had she been a man. He imbibes her mothers arrogance, conceit, and pride. She has been his educator and has taught him to:
To call them woolen vassals, things created
To buy and sell with groats, to show bare heads
In congregations, to yawn, be still, and wonder,
When one but of my ordinance stood up
To speak of peace or war. (Coriolanus 3.2.10-14)
Coriolanus has been brought up to love fame, which has been his inspiration since infancy. His pride is his mothers creation. When Coriolanus returns from battle, wounded, his mother cries, O! he is wounded; I thank the gods for t (Coriolanus 2.1.99). Volumnia basks in the glory of her son. Her sons honors are hers; the misfortune that falls on her son, in the end, is essentially hers.
Coriolanus has a tempestuous temper. His mother nurtured this since childhood. However, in the end, when facing the mob in Rome, Volumnia pleads her son to bend the truth to flatter the mob, their connection snaps. Further, when his consulship depends on the restrictions of his temper, she advises him to do so. Volumnias manipulative nature had learned self-restraint but her son remained unaltered. But when the tribune had given their verdict and left, she forgets restraint and becomes the feminine image of her son. She cries, Anger is my meat; I sup upon myself (Coriolanus 4.2.52).
Unmodified and unrestrained by femininity, her anger knows no bound. This is the temper that her son inherits from her and this becomes the cause of his ruin. Coriolanus is exiled from Rome for being a traitor to his country.
Mothers the Bearer of Tragedy
Both Gertrude and Volumnia played a strong role in shaping the character of their sons. However, their influence has been distinctly different. Gertrude can never be considered as a heartless woman. Her only folly must be her love of herself and comfortable life. These are follies, but not crimes. Gertrude is not ferocious or ruthless like Lady Macbeth or King Lears mother. She has not committed a crime for Shakespeare makes it abundantly clear that she was not Claudiuss ally in committing regicide. She loved and cared for her son and truly wanted him to marry Ophelia and be happy. But the vainness of her character, her frivolity, and her self-centeredness created a chasm in Hamlets heart. Above all, her crime was her second marriage to her dead husbands brother. Hamlets frustration, disgust, and anger are all directed towards his mother.
Though Gertrude has very little stage presence, her persona remains omnipresent. She encompasses her sons mind and soul, who fails to differentiate between her and any other woman. To Hamlet, all women become an image of Gertrude, self-centered, and conceited. In his hatred against women, which has stemmed from his hatred of his mother, he is suspicious of Ophelia and fails to see her true love. Hamlets hatred for his mother was so acute that he forced himself to consciously overlook the fact (which I believe he was aware of) that his mother was innocent. Hamlets character is shown in mourning from the very beginning of the play. However, his mourning is not one that is composed of grief. He is angry with his mother. He does not pray but questions the meaning of human existence. He is lost in the world, devoid of any parent to lean on. He feels like an orphan after his fathers death, even when his mother is alive. In his search for himself, he tries to hold onto the one thing that is closest to him his mother. But when she marries another man, she ceases to be his mother, and all his anger falls on her for deserting him.
On the other hand, Volumnia is a strong-willed mother who valued pride and love of her motherland even above the love of her son. She is ruthless and demanding. She wanted her son to become a brave warrior and serve his country. Her son did. However, in the process of becoming a great warrior, he becomes even more ruthless than his mother. He turns out to be the epitome of male ferociousness. She was not cruel but strong-willed and arrogant. Coriolanus inherited her pride and gentry. Her education of bravery and vanity made him the man he turned out to be. Coriolanus had a terrible rage and colossal masculine ego. His mother nurtured this since he was a boy. Coriolanuss exile and his coalition with Aufidius finally marked the road to his death. When Coriolanus sought vengeance against Rome, Volumnia dissuades her son to attack the Romans. When Coriolanus accedes to his mother, he is killed for his betrayal towards Aufidius. So, did he die because he listened to his mother?
The tragedy of Hamlet and Coriolanus are results of their maternal love and neglect. Hamlet, imprisoned in his yearning of maternal love, and Coriolanus in his desire to live up to his mothers expectations and pride, become the men they were. The catastrophe of both the results of the play in the tragic end of the heroes who pursued maternal affection.
Works Cited
Adelman, Janet. Sufforcating Mothers: Fantasies of Maternal Origin in Shakespeares Plays. Routledge, 2012.
Eliot, Thomas Stearns. Hamlet and his problems. Eliot, TS. The sacred wood: Essays on poetry and criticism. Fb&C Ltd., 1920, pp. 95-103.
Jones, Ernest. Hamlet and Oedipus. Berman, Emanuel. Essential Papers on Literature and Psychoanalysis. NYU Press, 1993, pp. 139-149.
Lacan, Jacques, Jacques-Alain Miller and James Hulbert. Desire and the Interpretation of Desire in Hamlet. Yale French Studies, vol. 55/56, 1977, pp. 11-52.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Oxford University Press, 1996.
Hamlet is a play written by Shakespeare and centered on Prince Hamlet and his vengeance against his uncle, Claudius, who has killed his father to get on the throne. Hamlet is Shakespeares immortal creation that has endlessly been retold and adapted by others (Thompson & Taylor, 2006). The Lion King by Disney is one of its many adaptations. The film parallels Hamlet as the main characters in the play and the film are both princes, and the antagonists are uncles who murder their brothers to gain power. Simultaneously, the movie diverts from the play in terms of setting, central theme, language, and plot. Nevertheless, the Lion King is still a great adaptation of Shakespeares Hamlet.
On the one hand, there are several similarities between The Lion King and Hamlet. Viewers see Simba and Hamlet as the main characters whose fathers were murdered by their uncles. The plots are similar since both heroes are outcasted from their kingdoms. Moreover, Simba and Hamlet have only one love interest, Nala and Ophelia, respectively. Both female characters help the protagonists to achieve their goals. Both princes experience internal struggle as Simba doubts whether he should return to the pride, and Hamlet asks to be or not to be when he thinks about killing his uncle (Shakespeare, 1992, 3.1.1). Another similarity is that ghosts of murdered kings appear at midnight and talk to their sons, which is a turning point in the plots of the movie and the play as both princes decide to return to their kingdoms and find the truth. Finally, both punish and kill their uncles for their murders at the end.
On the other hand, it is essential to note the differences between the movie and the play. First of all, the characters in The Lion King come from the animal world. The film shows the interactions among lions and hyenas, a meerkat, a monkey, a warthog, and others endowed with human characters and emotions. In contrast, Hamlet shows the noble society of the sixteenth century in Denmark, while the movies events take place in Africas Pride Lands at an unknown time. Second, death is the plays central theme as the events start with the appearance of King Hamlets ghost and end in the death of the main characters. Meanwhile, The Lion King encourages the viewers to learn from past mistakes and participate in the circle of life (Hahn, 1994, 10:09). Moreover, the plots of the film and the play differ to a certain extent. For example, Hamlets king appears only in the ghosts form, unlike Simbas father, who is alive for a significant part of the movie. The spirit in the Lion King does not demand revenge from his son but instead sends a positive message to remember who he is. Also, the authors of The Lion King use contemporary language that is easily understandable even for children, while Shakespeare writes in Early Modern English and uses words that are now obsolete; for example, swounds, esil, and prate (Shakespeare, 1992, 5.1.267).
Overall, Shakespeares plays are adapted often because his stories are timeless. He composed plays and sonnets about love and power, greed and betrayal. All of these topics are relatable to any generation. His language is sometimes incomprehensible even to the native English speakers, which arouses even more interest in his works. However, given that some of the plotlines in his works can be unpalatable and hard to understand for the readers, they are often modified. The creators of the Lion King were able to convey an accessible and lighter version of Hamlet for children. They did this by switching the setting to colorful African Pride Lands, using contemporary language, and adding some fun characters, such as Timon and Pumba, which makes this movie a great adaptation of the play for a younger audience.
References
Hahn, D. (Director). (1994). The Lion King. (Film). Walt Disney Pictures.
Shakespeare, W. (1992). Hamlet, prince of Denmark. C. Watts & K. Carabine (Eds.). Wordsworth Editions. (Original work published 1599).
Thompson, A., & Taylor, N. (Eds.). (2006). Hamlet: The Arden Shakespeare. Cengage Learning.
While Laurence Olivier depicts the story of Hamlet , the original version by William Shakespeare is the most profound. In terms of the ghost, Olivier took Shakespeares writings and adapted them to fit his own standards of what the ghost represents to Hamlet.
Moreover, Oliviers version required him to focus on less traditional approaches due to his need to shorten the production and the need to perform a psychological analysis of the characters determine his interpretation of the play Hamlet . He illustrates this through various scenes, settings and themes in the film.
The presentation of the Ghost in the film builds the main theme of revenge and tragedy. It forms the central part story of the play. For instance, it says, I am thy fathers spirit, Doomd for a certain term to walk the night, and for the day confined to fast in fires, till the foul crimes done in my days of nature&burnt and purged away&I am forbid (Shakespeare 1.5.9-13).
The ghost appears twice as portrayed by Olivier through lots of fog, dim lights and highly filtered voice. This did not clearly pick up the picture implied by Shakespeare in the original text, but they demonstrate the importance of the Ghost in the film. The message, language and imagery the ghost leaves last the entire play. The ghost builds the play.
It is easier to tell that the director wanted to depict his own viewpoint of the play Hamlet by Shakespeare. This, therefore, made the film be all about Hamlet. Therefore, when Hamlet is not in the scene, then his imagination is. As a result, he cut out most part of the original script by Shakespeare. The Guildenstern, Rosencrantz, and Fortinbras are cut out. All the characters are presented in Hamlets point of view hence the film is not exactly the reproduction of the play but an interpretation.
Olivier shows that the Oedipus complex is a crucial aspect in understanding the play especially the character of Hamlet and his relationship with Claudius, Ophelia, The Ghost and Gertrude. Hamlet is more saddened by his mother sexuality than news of his father is killing, according to critics.
He hates all women and expresses this hate by saying, Frailty, thy name is woman! (Shakespeare 1.5.8)&Despite the warning from his fathers ghost, Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive / against thy mother aught: leave her to heaven (Shakespeare 1.5.9). Hamlet does not seem to pursue revenge but question his mothers reason for marrying Claudius. In fact, the ghost comes to remind him that he should not be so much fixed on Gertrude.
The focal point of the play is engraved in the way it expands from the traditional convention of revenge, tragedy and majorly the Ghost appearance makes the fundamental implication.
The way Olivier presents the ghost has little to talk about yet it is a tremendously significant aspect in the play. When the ghost appears to Prince Hamlet in the original Shakespearean play, he talks about purgatory and his wanderings on earth before describing the details of his death (Shakespeare 1. 3.14). These same descriptions are not prevalent in the 1948 film.
One of the possible reasons for deletions of these lines could be Oliviers need to remove politics and tradition from this new film. One should note that he designed his previous production to inspire patriotic sentiments among the British people. The presiding British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill had instructed him to do so because the country was fighting a war.
However, when the war ended, there was no need to focus on these elements anymore. Director Laurence Olivier wanted to dwell on the characters in the play. He did this mostly through the main character Hamlet. In his version of the play, the ghost of Hamlets father does not talk about purgatory and other after life issues. Instead, the ghost dwells mostly on the circumstances surrounding his death.
During Shakespeares lifetime, the Catholic Church played a pivotal role in the daily lives of its people. Therefore, most citizens ascribed to the values and beliefs taught by members of the Catholic Church such as receiving ordinances from the latter and going to heaven. If Olivier had included this part in his 1948 film, then he would have upheld Shakespeares belief in the traditional. Since he wanted to depart from this, he made the right choice by omitting that scene from the play.
The ghost in Shakespeares play describes most of the incidents surrounding his death verbally. While the same thing takes place in Oliviers 1948 version, something slightly different happens when he adds a flashback (Play within a play) in the film. The director gives the audience a visual summary of the plot surrounding his death.
One can see Claudius pouring poison into the dead Kings ear (Olivier). This makes the allegations made by the dead King appear logical. Therefore, when Hamlet refuses to accept these claims, then he appears to be more analytical than he needs to be. Although Shakespeare shows a skeptical Hamlet in the original play, the playwright does not emphasize Hamlets analytical nature in the play as much as Olivier does. Audiences can see the ghosts narrative visually in the 1948 film.
Hamlet now seems like a reasoning man in the film because he does not accept assertions at face value, even when the story seems quite convincing. He chooses to find out for himself the validity behind the assertions. In fact, he is ever asking, Whats the matter now&Whose grave is this now (Hamlet Olivier). This ghost scene was pivotal in depicting a distinct character in the name of Hamlet.
Many writers have interpreted Hamlet in their own way. Oliviers Hamlet seems deeply distressed though still in firm control of his actions. The ghost gave him a reasonable explanation, but he still chose to investigate whether the information was accurate or not. The actors reaction to this news conveys his degree of reasonableness (Berardinelli Para.4). For the most part, he is a man who is distinctly aware of the consequences of his actions.
Olivier realized the importance of the ghosts instructions, and this was why he decided to portray that scene with impressive accuracy. The ghost was the one who gave Prince Hamlet a mission, and he needed to follow those instructions in order to restore honor to the kingdom. Olivier did not want to distort the meaning of the play by eliminating the ghost scene or dramatically altering the words stated by the ghost. It was necessary to make audiences understand the mission that Hamlet received.
The ghosts instructions were the source of trouble in the Shakespearean play as well as the 1948 film. Two values tear Hamlet apart: revenge and his conscious. Shakespeare does not emphasize this issue in the same manner the film does. The director even starts the film by asserting that this was a story about a man who could not make up his mind (Olivier).
Indeed, Olivier depicted a character who cannot decide whether he needs to stop thinking and start acting. The director emphasizes his brooding nature more in this production than in the play. Olivier makes this point through setting and costume design choices in the film. For example, Hamlet was wearing black in most scenes, in the motion picture, yet he had lightly colored skin and hair.
This brought out the dual nature of the ghost scene. It represented Hamlets struggle with sanity versus insanity or revenge versus his conscious. The ghost told him something that he needed to address. If thou didst ever thy dear father love&Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder (Hamlet Olivier).
It was almost as if this director wanted to present to the audience a visual metaphor through these costumes. Additionally, the film emphasizes the dual nature of the ghost scene through the setting, as well. When Hamlet speaks with the ghost, he does this in a gothic-like castle.
The place looks old and horror-like, and this only creates an effect of a brave individual who confronts the ghost without letting his reservations or fears stop him. His surroundings mirror the decisions he must make. The play did not realize these same effects when William Shakespeare wrote it.
Oliviers film starts with the Elsinore battlements where two sentries discuss the Ghost of King Hamlet. This creates a degree of suspense in the film because one wonders whether those speculations are true or not. Eventually, the ghost appears but never gets a chance to speak to the men who see it.
That disappearance adds to the gothic nature of the film. One can argue that the director made this choice in order to focus on the issues that led the main character to his predicaments. Since the film was a two-hour adaptation of the original four-hour long play, it needed to focus on segments of the play that mattered. The ghost scene was a vital determinant of these predicaments hence Olivier needs to include it in the play.
Film critics deeply respect Olivier for his ability to bring out psychological concepts in a motion picture, as was the case in this film. These were all elements that were not prevalent in the original Shakespeare. In the 1600 play, Shakespeare emphasizes how Hamlets anger stems from his mothers dishonorable acts.
She marries her dead husbands brother and jumps into this too quickly (Shakespeare 2.1. 12). Hamlet feels that his father deserves greater respect; his mothers failure to show this respect led to his distaste for her. Conversely, Olivier interpreted Hamlets disdain for his mother in a different way. To this director, Hamlet was jealous of King Claudius because he had feelings for his mother. Failure to realize his sexual desires for his mother led him to resent his mother.
The physically dominant Hamlet in the film exemplifies this approach. Laurence Olivier is a forty-one year old male, and the woman who took Gertrudes role in the movie was twenty-eight years old. Consequently, it was plausible to envisage a sexual conquest. In psychological circles, experts define this odd relationship as the Oedipus complex, which Freud developed.
In his developmental theory, Freud explains that male children secretly long for their mothers and get jealous of their parents relationship. Conversely, girls feel jealous of their mothers because they secretly long for their fathers. With time, these feelings should wear out, as children tend to outgrow this behavior. Nonetheless, some adults never get rid of these sentiments, and it can affect their future relationships as well as their perceptions towards their parents.
Olivier illustrates this Oedipus complex through a number of scenarios. One such instance was the closet scene. A lot of sexual energy is prevalent in this scene. A Queens bedroom is an extremely private and personal space. Society would not expect anyone other than a queens husband to enter her bedroom.
However, in Oliviers version of the film, Gertrude calls her son into her room (Olivier). Hamlet goes to the closet, and this indicates that there might be some erotic connotations in their relationship. Hamlets lack of respect for her privacy blurs the line between mother and son. For instance, the words, A bloody deed almost as distressing good mother&As kill a king, and marry with his brother (Hamlet Olivier) confirm this claim. In addition, Hamlets treatment of his mother strengthens the Oedipus case even more.
At one point, Hamlet and Gertrudes faces are too close together. When Hamlet has to leave, the two kiss each other on the mouth, and this kiss is quite prolonged; it is something that two lovers would do (Olivier). Even the center of attention in the scene is indicative of this sexual tension.
Gertrudes bed is quite well lit throughout the closet scene. Hamlets and Gertrudes shadows fall on the bed as the two characters kiss each other. At the end of the scene, one sees Gertrude by the bed, and she remains the main area of focus in this instance. The director, therefore, makes his point about the unlikely relationship between the two. This interpretation causes audiences to dwell on other areas other than Gertrudes dishonorable act towards her husband.
Therefore, Oliviers film is quite distinct from the Shakespearean version. One can argue that Olivier oversimplified Hamlets character through his assertion at the beginning of the play. In this instance, he claims that the film is about a man who could not make up his mind (Olivier). This was quite reductive because the original Shakespearean play had a decidedly versatile Hamlet.
The playwright gave audiences the freedom to decide who Hamlet was; he could be mad, angry, undecided, or rash. Shakespeare did not give any thesis about his play as Olivier did. Because Hamlet would face so many challenges, it is possible that he was to become a complex being. Therefore, one can even argue that this was an erroneous deduction of Hamlets character.
In the 1948 film, one realizes that Hamlet eventually makes up his mind. When he learns about the grand plot that King Claudius had instated against him, he marches towards the Kings direction and kills him. Hamlet gained confidence in his fate, which differed tremendously from the thesis made by Olivier, at the beginning of the film.
Another grand mistake that Olivier does in his adaptation of the Shakespearean film is the elimination of Fortinbras, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. For a director who wanted to bring out the psychological intensity of his lead character, these characters did not seem to be that significant, however, for someone who wanted to present a well-rounded character, then he should not have eliminated these individuals.
In the original Shakespearean play, these individuals were instrumental in highlighting Hamlets character. When Hamlet continues to display erratic behavior, the King sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to investigate Hamlets change in behavior. However, Hamlet quickly discerns this. These individuals thus illustrate how sharp the character of Olivier was.
Furthermore, Hamlets uncle tells them to accompany him during the diplomatic mission in order to ascertain that the King accomplishes his evil plans for Hamlet. Their loyalty to the King outweighs their relationship and attachment to Olivier. Guildensterns and Rosencrantz flimsy relationship with Olivier contrasted to this Princes disregard for tradition when it mattered. Fortinbras was a crucial part of the play because he developed a contrast for Hamlets character.
Fortinbras was interested in conquering Denmark because he wanted to avenge his fathers death (Shakespeare 5. 2.23). He was swift and firm with his decisions. Conversely, Hamlet was hesitant and confused about the necessary actions that needed to be taken. If Olivier wanted to bring out Hamlets indecision in his film, he should have introduced Fortinbras in his piece. These characters were crucial to the depiction of a fully developed Hamlet. Olivier sacrificed this component in his motion picture.
Therefore, the 1948 adaptation is not as strong as the original play. The 1948 film is a depiction of how film can limit certain components of an older play. Shakespeare intended to create an all-rounded main character in his 1600 play, and one sees this through the characters that surrounded Hamlet. Olivier eliminated some of these characters and thus presented a weaker main character than Shakespeare presents.
Furthermore, Oliviers focus on the Oedipus complex shifts attention away from Gertrudes dishonorable character, as was the case in Shakespeares original play. Lastly, Olivier gives a thesis statement of his main character while Shakespeare does not. By doing this, Olivier impedes a viewers own interpretation of Hamlet. In the original play, one can choose to view Hamlet in ones own way since Shakespeare makes no reductions.
Overall, the ghost, as portrayed by Olivier shows that the Old Hamlet Specter neither lives nor rests in peace. The ghost comes back to haunt the son and confide a terribly disturbing secret in him. The ultimate state of funeral and mourning the king symbolizes suffering and that total separation has been overcome.
The ghost connects the living with the unknown place. It says, Are burnt and purged away&But that I am forbid&To telling the secrets of my prison-house, I could a tale unfold whose lightest word (Shakespeare 1.5.14-16). The world is purgatory, or it could be hell itself. Old hamlets ghost is a state in between seeming as a reborn personality seeking revenge and on the verge of going once more into the limbo.
Horatio plays a minor role in the play and only serves the purpose of being Hamlets character foil. He serves two main purposes: the harbinger of truth and Hamlets confidant. The actions of other characters gain credibility through Horatio (Musa Rzayeva, 61). For instance, Hamlets encounter with the ghost would be doubted were it not for Hamlet concurring it existed. Otherwise we would doubt the Princes sanity. We learn of the princes thoughts and feelings only through his conversations with Horatio, meaning he is Hamlets most trustworthy friend and only confidant.
Qualities and Characteristics
Intelligent, discerning, calm and resolute
Horatio does not fear the ghost, only what it comes with. He discerns that the ghosts presence could only mean a great evil was facing Denmark. He resolutely demands that the ghost tell him what it is seeking and why it is there (Shakespeare). He is also always aware of the situationhe warns Hamlet not to duel in front of the king as he suspects folly, which turns out to be true.
Straightforward
Horatio speaks his mind to Hamlet fearlessly and without holding back. He discourages him from following the ghost, presents genuine arguments against such action and is truly worried about Hamlets safety and sanity. He makes his concerns known when Hamlet tells him of the letter conspiring his death and cautions him against fighting Laertes, son of Polonius (Shakespeare). He is always telling Hamlet the truth even though he never listens. Hamlet always uses his knowledge and insight to ensure his friends safety, like when he warns him that he will lose the fight.
True and passionate friend
Hamlet does not follow his friends caution and goes with the ghost, where he learns of his fathers murder and swears to avenge him. Despite disapproving the decision, Horatio allows himself to be sworn to silence to keep Hamlets secret. Horatio keeps many more secrets throughout the book. Later he offers to kill himself so he can die with a friend whose loss he deemed too big to handle. However, he listens to his friend, who asks him to refrain from suicide and tell his story (Wilson, 202). Horatio is always at Hamlets side and does not betray him like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Rational
Horatio is intelligent but not slave to his intellectual ability; He takes things as they come and accepts the world as it is, unlike Hamlet, who succumbs to his impulses and emotions (Wilson, 201). Bernardo and Marcellus admire Horatios faculties enough to seek his opinion on the ghost but nobody accuses him of thinking or talking too much. In addition, he refrains from engaging in any of Hamlets elaborate wordplays and understands the value of ignorance in some situations.
Annotated Bibliography
Musa Rzayeva, Leyla. A Look at the Heroes of William Shakespeares HAMLET Tragedy. Scientific Work, vol. 15, no. 3, 2021, pp. 5962.
The author holds that Hamlet is one of Shakespeares works on the eternal themes of love, loyalty, life and death, and betrayal. The play explores the issue of humanism in a hostile world. Prince Hamlet is frustrated at the evil in society and bemoans his weakness against such a force. Hamlets actions are sparked by a single crime but his entire endeavour can be seen as a fight against a hostile society. Horatio is arguably the most important character as he provides grounding for a play wrought with unstable characters and the supernatural.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet: Entire Play. Mit.edu, 2018, shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/full.html. Accessed 29 Apr. 2022. This play follows Hamlet as he tries to find justice in a society that does not allow for it. Hamlet follows the deceased King of Denmarks ghost and seeks to kill the new king. Hamlet plays mad, conjures a plot, and goes for revenge. His uncle, in fear for his life, plots to kill him. The events in the play culminate in a duel where the King, Queen, Hamlets opponent, and Hamlet are killed.
Wilson, Jeffrey R. Horatio as Author: Storytelling and Stoic Tragedy in Hamlet. Hamlet and Emotions. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. 201-211 Horatio is generally emotionless and rationalizes the pain and suffering he witnesses as a tragedy. The author states that this disposition makes him the perfect character via which Shakespeare can tell the story of Hamlet. The stoic Horatio gives a stable ground from which the events of the play can be understood. Further, and more importantly, through him, we can understand the princes thoughts and emotions.
Works Cited
Musa Rzayeva, Leyla. A Look at the Heroes of William Shakespeares HAMLET Tragedy. Scientific Work, vol. 15, no. 3, 2021, pp. 5962.