Hamlet in Death

Does the abundance of death in Hamlet have any significance?

Ghost

01-22-2004 04:26 PM

I'm going to word myself very carefully so as not to look like a fool.

Yes, its a play about death really. Horatio and Fortinbras survive, and thats about it. If this isn't a joke, read the last thing each character says before they die. Most of the time it sums their character and intricacies up pretty well.

If you are joking, however, shame on you, you naughty little scallywag

Zygous

01-22-2004 06:57 PM

Well it's probably because Hamlet is a tradgety. All of Shakespears plays can be classified as either tradegy, history, or comedy. A simple way to tell is a certain play is a tradegy is if the characters start at a very high level of power, sucess, happiness, etc. compared to the end when they should be dead or ruined. Examples include Othello, Romen & Juliet and ofcorse Hamlet. Thusly, I guess the abundance of death in Hamlet is beacuse Hamlet is a tradgety.

MistressofChaos

01-22-2004 08:54 PM

I think Shakespeare just wanted to please the crowd since people were interested in death and the paranormal.

DecemberFlower

01-24-2004 09:25 AM

Well, basically, all the characters die, with the exception of Fortinbras and Horatio, if I remember correctly, because they all have some sort of corrupt flaw. Horatio was one of Hamlet's most trustworthy friends and an upstanding character. Fortinbras was also an honorable prince and a foil to Hamlet. I'd go into more detail if I could remember more at this hour. It's a little late for me though.

Hamlet: crazy, vengeful, inquisitive, fat?

Posted to board: Utterances
by charlottewillow on Feb 3, 2004 8:02 AM

Millions of people over the ages have interpretted Hamlet's character in many different ways. How do you percieve Hamlet's character, both his physical and emotional characteristics?

Posted to board: Utterances
by Lightning Rod on Feb 3, 2004 8:08 AM

I like the brooding, morose, troubled Hamlet

Burton's Hamlet was good
I liked it better than Olivier's

would like to see Johnny Depp's Hamlet

Posted to board: Utterances
by Deez on Feb 3, 2004 11:44 AM

I think Mel Gibson personified his character rather well. But I'm a little partial to his acting myself. Glen Close was a great character in that version as well.

Posted to board: Utterances
by Kreddible Trout on Feb 3, 2004 3:02 PM

When I was in theatre school I played Hamlet. Back then I was pretty fat. I asked my director about why he chose me (not being of the 'leading man' ilk, i.e. fit and pretty) and after stroking my ego about how talented a young actor I was (a great tool used by many smart directors), he told me that there was no reason for Hamlet to be thin or fit. He's an academic. He's not in the Army. He's not into sports (save fencing). He's a potential philosopher at best. So why does he need to be thin?
I rebutted that by saying that Ophelia is in love with him and shouldn't that mean that he'd have to be good looking? (i.e. fit and pretty) Before my director began to shake his head in disappointment I realized the foolishness behind that statement. He said that love goes beyond appearance and that, if anything, Hamlet SHOULD be fat to show that their love is even deeper than a book's cover. He said Romeo should be fat too. Or Juliet. That it really shouldn't matter, if the actor was good enough.
I also justified it for myself by saying that he's quite obviously a little messed up at this point in his life. A little depressive even. That he has too much on his mind to be concerned with his beer belly. (got from pouring back too many pints of mead with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at college)

Recently I worked with a director who (to be diplomatic) was quite superficial when it came to the topic. He claimed that actors in general should be fit and pretty. That that's what an audience wants to see. (there is a certain truth in that a good stage actor should be HEALTHY, but that doesn't mean they have to be 'Brad Pitt-y'. I've known some quite healthy overweight folks. Despite what you may think, acting [stage acting anyway] takes a LOT of energy) This director, however, thought that watching overweight people onstage was offensive.
"Nobody wand’s to see a FAT HAMLET" he said.
I (now a lean [not so] mean acting machine) was offended by this statement and tried to argue the point. But there was no arguing with that man. The whole thing is kinda funny considering he used to be pretty hefty himself back when he was acting. I guess he would never have cast himself as anything too visible onstage for fear of offending people with flab.
It's a very shallow, vain business... but I try and stay away from the business end of it anyway.

Posted to board: Utterances
by Kreddible Trout on Feb 3, 2004 3:24 PM

And as for Hamlet, the guys just messed up. Overeducated. Not good with decisions. But not crazy. People say he's crazy. I think the people who say that are crazy. He ACTS crazed in order to dupe people. That's not crazy. That's cunning. That's one of the reasons why the 'get thee to a nunnery' bit is so powerful. Because he is forced to push away the one person who he truly, deeply cares about in order to convince everyone he's off his rocker. It's all part of his plan. However painful.
All this acting up, coupled with way too many thoughs of vengeance, suicide, murder, love and just generally weighing out the whole human condition pushes him to the edge. Murdering Polonius pushes him over it. There was one person in his mind who deserved death. That was Claudius. He now has to deal with the fact that he's commited an unjustified murder.
Ophelia's suicide. That's the clencher. Because that was his fault. That's the straw that breaks his camel's back and he quickly sinks into insanity.

As for the Oedipus Complex... bullshit.
The Oedipus Complex was created by Freud in the 20th century. There was no such complex when Shakespeare was writing. Nor Sophocles. That's like saying Bach was a punk rocker.

hamlet and buddha

Posted to board: Utterances
by brooklyn on Feb 3, 2004 5:33 PM

I've always been interested in the Buddhist interpretation of Hamlet. Both the Prince of Denmark and Prince Siddhartha (the Buddha) were hereditary royals raised in luxury and happiness in secluded castles, sheltered from the gritty realities of the outside world. Both experienced devastating periods of unhappiness when they became adults, and turned against their royal parents(Siddhartha left the castle, whereas Hamlet schemed to kill the King).

The difference is that Siddhartha sat down to meditate under a Bodhi tree and received enlightenment, whereas Hamlet didn't and ended up much worse off because of it.

This is my personal interpretation of Hamlet.

-- Levi

Parallels of madness?

Posted to board: Utterances
by charlottewillow on Feb 10, 2004 8:15 AM

Do you see any parallels between Hamlet's madness and Ophelia's madness? Are either of them truly mad?

Posted to board: Utterances
by ellipsis on Feb 10, 2004 9:00 AM

i haven't read 'hamlet' in almost four years, so could you remind me, please, of what caused the madness for either of them? all i remember is that ophelia drowned herself and that it was somehow caused by being in love. i think. and polonius said "brevity is the soul of wit." at least, i think he was the one. and there was something about someone hiding behind a curtain... that might have been polonius as well.

ha! could you help me remember this play? you seem pretty interested by it.

Posted to board: Utterances
by charlottewillow on Feb 10, 2004 8:18 PM

Well, let's see if I can say this in a nutshell: Hamlet's Uncle (his father's brother), Claudius, killed Hamlet's father, the King of Denmark. Hamlet's uncle then married Hamlet's mother and took over the crown of Denmark, which rightfully belonged to Hamlet, heir to the thrown. Hamlet was in love with Ophelia (or at least in my opinion he was, though some will disagree) but Ophelia's father, Polonius, believes that Hamlet is not truly in love, and seeing as though Hamlet is royalty, belives that Hamlet is, in other words, "out of her league." Ophelia pretty much dumps Hamlet. Now Hamlet has been acting crazy to decieve Claudius (others will argue that his madness was no act). When an acting troupe arrives at the kingdom, Hamlet gives them certain lines to say to act out his father's murder, that way Hamlet can prove to himself and his sole confident, Horatio, that Claudius is his father's murderer, judging by his reaction to the play (which, by the way, is called Mousetrap, get it?) Hamlet's theory that Claudius is his father's murderer developed after Hamlet spoke to his father's ghost near the beginning of the play. Claudius and the Queen are very upset by The Mousetrap and the queen asks Hamlet to have a word with her in her room. Polonius (Ophelia's father, the King's prime helper (for lack of a better word)however, is hiding behind the queens curtains to listen in to there conversation. Hamlet notices him and kills him. The death of her father drives Ophelia mad and she kills herself. When Hamlet finds out about Ophelia's death, he becomes even more distraught and blames himself. Some believe this is what pushes him over the edge into true insanity. Then, in a nutshell, everyone dies. Quite the Shakespearian tragedy. I hope this helped even a little! remember, this is merely my interpretation of it. Many people interpret it in many different ways!

Revenge: the destroyer?

Posted to board: Utterances
by charlottewillow on Feb 5, 2004 7:40 AM

The idea of revenge more or less consumes Hamlet. How drastically different do you think his fate would have been had he never sought to avenge his father's death?

conditioned condition?

Posted to board: Utterances
by junior fits on Feb 5, 2004 7:56 AM

We must ask ourselves the question which has haunted people for time immemorial, concerning the question of nature versus nurture. Are we conditioned by the environment or dominant discourses to pursue vengence, are we infused with the logic of power, that hobbesian reduction or are we free agents compelled by the fact of our fragility and finitude to strike first, a preemptive existential onslaught. Camus said that in a universe all is permitted. But the greatest absurdity of all is perhaps the fact that our finitude conditions us to devalue life in the same way that our own life is devalued by a silent god. but the discourse of hate breeds hate, which serves to consolidate the original impulse towards violence/ revenge/ dehumanisation. Once you are infused with the discourse of hate is is difficult to escape. Even when all your enemies are ash. As Nietzsche said 'in times of peace the warlike man attacks himself'.

charlottewillow

newbie

Reged: 05/02/2004

Posts: 1

Hamlet's Ghost: Deception?
05/02/2004 11:08

Edit

Reply

Quote

Was the ghost of Hamlet's father decieving Hamlet, or for that matter, did he even exist, or was he merely a figment of Hamlet's imagination?

Willedever

veteran

Re: Hamlet's Ghost: Deception?
05/02/2004 21:57

Edit

Reply

Quote

The ghost couldn't have been a figment of Hamlet's imagination, since it was first seen by Marcellus and Bernardo, I believe. Then Horatio saw it, and it was he who told Hamlet. The ghost was not an entity confined to Hamlet's own mind.

The truth of what the ghost said is supported by, among other things, the poisoning scene at the end. Claudius's attempt to poison Hamlet roughly repeats the same modus operandi as the poisoning of Hamlet's father which the ghost described.

There's the old story that William of Stratford's best role was as the Ghost in Hamlet. I've always found that story intriguing. A ghost is, among other things, a person who isn't really there. Is the story intended to convey that where Hamlet is concerned (and the other works of Shakespeare) Will-Strat is only a ghost, and not really there? However, I don't know if that insinuation is intended in the story.

Joe_Eldredge

veteran

Re: Hamlet's Ghost: Deception?
06/02/2004 00:24

Edit

Reply

Quote

There's no play without a Ghost. A whole book has been written about it. Sam Shepard's Ghost in Hamlet 2000 is the most convincing I've seen. It is all about the difference between Catholic ideas (if not dogma) about purgatory - and the selling of indulgences - and the revisionist Protestants - all very timely and contrary to Michael Wood's Elizabethan marmalade. Joe

--------------------
ignojo

Bassanio

veteran

Re: Hamlet's Ghost: Deception?
08/02/2004 16:59

Edit

Reply

Quote

Yes, for those who haven't considered the theological background, what Ignojo says is very important: the existence or non- of ghosts was a matter of intense theological debate. Catholic doctrine allowed for ghosts as one manifestation of the reality of purgatory. Protestant theology rejected purgatory, and hence ghosts, as well as prayers for the dead, as superstitious dogma. Therefore the question of the reality of the ghost had definite theological implications.

I don't mean by saying this, however, to imply that because the ghost is real, for reasons others have stated, that the play is therefore dogmatically Catholic in orientation. In fact, it definitely is not so. Hamlet Sr. was clearly a Catholic and just as clearly, Hamlet Jr. is not: among other indications, he went to school at Wittenberg. And his very questioning of the reality of the ghost and need to verify the ghost's statement with the empirical test of the play within the play is evidence for his "Protestant" skepticism. But it does seem that the truth of the Ghost's statement indicates a belief on the writer's part that there is at least a psychological truth to the old Catholic doctrines.

ligonkc

veteran

Re: Hamlet's Ghost: Deception?
05/02/2004 22:40

Edit

Reply

Quote

Nicholas Rowe wrote that he "could never meet with any further account of him [WS] this way than that the top of his performance was the Ghost in his own Hamlet." (Found the quote again at bartleby.com)

This construction always makes me think of 'hamlet,' i.e. Stratford.