Ophelia

Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 adaptation of Hamlet is a great way to enjoy the popular Shakespeare play. While I found the film to be quite lengthy, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing a film version of the story I only knew a little bit about from reading an excerpt of Hamlet in high school. I think Kenneth Branagh did an excellent job in making the screen play into a movie. Everything in every scene couldn’t have been done more perfectly. Better yet is the cast, with actors like Kenneth Branagh himself, as Hamlet, Kate Winslet as Ophelia, Billy Crystal, and Robin Williams among many other great actors.

The tragedy starts with just that, tragedy, the death of Hamlet’s Father, the king. The movie starts out with the watchmen on duty seeing an apparition of some kind, which they later learn is Hamlet’s deceased father. The watchmen decide to tell Hamlet of this strange apparition after Hamlet’s mother, the queen’s wedding to her brother in law. While the wedding is going on and after the ceremony, Hamlet is clearly distraught. The queen is marrying Hamlet’s father’s brother only two short months after his father’s sudden death.

The watchmen tell Hamlet of the strange apparition that is haunting them nightly and Hamlet is curious, he wants to see it for himself. In my favorite scene of the entire movie, Hamlet runs through the foggy woods that night, yelling, screaming for his father’s tragic passing. He gets a response from his father’s spirit; his father’s voice speaks in the most bone chilling voice. He tells Hamlet that his death was “most cruel and most unnatural” and he makes this very clear, saying it more than once. He says his brother snuck up on him while he was asleep in the orchard and poured a leprous mixture into his ear.

The King’s own brother committed the deed that made him fall ill and die almost immediately. Before disappearing into the night, the apparition says to Hamlet “Remember me! ” This experience is of course very emotional for Hamlet. Hamlet wants to avenge his father’s death. He decides the only way to wear on the new king’s conscience is to put on a play that is basically the story of his father’s betrayal by his brother and the queen for having married him. While this is going on, everyone is saying Hamlet has gone “mad” because of his erratic behavior, but attributes it to his being love sick over his girl friend, Ophelia.

Hamlet loves Ophelia, and she loves him, but her father forbids her to see him any longer. Hamlet is enraged by this, as he is many things Ophelia’s father says and does. In the heat of an argument, Hamlet kills Ophelia’s Father. Ophelia is devastated, goes insane, and eventually ends up drowning herself. Ophelia’s brother returns from France to find out his father has been slain by Hamlet and Ophelia has killed herself. Needless to say, Ophelia’s brother is furious. Ophelia’s brother and the King plan for him and Hamlet to spar. They plan to poison the cup Hamlet drinks from during the fight, so he will undoubtedly die.

While fencing, the King insists that Hamlet drink for doing well, but he refrains and says he will wait until later. Next, the queen offers him a drink, but again he refuses, so she drinks out of the cup that is poisoned instead. The fight turns quite vicious and Ophelia’s brother is struck down. At the same time the queen has fallen to the floor, dying, saying she had been poisoned before she took her last breath. Ophelia’s brother confesses that the King is the one who poisoned the cup in order to kill Hamlet. Hamlet and Ophelia’s brother make amends before he dies. Enraged, Hamlet goes after the King and feeds him the poison.

The King dies. Then Hamlet dies of poisoning. The Norwegian crown prince and his army storm the castle in order to assume the throne, wasting no time. They are astounded by the royal deaths. I thought the movie had an excellent cast, all great actors that did a wonderful job. Kenneth Branagh made a good Hamlet. I liked Hamlet’s character and hoped the best for him, even though I did not agree with some of the things he did. I felt badly for Hamlet, as I also did Ophelia when she took her own life out of misery. I think it is sad they did not end up together; but then again that’s the point, it’s a tragedy.

I loved the original King, although he wasn’t in the movie much in life form, he seemed like a fair and wise King. The actor who played the king did a fantastic job in the foggy woods scene. All in all the entire cast was very convincing, so much that you either came to love or hate the characters. I think there are many . The one that stands out the most is the importance of thinking before acting. Hamlet does and says many things he might not if he took some time to first “cool down”. It seems as if he is too hasty to act and this often gets him into trouble making terrible things happen that he can’t simply take back.

Another lesson to take from Hamlet is that nothing is forever and nothing is certain. Hamlet wrestled with the validity of the experience of his father’s apparition, he questioned whether or not it really happened. For some things in this life there is no hard science. Sometimes the answers are not always clear; you just have to trust your own judgment. I really enjoyed watching the movie version of Hamlet. Quite honestly I thought turning a play into a movie would be difficult to make interesting, but it was done extremely well. I would love to go to a real live play version of Hamlet.

I think the experience of seeing the acting up close on a stage would be totally different then watching the movie because the audience is able to get more involved in the story, but the movie is a good way to go if you don’t have the opportunity to see the play. The minor special effects in the movie really help to draw you in, but it’s nothing significant that couldn’t be done on stage as well. Hamlet is a classic story that has stood the test of time. I’m sure it will never stop being reenacted and adapted for movies in generations to come.

“I am but mad north-northwest: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw” (Foakes 213). This is a classic example of the “wild and whirling words” (I.v.134) with which Hamlet hopes to persuade people to believe that he is mad. These words, however, prove that beneath his “antic disposition,” Hamlet is very sane indeed. Beneath his strange choice of imagery involving points of the compass, the weather, and hunting birds, he is announcing that he is calculatedly choosing the times when to appear mad.

Hamlet is saying that he knows a hunting hawk from a hunted “handsaw” or heron, in other words, that, very far form being mad, he is perfectly capable of recognizing his enemies. Hamlet’s madness was feigned for a purpose. He warned his friends he intended to fake madness, but Gertrude as well as Claudius saw through it, and even the slightly dull-witted Polonius was suspicious. His public face is one of insanity but, in his private moments of soliloquy, through his confidences to Horatio, and in his careful plans of action, we see that his madness is assumed.

After the Ghost’s first appearance to Hamlet, Hamlet decides that when he finds it suitable or advantageous to him, he will put on a mask of madness. He confides to Horatio that when he finds the occasion appropriate, he will “put an antic disposition on” (I.v.173). This strategy gives Hamlet a chance to find proof of Claudius’s guilt and to contemplate his revenge tactic (Burton 2). Although he has sworn to avenge his father’s murder, he is not sure of the Ghost’s origins: “The spirit that I have seen May be the devil” (II.ii.596-7).

He uses his apparent madness as a delaying tactic to buy time in which to discover whether the Ghost’s tale of murder is true and to decide how to handle the situation. At the same time, he wants to appear unthreatening and harmless so that people will divulge information to him, much in the same way that an adult will talk about an important secret in the presence of a young child (Boyce 232). To convince everyone of his madness, Hamlet spends many hours walking back and forth alone in the lobby, speaking those “wild and whirling words” which make little sense on the surface but in fact carry a meaningful subtext. Although he appears to have lost touch with reality, he keeps reminding us that he is not at all “far gone, far gone” (II.ii.187) as Polonius claims, but is in fact very much in command of himself and the situation.

With his ranting and raving and his seemingly useless pacing of the lobby, Hamlet manages to appear quite mad. The naive and trusting Ophelia believes in and is devastated by what she sees as his downfall:

“O, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown!

. . . The expectancy and rose of the fair state

. . . quite, quite down!” (III.i.152,4,6).

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are also fully convinced. They are Hamlet’s equals in age but are far inferior in intellect and therefore don’t understand that he is faking. However, although Hamlet manages to convince these simple friends and Ophelia of his insanity, other characters in the play such as Claudius, Gertrude and even Polonius eventually see through his behavior.

Claudius is constantly on his guard because of his guilty conscience and he therefore recognizes that Hamlet is faking. The king is suspicious of Hamlet from the very beginning. He denies Hamlet permission to return to university so that he can keep an eye on him close by. When Hamlet starts acting strangely, Claudius gets all the more suspicious and sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on him. Their instructions are to discover why Hamlet is pretending to be mad:

“And can you, by no drift of circumstance,

Get from him why he puts on this confusion

Grating so harshly all his days of quiet

With turbulent and dangerous lunacy” (III. i.1-4).

The reason Claudius is so reluctant to believe that Ophelia’s rejection has caused Hamlet’s lunacy is that he doesn’t believe in his madness at all (Kirsch 2: 507). When Claudius realizes through the play-within-the-play that Hamlet knows the truth about his father’s death, he immediately sends him away to England. The prevailing piece of evidence demonstrating Claudius’s knowledge of Hamlet’s sanity is the fact that he feels threatened enough by Hamlet to order him killed by the king of England:

“For like the hectic in my blood he rages

And thou must cure me: till I know ’tis done

Howe’er my haps, my joys were ne’er begun” (IV.iii.67-9).

In the scene in his mother’s bedroom, Hamlet tells Gertrude that his insanity is assumed:

I have utter’d: bring me to the test

And I the matter will reword, which madness

Even without this confirmation, the Queen has seen through his act (Burton 2). While Hamlet is reprimanding her, she is so upset that she describes his words as “daggers” (III.iv.98) and claims, ” Thou hast cleft my heart in twain” (III.iv.158). The words of a madman could not have penetrated her soul to such an extent. The queen takes every word Hamlet says seriously, proving she respects him and believes his mind to be sound. Furthermore, she believes Hamlet’s confession of sanity immediately. She does not question him at all but instead promises to keep it her secret. “I have no life to breathe What though hast said to me” (III.iv.200-1).

Even Polonius can see that Hamlet has not completely lost touch with the world. Although he frequently misses the meanings of Hamlet’s remarks and insults, he does recognize that they make some sense. When asked if he recognizes Polonius, Hamlet promptly replies, “Excellent well; you are a fishmonger” (II.ii.172). Although the response seems crazy since a fish-seller would look completely unlike the expensively dressed lord Polonius, Hamlet is actually criticizing Polonius for his management of Ophelia, since “fishmonger” is Elizabethan slang for “pimp” (Boyce 237).

He plays mind-games with Polonius, getting him in crazy talk to agree first that a cloud looks like a camel, then a weasel and finally a whale, and in a very sane aside, he then comments that “they fool me to the top of my bent” (III.ii.375). After the confusing conversation with Hamlet he remarks, ” Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t” (II.ii.205). When his theory of rejected love proves wrong, he becomes very suspicious of Hamlet’s behavior and offers to test it by hiding behind the “arras” in Gertrude’s bedroom so that he can listen in on Hamlet’s private conversation with his mother. Polonius’ suspicions about the legitimacy of Hamlet’s madness lead to his death when Hamlet stabs the “arras” in the mistaken belief that the eavesdropper is Claudius.

Hamlet’s soliloquies, his confidences to Horatio, and his elaborate plans are by far the most convincing proof of his sanity. Throughout the play, Hamlet’s soliloquies reveal his inner thoughts, which are completely rational (Kirsch 511). In one such speech, Hamlet criticizes himself for not having yet taken action to avenge his father’s murder:

“O what a rogue and peasant slave am I

Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,

Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words” (II. ii. 545, 581-3).

Hamlet calls himself a “dull and muddy-mettled rascal” (II.ii.563), a villain and a coward, but when he realizes that his anger doesn’t achieve anything practical other than the unpacking of his heart, he stops. These are not the thoughts of a madman; his emotions are real and his thoughts are those of a rational man. Even when he contemplates suicide in the “to be or not to be” soliloquy, his reasons himself out of it through a very sane consideration of the dangers of an unknown afterlife: “And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought” (III. i. 85-6).

A further important proof of his sanity is how patiently he devises plans to prepare for his revenge. As he explains to Horatio, his “antic disposition” is a device to test his enemies. His mounting of the play-within-the-play is another well-laid plan to trap Claudius into admitting guilt: “The play’s the thing Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king” (II.ii.602-3) and even when the play brings him concrete proof, he is careful not to rush to take his revenge at the wrong moment.

He could easily kill Claudius while he is praying but restrains himself so that there is no chance of Claudius’s entering heaven. Although Hamlet’s patience can be seen as an example of his procrastination, the Foakes think that it is rather a sign of rationality. Hamlet shows himself perfectly capable of action, as well as of rational thought, in escaping the king’s armed guard, dispatching Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths in England, dealing with the pirates and making it back to Denmark. In addition, the letter Horatio from him through the ambassador bound for England is clear and precise and shows no signs of a befuddled mind (Burton 1).

Finally, we are convinced of Hamlet’s sanity by his very normal reactions to the people around him. He is perfectly sane, friendly and courteous with the players, giving them good acting tips, which they appreciate and respect. When Polonius and Claudius test the rejected love theory by “loosing” Ophelia to him, Hamlet acts completely rationally. He greets Ophelia sweetly, gets a little cold when he remembers that he has not seen her “for this many a day,” is very hurt when she returns his remembrances, and becomes completely furious, insulting womankind in general, when she lies to him about her father’s whereabouts and he realizes he is being spied on. He reacts the way any hurt young rejected lover would. This shows that he is very sane and rational indeed

Throughout the play, Hamlet”s calculating mind lets him get away with all of his actions. He is the most sane person in the play and he uses his “antic disposition” to manipulate people, confuse everyone, and investigate anything he wants. He is fully aware of all of his actions and the consequences that they will have on the other characters in the play. Shakespeare”s genius shows through in the character of Hamlet. He was able to show Hamlet outwardly as a madman, but still keep the audience believing that he was still very sane underneath. Hamlet puts on his antic disposition very well. He is, in fact, “sane throughout the entire play” (Boyce 239).

Female Power in Hamlet I. Introduction William Shakespeare’s Hamlet is characterized by its tragic conclusion and its memorable cast. As a reflection of the time period in which Hamlet was written, the predominately male cast views the female characters as inferior. What the men do not realize is that the women have more control than what is initially predicted. Throughout the play, Gertrude uses her influence over Claudius to gain political ground while Ophelia uses her sexuality to have control over her relationship with Hamlet. This sense of female power also has a lasting effect on the theme of sexuality and corruption in the play.

II. Gertrude A. Governmental Influence During the course of the play, Gertrude uses her status as a woman to establish herself as a capable and superior ruler. At the beginning of the play Hamlet chastises his mother for not only for her willingness to remarry after the untimely death of his father but for her marriage to Claudius, the brother of the recently deceased. Hamlet views this as incestuous; as did many others during the time the play was written (Pressley). We should keep in mind that she is the Queen of Denmark and has to make decisions that would best benefit her nation.

Gertrude’s motivations were more political than unholy. Her marriage to Claudius gave the throne a more stable base of power which would make the people of Denmark feel more secure especially when facing a possible invasion by Fortinbras (Lenz). This union would also prove to the people that she was emotionally secure enough to be rule the state. King Hamlet also felt that Gertrude was strong enough to run the country because he made her the recipient of the throne after his death and not his eldest son which was traditional (Pressley).

Gertrude uses her influence as a powerful woman to help make her country and her life more secure. III. Ophelia A. Sexual Power Many critics find Ophelia to be a pawn to the men in her life, but throughout the play she proves “herself to be neither silent nor merely obedient” (Fisher 130). This statement is only disproved in regards to her father. She does obey him when he tells her to stay away from Hamlet and when he asks her to be involved in a plan to determine Hamlet’s state of mind. She does not have the same submissive tendencies towards her brother and Hamlet.

When Laertes tries to warn Ophelia about the dangers of pre-marital sex, she just rebukes him as a hypocrite and establishes the existence of a double standard surrounding the issue. While there is little doubt that Hamlet and Ophelia loved each other, sex was not involved in their affection. If they were to have a child out of wedlock then both of their reputations along with the reputations of their families would be ruined and the heir to the throne would be in question. She had a certain loyalty to her family and the status they held and Hamlet had certain expectations as the prince of Denmark.

This restrain on their endeavors does not limit the power of Ophelia over Hamlet. She still uses the fact that they could be together one day to her advantage. They were playful with each other and at timely highly suggestive but this only shows the passions built up from their inability to act on their feelings (Neeley). Hamlet respects this silent sexual power when he tells her “get thee to a nunnery” in the hope of keeping her safely away from his madness (Shakespeare, 3. 1. 131). This conversation, though one sided, proves that Hamlet really did love and respect Ophelia enough to protect her from himself.

IV. The Effect of Female Power on the Themes of Sexuality and Corruption in the Play Throughout the play, any sign of female power is portrayed as sinful or somehow connected with the fall of Denmark. Hamlet blames his mother more for his suicidal thoughts than his father’s death. This is shown through his preoccupation with his mothers “incestuous sheets” and his lack of action to avenge his father’s murder (Shakespeare, 1. 2. 162). Hamlet views female sexuality as the single cause of corruption in Denmark leaving it no more than an “unweeded garden” (Shakespeare, 1. . 139). More specifically this moral corruption can be seen in Gertrude. When her political power is threatened by her son’s lover, she has her killed and stages it as madness induced suicide. Gertrude is the only person who describes Ophelia’s death and she repeats the word “drown’d” multiple times almost as if she is convincing herself that it is true. She also calls Ophelia a “mermaid”, originally another name for a siren, which was known for unintentionally drowning young men (Shakespeare, 4. 7. 201).

Gertrude meets her death from the poisoned wine, drowning in a sense on the poison, meant for her own son. Sometimes you have to think outside the pages, but the effects of female power on the theme of sex and corruption cannot be ignored. V. Conclusion While the women in Hamlet have few lines, they have a tremendous amount of influence over the men in the play Hamlet. Gertrude uses her influence to establish herself as an adept matriarch. Ophelia uses her power to keep her relationship with Hamlet despite their trials.

Is Hamlet Mad (His Indecisive Soliloquies)? A controversy occurs over whether Hamlet’s behaviour displays craziness or planned insightfulness when deciding on his revenge on King Claudius. Prince Hamlet’s life unfortunately spirals out of hand when his father mysteriously dies. Suspicion of the possible murder of the king rises when his mother immediately marries King Claudius. Hamlet becomes extremely skeptical believing that his father did not die of murder and concludes that King Claudius could be held as a suspect. He contemplates his plans on revenge on many occasions alone, in literature, known as soliloquies. major purpose f Shakespeare’s use of Soliloquies in Hamlet is to provide views of the prince at crucial moments in the course of his experience”(Newell 134) His pursuit to find out officially causes Hamlet’s change of behaviour, a crazy behaviour in which he claims he acts on purpose. Yet many in the story claim Hamlet’s rash decisions, sudden hatred towards Ophelia, and the killing of Polonius, emerge out of a mental disease he developed naturally after his father’s death. The reader makes their own opinions when observing how he acts by himself reflecting on his journey towards revenge.

Hamlet progresses from indecisiveness and confusion when handling the matters of revenge towards King Claudius observed in Act 2, Scene 2; Act 3, Scene 1 and Act 4 Scene 2. This is due to his religious morals sometimes, and other times he’s so blinded by revenge that he wants to i the king when he’s in a position of unholiness. Firstly, in act 2, scene 2, Hamlet shows vengeful confusion demonstrating himself as an avenger. The scene begins with Gertrude inviting Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to Elsinore in hopes to help Hamlet recover from his sudden change of behaviour.

Since they have grown up with him, they know his personality the best, thus Hamlet, Gertrude’s “too much changed son” (2. 2. 36) contains fondness solely for his comrades, opening the gates for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to investigate secretly. Hamlet seems pleased about the arrival of his best friends, yet becomes skeptical over their reason for the sudden appearance. When they claim they came merely to revisit Hamlet, he strictly declares that he knows the king and the queen sent for them. After the players perform, giving an enlightening speech regarding the fall of Troy, Hamlet leaves his comrades, standing alone.

Here, he formulates a plan to find out whether Claudius indeed killed his father. Forcing Claudius to watch The Murder of Gonzaga, a play which may r may not resemble Claudius’s own very life, Hamlet will scout his reaction of potential guilt written on his face- proof that Claudius did indeed murder the king. “Hamlet’s fourth soliloquy may be seen as a link between the emotional turmoil f his previous soliloquy, after his encounter with the ghost and the level of intellectuality of the “to be or not to be soliloquy” shortly after it. (Newell 56) In other words, this soliloquy could be considered as a bond connecting with chaos, his previous soliloquy, and intuitiveness, his subsequent soliloquy.

Unfortunately, Hamlet displays illogicalness throughout his soliloquy. He uses contradicting analogies showing lack of commitment and certainty to act n revenge. line reads that he prevails “with eyes like carbuncles, the Hellish Pyrrhus old grandsire Priam seeks. So proceed you. ”(2. 2. 466-468) Hamlet relates himself to Pyrrhus. Therefore, if “Hamlet is like Pyrrhus, then Priam is in avoidably an analogue for Claudius against whom Hamlet seeks revenge. (Newell 59) If Hamlet committed to his quest for revenge, he would further his commitment by similar analogies supporting his classification as the avenger. Instead, he then propels himself in the opposite direction, by using words “peasant slave” for himself and “kindles villain” in the rhetoric way” (Newell k). This also creates a controversy f prospective. First he calls himself a revenger like Pyrrhus. “But it comes from Aeneas pint f view creating sympathy f Hamlet” (Newell 58) In addition, Hamlets scheme he reveals in his soliloquy subsists as a flawed plan.

Firstly, Hamlet claims “The rugged Pyrrhus, like the Hyrcanian beast” (2. 2. 453). “He compares Pyrrhus as a “Hyrcanian beast” a mistake because it reveals Hamlets subconscious views of Pyrrhus as an avenger acting mindlessly with bestial ferocity” (Newman 57) Secondly, Hamlet’s plan to “catch the conscience of the king” (2. 2. 610) is t trap the king by bringing out an emotional response. he plans to catch Claudius connecting emotionally with an actor who plays killer, therefore revealing Claudius as the killer.

However, this idea starts to become unsound because Claudius’ feeling about the play could never have become a reliable source f truth t killing Hamlet’s father. Many connect with movies because of the engaging actors and actresses, the angle of lights, and the overall atmosphere the director creates without actually going through the same situation the character did in the movie. Emotional responses should not be one’s ticket to killing. Obviously, Hamlet’s declaration “I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw” (2. 2. 81-382) could prove itself at such a crucial moment, questioning the truthfulness or reliability in this quote. If Hamlet chose to act “mad” at nerve-wrecking times in his life, then he would have turned off his “performance” and demonstrated sanity and intrusiveness when alone, developing a significant plan that may alter his life. Consequently, Hamlet’s soliloquy reveals carelessness and illogicalness, pushing his reflections n a negative note upon his act towards revenge. Secondly, Act 3 of Hamlet opens with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz meeting with Gertrude and Claudius, discussing Hamlet’s behavior.

The trio has come to the conclusion that no one can explain his bizarre change, so Claudius dismisses the other three, saying that he and Polonius intend to spy on Hamlet’s confrontation with Ophelia. While Polonius and the king walk a1round the lobby, they hear Hamlet coming and decide to hide behind the tapestry. Not detecting their presence, Hamlet wrestles with the decision to commit suicide. “To be or not to be, that is the ques2tion” (3. 1. 56) He believes suicide will end the pain of his existence for good. “Between the sick soul and the knowledge and of love here are interstellar spaces that divide Hell from Heaven. (Bloom 56) This means to the ordinary eye, Heaven and Hell stand tremendously far away from each other. However, when considering into account a question like this, one can make the gap seem much smaller. Although the consideration of suicide from any character is daunting at the very least, Hamlet still approaches the question with eloquence and logical thinking. Initially, Hamlet attempts to pose one such a question in a rational, logical way. He ponders why or how the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” (3. 1. 58) can be borne out since life after death is so uncertain.

Ha1mlet considers that suicide would not seem as big of a deal if one knows his death or her afterlife. because Ha1mlet believes one does not know what happens after death, he or she would rather “bear those ill we have, then fly to others that we know not of” (3. 1. 81-82) Many struggle with this issue of what happens after people die, and even base many decisions upon it. For Hamlet to recognize this uncertainty as a significant fact in the idea of suicide rather than ending some sort of “everlasting” pain, shows complete logical reasoning.

In fact, by the time most conclude that their life must end, they too senile have become already mentally unstable and crazy to even formulate why suicide remains a controversial issue. Hamlet explains that if everyone knew about his or her afterlife, most suicides will indeed occur and the issue would not seem contentious. Furthermore, Hamlet shows his intelligence in depicting his decision about suicide in his “to be or not to be” soliloquy. Although at this moment, Hamlet realizes that many choose life over death because of the inability to know one’s afterlife, the speech remains a deep contemplation about the nature and reason for death.

After posing this complex question and wondering about the nature of the great sleep, Hamlet goes on to list many sufferings which men are prone to in the midst of life’s rough course of life, which makes it seem as though he is moving toward death yet, again. By the end of this soliloquy, however, he finally realizes “But the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country form whose bourn to no traveler returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have”. (3. 1. 78-81) Additionally, the way Hamlet even poses the question of suicide as a matter of Philosophical debate shows intuition.

He does not express himself at all during the soliloquy, never uses the words “I” or “me” in the entire speech, setting it up as a controversial question upon which people can voice their opinions. “When we shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause” (3. 1. 67) … “when he himself might his quietus make” (3. 1. 75)…Soft you now! ” (3. 1. 88) Instead, Hamlet purposely uses words such as we, us, you, he, and his to disguise what he is really thinking about, acting cautiously but very smartly. His words at the end of the scene are indeed ‘wild and whirling’” (Bloom 87) towards Ophelia. As a result, Hamlet shows confusion to end his life or not, yet in a very intellectual manner, presenting his saneness to the audience. Lastly, act 4 scenes 4, focuses back to Hamlet’s pursuit to revenge Claudius officially. Hamlet encounters with the Norwegian captain who shows forcefulness and courage in taking action. This discourages Hamlet and his commitment to revenge. Hamlet stands awestruck by the willingness of

Fortinbras’ devotion and energy towards his entire army. When left alone, Hamlet the moral doubt of Fortinbras’ deed, but his dynamism impress him to a point of a firm decision on one last attempt. Here he analyzes his patience yet forcefulness like Fortinbras’ and his patch of land, toward King Claudius. Actually, “His previous two soliloquies provide clarifying context for the defective working of his mind in the present one, for his reason is in fact, no less subjected by passion here than in the other two. (Newell 134) Here, Hamlet utters great emotion towards his stagnant plans on revenge and expresses them in this soliloquy. To begin with, Hamlet’s logical reasoning becomes apparent in his last soliloquy because he develops dramatically indeed in the play-“The subjugation of Hamlet’s reason by his passion for revenge” (Newell 133) For one, Shakespeare reestablishes Hamlet’s preoccupation with revenge as tragic.

It subsists as a “Necessary soliloquy after accidentally killing Polonius by mistake in pursuit of revenge; unlike the last two, people sympathize with him and view him tragically. (Newell 134) Sympathizing with Hamlet’s confusion and distress compels the reader to classify him as a logical person, not as a mad man, who needs support when going through a very upsetting time in his life. In relation to this, it helps that Hamlet uses “the language of Elizabethan spirituality of the mind, the engaging of thought and unlike before, finding him repulsive by the close scene with Gertrude, hide and seek with school fellows and the interview with Claudius. (Newell 135) Next, the audience believes he displays logical reasoning because his thinking and reasoning correspond. He reveals jealous rage while simultaneously, finally planning his overdue act of revenge on Claudius. “My thoughts be blood, or be nothing worth! ” (4. 4. 66). In other words, Hamlet exclaims my thoughts be bloody, my deeds be bloody also, giving some consistency with his preparation. His logical thinking steer him onto the right path of revenge.

Moreover, Hamlet exposes his brilliance through his soliloquy of “discursive reasoning, in a way that heightens one’s tragic view of the character before he leaves” (Newell 133) Firstly, his “soliloquy makes him less vengeful and more patient for an opportunity for revenge” (Newell 135) showing personal growth in the matter. He knows revenge lies as his only option, yet instead of rushing it with a quick spontaneous plan like before; he takes a different approach and develops patience revolving around the issue. “Of thinking too precisely on the event- A thought which, quartered hath but one part wisdom and even three parts coward. (4. 4. 41-43) This means, if he thinks too long and critically, he will become anxious and a coward, but if he waits patiently and stop the rash aggressiveness clouding his mind, revenge will fall into place. Secondly, “the reoccurrence of “beast” and “discourse” and “reason” in a cluster brings to mind the forceful phrase “a beast that wants discourse of reason” from the first soliloquy” (Newell 133) This presents Hamlet intelligence, relating his last soliloquy with his first because a confused madman could not possibly remember what he reflected upon by himself, many times ago, this gives Hamlet some credit of existing as normal.

Therefore, Hamlet shows logical thinking and intuitiveness in his last soliloquy, ending his reflections on a positive note on his pursuit towards revenge, also presenting himself as not a completely crazy man. Hamlet progresses from indecisiveness and confusion to logic when handling the matters of revenge towards King Claudius observes in Act 2, Scene 2; Act 3, scene 1; and Act 4, Scene 2 soliloquies. The opinions on where he really developed a mental disorder if he played it off towards only his friends, remains debatable; for in three main soliloquies he acts either wise or cultivated.

An act or not, nobody should judge someone after going through a loss like Hamlets’. Even if one’s behaviour changed for the worse after a parent’s death, many should sympathize and support him or her through his or her loss. A loss of a close family member is one of the most difficult situations one goes through. One must remember that everyone is a unique individual. Therefore, many cope with the tragedy of death differently.

Works Cited Bloom, Harold. The Embassy of Death: An Essay on Hamlet. Hamlet. 1990 ed. Print. Lamb, Sidney ed. Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Hoboken: Wiley Publishing, Inc. 2000. Print. Levin, Harry. Interrogation, Doubt, Irony: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Modern Critical View William Shakespeare: The Tragedies. 1959 ed. Print. Newell, Alex. Passion and Reason. The Soliloquies in Hamlet 1935 ed. Print. Newell, Alex. The mind O’erthrown: Reason Pandering Will. The Soliloquies in Hamlet. 1927 ed. Print.

Loneliness in Hamlet The article “Personal and Social Influences on Loneliness: The Mediating Effect of Social Provisions” defined loneliness by stating, “First, loneliness is thought to result from perceived deficiencies in one’s social world. Second, loneliness is thought to be a subjective state experienced by the individual, rather than some objective feature in the individual’s social world. Third, this experience frequently is unpleasant and distressing” (Kraus et al. 85). Everyone faces loneliness and despair in their lives.

In today’s world people may feel misunderstood or isolated, or they could feel deficient because the lack a family or missing a loved one. In Hamlet, much of the loneliness and suffering he endures is due to the secrets he is forced to keep. There were many instances where Hamlet felt alone and upset, but he could not share his pain with anyone else. We can also find examples of Hamlet’s despair due to betrayal from his so-called friends. The loneliness and despair in Hamlet are factors that added to his suffering and caused his overall demise.

Hamlet is a lonely, isolated character, with few friends and little faith in humanity. His loneliness plays a great role in his downfall, by alienating him from his friends and family and eventually taking control of his actions. He does not share the knowledge of his father’s murder with anyone. He can’t trust his friends and family, and he hides his true feelings from his only love, Ophelia, adding to her insanity. These events eventually lead to his downfall, and could have been avoided by sharing his dilemma.

Throughout the play, Hamlet discovers who is loyal to him and also who his real enemies are. Right away, Hamlet dislikes his uncle. He is already distraught over losing his father, but he has also to deal with the marriage of his beloved mother to his uncle, who killed his father and whom he perceives as being cruel and cold-hearted. Hamlet refers to his uncle as, “A little more than kin, and less than kind” (1. 2. 564). This clearly demonstrates the extreme hatred Hamlet has towards his uncle. Hamlet also feels intensely betrayed by his mother.

Claude Williamson states that “[…] the shock which he suffered on hearing of the murder and on realizing the full horror of his mother’s action made, as it were, a wound in his mind, which hurt whenever he thought of his uncle or of his mother’s connection with that uncle” (98). Hamlet trusted his mother and feels as if she has disregarded any love she ever felt towards her former husband. In Hamlet’s eyes, his mother has offended his father, and he blames her for his death. Hamlet says to his mother, “A bloody deed!

Almost as bad, good mother, As kill a king, and marry with his brother” (3. 4. 621). This shows that he is revolted by the idea of the marriage between his uncle and his mother. Hamlet also encounters loneliness and despair with Ophelia. Due to his experiences throughout the play, Hamlet distances himself from Ophelia, whom he is actually in love with. He does this by insulting her and convincing her that he is mad and never had any true feelings for her. By pretending to be mad and not telling Ophelia about his true feelings, he is misleading her as well.

Ophelia believed his affections were true and she fell in love, only to be crushed by his madness. However, in his madness, Hamlet came to see Ophelia in a disheveled state, “[… ] with his doublet all unbraced, no hat upon his head, his stockings fouled, ungartered, and down-gyved to his ankle, pale as his shirt, his knees knocking [… ]” and frightened her (2. 1. 585). Her father bid her not to speak to him, and she complied. Poor Hamlet sank deeper into his madness, alone and dejected. Ophelia, also depressed, was ready to take her own life.

Hamlet is devastated because he never actually meant to hurt her. Hamlet says, “I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum” (5. 1. 654). This shows how much Hamlet truly loved Ophelia. The last factor that contributed to Hamlet’s loneliness is that he didn’t share his problems with anyone (except for Horatio). He hid his hatred towards his uncle, the loss he felt with his mother, and the secret of his encounter with his murdered father’s ghost. If he had told more people his secrets, then they could have been more willing to help him.

The person who could have helped him the most and spared him the most grief is Ophelia. By telling her about his father’s murder and about his plan to avenge his death, Ophelia would have provided Hamlet with comfort and understanding. His tragic flaw came from the misleading act he put on in order to hide his ambitions, and the crafty schemes he came up with to reach his goals. However, some topics are so complex that Hamlet may face limitations in discussing them with people who are not as deep as he.

Hamlet’s loneliness was caused by many incidents, some of which Hamlet brought upon him himself. Had he shared his problems with the few people he could trust, and not hidden the knowledge of his father’s murder, he might have avoided the great loss of his family, his friends, and his life. Secrets, deception, and despair plagued Hamlet throughout the play, and ultimately caused his downfall. It is important that we have support from our friends through difficult times. When we alienate people by keeping secrets from them, it is to our disadvantage. We cause our own loneliness.

Hamlet: Women of the Shakespearean Era Women in Shakespeare’s plays are, for the most part, looked at as weak characters. There were only two main female roles in his famous play Hamlet. The two female roles in the play are Queen Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother, and Ophelia, Hamlet’s love and daughter of Polonius. These women are always being told what to say and do. They never speak up for themselves, and that creates trouble for them in the end. In William Shakespeare’s play, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark the women are manipulated by the men, which causes Gertrude and Ophelia to die tragically.

The double standards for women in this play are extremely common and many men everywhere use them. For example, the double standard that men can sleep around and women cannot. Laertes tells Ophelia that she should not give up her innocence to Hamlet because he has not saved himself for her and their love is not real, yet Laertes is not pure himself. This is kind of a ‘do as I say, not as I do” type of situation. Most double standards demonstrate that, males can do whatever they please and females get in trouble for most things.

To be more specific, Gertrude and Ophelia were both told to talk to Hamlet so Polonius and Claudius could listen in and find out certain things about Hamlet. Ophelia was even forced to reject Hamlet when she loved him. Also, the women in the play are not free to marry whoever they desire. For example, when Gertrude married Claudius it was not really her choice to do so. The first time they disobey the men in this story is when things start to go bad. Ophelia ends up going crazy and drowning, and Gertrude drinks from a poisoned cup of wine and dies.

David Bevington had quite a few things to say on the female roles in this play. He refers to Ophelia and Gertrude as “instruments through which Claudius attempts to spy on Hamlet” (Bevington 301). This is true because they listen to Claudius and do whatever he asks of them. Also, he says that Hamlet makes it known that the women are weak. Hamlet says, “frailty, thy name is woman” (I. ii. 146). This play shows that women have a manipulative side to them. Many forms of trickery occurred to Hamlet when he had not done anything wrong to the women.

Ophelia makes it seem like she does not love Hamlet and gives him back his love letters to her at one point in the play. This entire play is just pure madness from the beginning all the way till the last act and scene. The females get caught up in the middle of the drama, and that is why they have the bad reputation we have. Joseph Campbell described to us in an interview about why women are portrayed how they are. He says that women have been seen as weak since the beginning of time.

Most of the time it is because women are smaller and more fragile than the men are. You never see women doing anything for themselves, and if you do it is on a rare occasion. That is why women are portrayed and treated how they are. Work Cited Bevington, David. “Introduction to Hamlet. ” Hamlet. William Shakespeare. Evanston: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. , 1992. 301. Print. Campbell, Joseph. “The Hero’s Adventure. ” The Power of Myth. Interview by Bill Moyers. Wellspring Media, Inc. , 2005. DVD. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Evanston: McDougal little, 1997. Print.

Central to any drama is action. What distinguishes drama from other literary forms is the very fact that it is acted upon a stage, that voice is given to the words and that movement creates meaning. It is, therefore, puzzling that the most seminal dramatic work in the English language contains, arguably, precious little of what many might describe as dramatic action. Nevertheless, it has moved, enthralled and, what is more, entertained generations of theatre-goers across the centuries and is still regarded as one of Shakespeare’s most popular play.

It has divided critics: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe regards as central to the play Hamlet’s inability to act whereas T. S. Eliot reduces the work to ‘an artistic failure’. If Tom Stoppard is to be believed, even the characters are at odds with this apparent lack of drama as Stoppard’s Rosencrantz asks ‘is it too much to expect a little sustained action?! ’If then, we are to acknowledge that action is central to the drama, it is important to remember that such action is usually derived from conflict.

When regarding Hamlet through this basic philosophy, the play is in every way dramatic. The play is concerned with conflict. We have international conflict, familial conflict and internal conflict and it is these conflicts that drive the play. This is confirmed within the opening line ‘Who’s there? ’(I. i. 1). Immediately we are plunged into the state of paranoia that envelops Elsinore, the question is confrontational and, furthermore, directs us towards the international conflict between Denmark and Norway. The drama of the play, however, is not as simple as this.

For instance, we must also consider the dramatic structure of a play and apply this to Hamlet; a structure that goes from equilibrium to conflict and then on to a new equilibrium. It is impossible to relate this to the play; for who would agree that the Elsinore, at the start of Hamlet, is in a state of equilibrium? Indeed, as Stephen Ratcliffe points out, the catalyst for all action in the play does not occur within the play. The murder of Hamlet’s father has already happened when Barnardo delivers that famous first line, a line which itself suggests a response to something that has happened offstage.

Ratcliffe goes on to discuss that the line could almost be a response to a ‘knock knock’ joke but more seriously that it: begin[s] the play in response not only to some implicit, unspoken physical action- some motion or noise in the dark, […] but to an implicit action not performed on stage – some motion of the Ghost of Hamlet’s father which Bernardo, who speaks this line, just imagine he has seen and/or heard. Ratcliffe also suggests that the action not performed on stage does not happen at all.

Alarmingly, he refutes Claudius’s confession of fratricide in Act III, arguing unconvincingly that Old Hamlet’s murder had never taken place. In spite of this, he does raise an interesting issue that is concerned with the question as to why – when in Western literature dramatic narrative is defined by cause and effect – does Shakespeare place the primary cause off stage and beyond the gaze of his audience? We are left to imagine the dramatic possibilities of opening the play with the alarming and visually striking image of a brother’s murder.

If Shakespeare’s decision to leave this exciting and sinister event in the wings confounds us, what, then, are we to make of the climax of the play? If we are to return to the classic dramatic structure of a play, we expect to see rising action leading to a climax that, in turn, leads on to the falling action culminated by the denouement. Hamlet gives us no such structure. There is no climax in the classic sense or if there is it appears in the final scene, not where one would expect. There is, nevertheless, one possibility that the climax may appear earlier in the play and that would be, in the traditional sense, in Act III.

The murder of Polonius in Act III, scene iv might be regarded as the turning point of the play in the same way that Mercutio’s death in Romeo and Juliet is seen as such. It is at this point that we see Hamlet at a height of passion, ‘How now? A rat! Dead for a ducat, dead’ (III. iv. 23). The use of the word ‘rat’ shows Hamlet’s contempt for his supposed victim, the repetition of ‘dead’ embellishes his determination to kill, and the ducat is the small price Hamlet values the life he has just taken. The consequences of this action feed into every other event that is to happen: Claudius’s resolve to kill Hamlet, Ophelia’s death and Laertes’s act of revenge which brings about the play’s final dynastic collapse. Once again, though, Shakespeare ‘removes’ the audience from the action, having the murder take place ‘offstage’. Polonius is murdered behind the arras and this takes us away from the immediacy of the action. There is no huge build-up with a climactic duel as there is in Romeo and Juliet; we are not even given the drama of remorse that is evident in Macbeth. For these reasons, it is impossible to consider the death of Polonius to be the dramatic climax of the play, merely another cause leading on to another effect.

This shortage of ‘action’, though, is illusory. A. C. Bradley comments on this when he suggests a hypothetical reaction to the play: What a sensational story! Why, here are some eight violent deaths, not to speak of adultery, a ghost, a mad woman, and a fight in a grave! Hamlet does have a dramatic conclusion, of that no one is in doubt, but this has come after a series of procrastinations from the titular hero. All other action is kept firmly offstage. One might hear Bradley go on to say ‘Treason, pirates, war, the storming of a castle and a regime change! The latter two were included in Branagh’s film version strongly alluding to the storming of the Iranian embassy in 1981 an event that was intensely exciting and dramatic for any that can remember it.

For Shakespeare, however, such extravagant action appears to be superfluous to his play and is, therefore, not of importance. As a consequence, it would appear redundant to continue analyzing what is not in the play, as Ratcliffe has done at length, and to focus on what Shakespeare does give us. What Shakespeare does give us is words, ‘words, words, words’(II. i. 192) and it is through these words that he provides the action. It is here where I must agree with Ratcliffe when he suggests that, in Hamlet, it is the language that is of importance and not the action. It is necessary, then, to look at the power of language within the play and how Shakespeare facilitates it in order to sustain a dramatic structure.

Firstly, as mentioned above, the catalyst for all the action in the play happens off stage but is delivered to the audience, and Hamlet, through the words of the ghost. We know that these words are to hold significance as we have shared Horatio’s anxiety for the ghost to ‘stay and speak’ (I. i. 142). The appearance of the ghost is not enough. It is, therefore, the words that are spoken to Hamlet in conjunction with the apparition that help to creates the first piece of dramatic action in the play: Now, Hamlet, hear. ’Tis gave out that, sleeping in my orchard, A serpent stung me – so the whole ear of Denmark Is by a forged process of my death Rankly abus’d – but know, thou noble youth, The serpent that did sting thy father’s life Now wears his crown.

Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast, With witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts- O wicked wit, and gifts that have the power So to seduce! – won to his shameful lust The will of my most seeming virtuous queen. (I. i. 34-46) What is striking about this scene is how it is dominated by the ghost and how little Hamlet actually says. If it were one of the lesser characters, it could be assumed that they were struck dumb and in awe of the presence of a specter but, even this early in the play, we know enough about Hamlet to realize that this would not be the case for him.

He mentions a few lines earlier that he is not afraid, saying ‘I do not set my life at a pin’s fee’ (I. iv. 65), so why now is he so quiet? Surely Shakespeare feels that Hamlet, as the audience, should be still with trepidation at the drama that is unfolding before them. In this short passage of the ghost’s speech, we have incest, adultery, witchcraft, treachery, not to mention murder. Here we see Shakespeare using the power of words to create the action upon the stage, words that, like Ratcliffe points out, enter through our ears as did Claudius’s poison.

Later on in the play, we will see words used as a poison, again by Claudius, when, in true Machiavellian style, he corrupts the mind of the vengeful Laertes. When discussing the power of words we must look at the play-within-a-play sequence of Act III, an aspect of the play which has been discussed at length by the critics but also one that brings into question another facet of action, that of acting. Hamlet is an extremely self-conscious play, bringing comedy into a highly dramatic moment in Act I, scene v when Hamlet asks the ghost ‘Canst work i’th’ earth so fast? (l. 170): this is an obvious comment on the crudeness of Elizabethan stagecraft.

Earlier in the same scene, Shakespeare has commented on the possibility of a bored audience when Hamlet comments on ‘this distracted globe’ (l. 97) and, when Polonius states that when he played Caesar ‘Brutus killed me. ’ (III. ii. 103) Jenkins points out that the actors playing Hamlet and Polonius were likely to have played Brutus and Caesar respectively in an earlier play and therefore are about to ‘re-enact’ the murder.

If we look at Hamlet’s instructions to the players: Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue; but if you mouth it as many of your players do, I had as lief the town-Cryer spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus but use all gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, a whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness.

O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-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. It out-Herods Herod. Pray you to avoid it. (III. ii. 1-14) Again, we have a very self-conscious speech where there seems to be an in-joke upon the acting style of the actor who plays Polonius, if not intended by Shakespeare it could certainly be performed as such.

There is also the awareness of the audience as well in the comments about the groundlings which is rather a brave joke which, had they been enjoying the play, would have gone down in good humor. It might also be considered that Shakespeare followed up the joke by including the dumb-show that followed! If we look closely at the instructions, however, we notice the emphasis on the words rather than the action. The opening imperative is ‘Speak the speech’ and interestingly ‘as I pronounced it’ not as I acted or showed it which seems strange to say when instructing actors.

It is true that in the restricted views of an Elizabethan playhouse an audience would go to hear a play but this would not be the case in a private courtly performance. Also, we must remember that Hamlet is only concerned with one member of the audience; someone who, one might assume, would have the best view of the play. Hamlet’s instructions are followed by references to the tongue and mouth where the words must inevitably come from and then the simile of the town crier again placing stress on verbal communication.

Hamlet requests a limit to the ‘action’, the body movement – the acting- so that it is the language that is of paramount importance. In such a self-aware moment of the nature of acting and drama in the play are we not to assume that this is coming from Shakespeare as much as Hamlet? The players’ sequence has significance because here we have on stage the mechanics of Hamlet. There is the murder of Gonzago/Hamlet acted out on stage, the betrayal of Lucianus/Claudius and the union between the Lucianus/Claudius and Queen/Gertrude.

Here Shakespeare gives us what we were denied in the first act the event which sets the whole play in motion. Not only that but by having Lucianus as the nephew to Gonzago we are also witnessing the events that are about to happen on stage or, at least, those that we expect to happen. Interestingly enough, though, is that Shakespeare has included a dumb-show as if to appease the groundlings despite his earlier comments but it is not through watching this that Claudius reacts but rather the words of the players that follow.

At the line ‘On wholesome life usurps immediately’ (III. ii. 254) Claudius can no longer remain seated for he cannot deny the words, something that has been discussed and embellished by Ratcliffe. [14] The question as to why Claudius does not react to the dumb-show can be resolved in performance by choosing to have Claudius showing signs of discomfort throughout until he can finally stand it no more as in Olivier’s film version. There is nothing in the text, however, that suggests that this is how it should be performed. The king questions Hamlet, Is there no offense isn’t? ’ (III. ii. 227) and in this dialogue, there is nothing to suggest that he is suffering from any anxiety regardless of how this line has divided critics.

So once again we see that it is words that have more power, more effect and more significance than mere actions. In looking at the philosophy of action in the play one must recognize that the play is essentially a revenge play and that all action must stem from the concept of revenge. Michael Mangan defines the revenge play as a play which: harts the protagonist’s attempts to [revenge]: this may involve a period of doubt, in which the protagonist decides whether or not to go ahead with the revenge, and it may also involve some complex plotting (in both senses of the word) as the protagonist decides to take revenge in an apt or fitting way. The revenger, by deciding to take revenge, places himself outside the normal order of things and often becomes more and more isolated as the play progresses – isolation which at its most extreme becomes madness. It would appear, from this definition, that Hamlet is, indeed, a revenge play but who is it that seeks revenge?

I would argue that it is not Hamlet for, as Catherine Belsey notes, ‘[r]evenge is not justice’ and we are reminded throughout the play that Hamlet seeks justice. For instance, Hamlet does not act rashly for he states: Give me that man That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him In my heart’s core, ay, in my heart of heart (III. ii. 71-73) This might suggest that Hamlet holds reason close to his heart. Here we see that contrary to popular belief Hamlet is not a man that is ruled by passion but that is not to say that he is not passionate.

If Hamlet were ruled by the passion he would not have devised such an elaborate ploy to confirm the guilt of the king but would have acted straight away. Gone would be the procrastination and Hamlet could have roused up the populace as easily as Laertes does in Act IV, as Bradley points out, and Claudius would have been dead by Act II. Many critics that have argued this case seem to suggest that Shakespeare’s reason for prolonging the action was to fill out the five-act structure of the play. We are given three possible revenge heroes in the play: Hamlet we can discount, Fortinbras and Laertes.

Shakespeare has provided these two characters to put Hamlet’s inability to act into stark contrast. Through Fortinbras we see the noble prince revenging the death of his father through careful planning and sharp resolve and in Laertes we see a rash young man whose desperate bid for revenge only quickens his own demise. It is important to note that even with careful planning Fortinbras still shares Hamlet’s prolonging of the act when we consider that Denmark’s defeat of Norway was at the time of Hamlet’s birth some thirty years previous.

Hamlet, however, does not seek revenge. He could have easily been able to exact it when he says ‘Now might I do it pat’ (III. iii. 73). The semantics of the word ‘might’ suggest that he has no intention of committing the murder. ‘Will’ or ‘must’ would imply a more decisive move yet Shakespeare gives us a Hamlet who is questioning his actions. His decision to spare Claudius whilst at prayer further indicates that it is justice and not revenge that Hamlet desires.

Claudius points out to Laertes that ‘No place indeed should murder sanctuaries’ but Hamlet delays his action because he wants justice – death for a death- like for like. Significantly, Hamlet is a revenger who is unable to act as Calhoun states he is unable to ‘play the role’, or to use Ted Hughes’s metaphor: Like the driver of a bus containing all the characters of the drama, he hurtles towards destruction, in slow motion, with his foot jammed down hard on the brakes. Having established the substance and value of words in Hamlet it is necessary to return to the question of dramatic climax in the play.

It has always been recognized that it is a dramatic impossibility to act Hamlet on the stage in its entirety and it is not unknown for students of the text to skip through sections when reading but one thing always remains and that is the soliloquies. Within the play, we have the most beautiful speeches composed in the English language and it is one of these that, I believe, forms the climax of the play. The climax of language that we are given in the play does follow the classic dramatic structure coming in Act III and at the risk of sounding cliched, I would suggest that it is the ‘To be or not to be’ speech.

It is in this soliloquy that we have the nub of the play rests and that is Hamlet’s internal conflict on how he should act. It has long been considered to be the musings of a troubled mind contemplating suicide and whilst no one will argue that Hamlet is not a troubled mind is the really deliberating the end of his own life? I would argue no. Shakespeare has already given us such ruminations earlier in the play with ‘o that this too sullied flesh would melt’ (I. ii. 129) and I find it difficult to accept that a dramatist of Shakespeare’s caliber would not have developed his main character by the third act.

In fact, I would argue that after confronting the ghost and hearing the charge against Claudius, Hamlet has been given new meaning to his life and that all thoughts of suicide have faded. ‘To be or not to be’ should read as ‘To do or not to do’ or ‘To act or not to act’ for it is in this speech that we witness Hamlet’s thoughts on whether to proceed with the killing of Claudius. Not once in the speech is there an ‘I’, nowhere does Hamlet refer to himself. His examples of the ‘whips and scorns of time’ (III. i. 70) save one do not seem to be justifications for taking one’s own life:

The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, The pangs of disprized love, the law’s delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes (III. i. 71-74) Apart from unrequited love, for which many have taken their life, these seem to be the wrongs that are urging Hamlet to seek justice against Claudius. I might take this further and suggest a reading of the soliloquy where Hamlet knows that Claudius is eavesdropping, something that seemed to be implicit in Brannagh’s film. Through this reading, we can see that Hamlet is acting a role for us as an audience but specifically for Claudius and Polonius.

He is diverting attention from his true thoughts of murder whilst also confirming his ‘antic disposition’ (I. v. 180). In addition to this, it explains why he apparently forgets the ghost of his father as he claims ‘No traveler returns’ (III. i. 80) as it would not be practical to reveal the truth at this stage. Also, the speech concludes that it is conscience that prevents him and the fear of the unknown when prior to this he has stated that it was because God has ‘fixed / His canon ’gainst self-slaughter’ (I. ii. 131-132).

Arguably, this could be a variation of the same rationale yet there is a distinct change in tone which suggests a difference in attitude. Therefore, it is within this soliloquy where Hamlet reaches his decision which he reveals to Ophelia (and Claudius) when he says that ‘all but one – shall live’ (III. i. 150). One might argue that the opening line of this speech, ‘To be or not to be’ (III. i. 56), uncontrovertibly suggests that Hamlet is, indeed, reflecting on suicide but, once again, this is another self-conscious reflection upon the nature of drama.

For Hamlet, the character in the play Hamlet must act in order to ‘be’ and as a revenge hero, that act is the murder of Claudius. While Claudius is alive, Hamlet’s mind and soul are troubled and only through the act of revenge with ‘a bare bodkin’ can he bring about his ‘quietus’ (III. i. 75-6). Words, therefore, are the focus of this play. It is Shakespeare’s longest and in it we are given a character who ‘“comes alive” only in language’, it is through words that the dramatic action, except the final scene, takes place upon the stage.

In terms of drama, the play is at odds with its form in that the driving action of the plot precedes the start of the play. We are given a revenge hero who is unable to live up to that title and only seems to spring into what one might call the action when he has been hit by Laertes poisoned rapier and he knows that he is about to die, something which he points out twice in the scene. Indeed, in performance, the final scene can be played as equally low-key as it can be played dramatically. In a self-conscious play such as this, it seems clear that Shakespeare understands the power of words.

To a dramatist, all activities that can be created on a stage is a representation – one that is created through words. Crucially it is through language that the world of Elsinore is created and all those that exist within it exist through the words that they speak. It is, therefore fitting that Hamlet’s dying words are ‘the rest is silence’ (V. ii. 363) for he knows that without language he is nothing. Through Hamlet Shakespeare gives us a world where the action is secondary to language because, in drama, one creates the other. 3967 words (exc. footnotes) 4338 words (inc. footnotes)

Bibliography Primary Sources

Shakespeare, William, Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series (London and New York: Routledge, 1994) Stoppard, Tom, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (London: Faber & Faber, 1967) von Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship, ed. and trans. Eric A. Blackall (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995) Secondary Sources Belsey, Catherine, ‘’, in Hamlet: Contemporary Critical Essays, ed. Martin Coyle (London: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 154-159.

Bloom, Harold, Hamlet: Poem Unlimited, (Edinburgh: Canongate, 2003) Bradley, A. C. , Shakespearean Tragedy, 3rd edn. London: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 84-166. Calhoun, Jean S. , ‘Hamlet and the Circumference of Action’, Renaissance News, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Winter, 1962), 281-298. Dickson, Andrew, The Rough Guide to Shakespeare, (London: Rough Guides, 2005) Eliot, T. S., ‘Hamlet’ in Selected Essays (London: Faber & Faber, 1951), p. 141-146. Fernie, Ewan, ‘Terrible Action: Recent Criticism and Questions of Agency’, Shakespeare, Vol. 2, No. 1 (June, 2006), 95-118.

Hughes, Ted, Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), pp. 233-239. Jump, John D. , (ed. ) Hamlet: A Selection of Critical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 2-32. Kettle, Arnold, ‘From Hamlet to Lear’, in Shakespeare in a Changing World, ed. Arnold Kettle (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1964), pp. 146-159. Mangan, Michael, A Preface to Shakespeare’s Tragedies (London and New York: Longman, 1991) Ratcliffe, Stephen ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3/4. (Autumn, 1998), 125-150. ‘‘Who’s There? ’: Elsinore and Everywhere’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Autumn, 1999), 153-173. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship, ed. and trans.

Eric A. Blackall (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 146. T. S. Eliot, ‘Hamlet’ in Selected Essays (London: Faber & Faber, 1951), p. 143. Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (London: Faber & Faber, 1967), p. 86. William Shakespeare, Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), subsequent references are to this edition.

Stephan Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3/4. (Autumn, 1998), pp. 125-150. , ‘‘Who’s There? : Elsinore and Everywhere’, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Autumn, 1999), p. 153.  Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, pp. 135-139.

A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, 3rd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1992), Lecture III, p. 93. Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’ pp. 125-150  Ibid. , p. 129.  Ibid. p. 131 Having opened my Christmas presents and receiving Bloom’s Poem Unlimited after I had written this essay, I feel obliged to cite him for what I assumed to be an acute and original observation.

If only Father Christmas hadn’t been so efficient, I could have at least pleaded ignorance! Harold Bloom, Hamlet: Poem Unlimited (Edinburgh: Canongate, 2003), p. 10 Jenkins (ed. ), Hamlet, p. 294 Ratcliffe, ‘What Doesn’t Happen in Hamlet: The Ghost’s Speech’, pp. 131-132. Jenkins explains how the line has been used to show Claudius’s calm attitude to the play and to prove his unease in Jenkins (ed. ), Hamlet, p. 301. Michael Mangan, A Preface to Shakespeare’s Tragedies (London and New York: Longman, 1991), p. 67.

Catherine Belsey, ‘Revenge in Hamlet’, in Hamlet: Contemporary Critical Essays, ed. Martin Coyle (London: Macmillan, 1992), p. 154. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 98. Notably the anonymous critic in ‘Extracts from Earlier Critics, 1710-1945’ in Hamlet: A Selection of Critical Essays, ed. John D. Jump (London: Macmillan, 1968), p. 22.

Jean S. Calhoun, ‘Hamlet and the Circumference of Action’, Renaissance News, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Winter, 1962), p. 288. Ted Hughes, Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), p. 236. Ewan Fernie, ‘Terrible Action: Recent Criticism and Questions of Agency’, Shakespeare, Vol. 2, No. 1 (June, 2006), p. 96.