Shakespeare

[SimonNZ]

Someone has uploaded the Ian McKellen Hamlet to Youtube. I'm starting it immediately:

I guess they got it from a Russian source because the titles are in Cyrillic, but the rest is English.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Someone has uploaded the Ian McKellen Hamlet to Youtube. I'm starting it immediately:

I guess they got it from a Russian source because the titles are in Cyrillic, but the rest is English.

Hamlet looks older than Claudius and Gertrude.

[SimonNZ]

Hamlet looks older than Claudius and Gertrude.

Yup, 18 years older than Jenny Seagrove playing his mother.

There's a few other suspensions of disbelief in the casting, including Francesca Annis as his dead father.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yup, 18 years older than Jenny Seagrove playing his mother.

There's a few other suspensions of disbelief in the casting, including Francesca Annis as his dead father.

Perhaps she identifies as male. That's all it takes these days. That old idea of male-female as determined by your biology, it's so passé.

[Mandryka]

McKellan's too much of a luvvie for me.

[Mandryka]

Perhaps she identifies as male. That's all it takes these days. That old idea of male-female as determined by your biology, it's so passé.

According to Spiritual Science Research Foundation the gender of ghosts is complicated.

Ghosts (demons, devils, negative energies, etc.) do not have a physical body. Hence in this perspective there is no gender. But on the basis of the appearance of their subtle form and psychological characteristics, they are differentiated into male and female forms. For example, the female goblin (haḍal), Jākhin and witch (chetkin) are females, whereas subtle-sorcerers (māntrik) are generally male. When ghosts materialise the apparent form is most influenced by the appearance and sex of their immediate prior birth. That is, if the ghost was a female in the human form, it would materialise as a female. Higher order ghosts like subtle-sorcerers have the ability to assume a form as per their liking. Subtle-sorcerers are ghosts with very high spiritual power comparable to the spiritual powers of Saints. In order to acquire such levels of spiritual powers, a subtle-sorcerer needs to perform intense spiritual practice with single-minded focus and rational thinking. As the qualities of single-mindedness and rational thinking are more male related characteristics, subtle-sorcerers generally take up a male form.


 https://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritual-research/ghosts/ghost-facts/

[Crudblud]

Perhaps she identifies as male. That's all it takes these days. That old idea of male-female as determined by your biology, it's so passé.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I think it is important to note that most transgender and non-binary people make a distinction between sex (biological) and gender (social). They contend not that one can change biological sex as such, but that gender is not determined by biological sex, and can/should rather be a form of self-discovery, self-creation, self-expression and so on. There may be some outliers who don't make that distinction, so get more coverage than most because their view is more extreme than the norm within that group.

But after all this is a Shakespeare thread, so if desired we should continue this conversation privately.

[(poco) Sforzando]

According to Spiritual Science Research Foundation the gender of ghosts is complicated.

Perhaps. But in this play, the gender of the ghost is clearly male ("I am thy father's spirit"), and offhand I cannot think of any female ghosts in Shakespeare. The key point however is that the veracity of the ghost is at least initially in question. Hamlet at first jumps to the conclusion that it is an "honest ghost," but on further reflection he realizes that "the spirit I have seen may be the devil" who could "abuse me to damn me." Hence his decision to present the play before the court and insert some lines that would hopefully cause Claudius to incriminate himself. Otherwise Hamlet could be committing regicide on no more than the word of a ghost, and without that motivation for presenting the play he is doing nothing more than engaging in amateur theatricals. Claudius's behavior at the play, however, is enough to convince Hamlet that the ghost was telling the truth: "I'll take the ghost's word for a thousand pound."

[Mandryka]

Perhaps. But in this play, the gender of the ghost is clearly male ("I am thy father's spirit"), and offhand I cannot think of any female ghosts in Shakespeare. The key point however is that the veracity of the ghost is at least initially in question. Hamlet at first jumps to the conclusion that it is an "honest ghost," but on further reflection he realizes that "the spirit I have seen may be the devil" who could "abuse me to damn me." Hence his decision to present the play before the court and insert some lines that would hopefully cause Claudius to incriminate himself. Otherwise Hamlet could be committing regicide on no more than the word of a ghost, and without that motivation for presenting the play he is doing nothing more than engaging in amateur theatricals. Claudius's behavior at the play, however, is enough to convince Hamlet that the ghost was telling the truth: "I'll take the ghost's word for a thousand pound."

Well you could argue that the ghost's female identity gives Hamlet all the more reason to suspect the veracity of what it says. All the more reason to doubt his initial emotional response. I'm not totally sure I'm following your logic, actually.

If we don't give Hamlet some reason to doubt the ghost then I think we must either appeal to quite abstruse Elizabethan theology about the possibility of ghosts being liars sent from the devil, or say that Hamlet is just looking for casuistical arguments to avoid action. The latter is, IMO, unsatisfactory because it doesn't do justice to the stature of Hamlet as a man grappling with real moral problems. The former is hard for a modern production -- even if Elizabethan theology requires the ghost's word be tested before Hamlet becomes god's scourge, it's hardly something accessible to many today.

[(poco) Sforzando]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I think it is important to note that most transgender and non-binary people make a distinction between sex (biological) and gender (social). They contend not that one can change biological sex as such, but that gender is not determined by biological sex, and can/should rather be a form of self-discovery, self-creation, self-expression and so on. There may be some outliers who don't make that distinction, so get more coverage than most because their view is more extreme than the norm within that group.

But after all this is a Shakespeare thread, so if desired we should continue this conversation privately.

Or open another thread dedicated to this matter. Or perhaps not, as the subject is inevitably contentious.

But to bring this back to Shakespeare, the issue of cross-gender casting is relevant, as these days we are seeing more women playing parts that were written as male in Shakespeare's texts. Although the practice dates back at least to Sarah Bernhardt playing Hamlet, we've recently had a Queen Lear from Glenda Jackson and a Prospera from Helen Mirren. I've seen an all-female Othello (quite good) and Julius Caesar. Of course, Shakespeare's female roles were always taken by boys or young men, and we rarely see this kind of casting today. But there are nuances that are lost when younger males do not play some of these roles; for instance in As You Like It the physical boy performing the young woman Rosalind disguises herself as a boy, and later this boy pretends to be a girl. Shakespeare's cast lists however are overwhelmingly male, and women understandably want to avail themselves of the relatively few female roles Shakespeare wrote in his plays, and then some.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The former is hard for a modern production -- even if Elizabethan theology requires the ghost's word be tested before Hamlet becomes god's scourge, it's hardly something accessible to many today.

Whether accessible or not, it's amply justified by the text:

Hamlet, act 1: Angels and ministers of grace defend us!
Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damned,
Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,
Be thy intents wicked or charitable,
Thou comest in such a questionable shape
That I will speak to thee.

Horatio, act 1: What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord,
Or to the dreadful summit of the cliff
That beetles o'er his base into the sea,
And there assume some other horrible form,
Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason
And draw you into madness?

Hamlet, act 2: The spirit that I have seen
May be a devil, and the devil hath power
T' assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps,
Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me.

I have however seen one production where all such language was removed, and also one where the ghost was removed. Perhaps the directors felt such things didn't matter.

[Mandryka]

Whether accessible or not, it's amply justified by the text:

Angels and ministers of grace defend us!
Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damned,
Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,
Be thy intents wicked or charitable,
Thou comest in such a questionable shape
That I will speak to thee.

The spirit that I have seen
May be a devil, and the devil hath power
T' assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps,
Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me.

I have however seen one production where all such language was removed, and also one where the ghost was removed. Perhaps the directors felt such things didn't matter.

The question I suppose is whether this is casuistry (Hamlet just finding reasons to avoid action) or good argument. I once found  some clear 16th century theology which showed that it is an urgent valid concern, that the devil sends spirits to trick people into sinning. However, I don't know how contentious that issue was or how well known it was. A friend of mine wrote a masters thesis arguing that this is precisely the core of Hamlet -- that Hamlet is a Problem Play, and this is the moral problem Shakespeare was exploring.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The question I suppose is whether this is casuistry (Hamlet just finding reasons to avoid action) or good argument. I once found  some clear 16th century theology which showed that it is an urgent valid concern, that the devil sends spirits to trick people into sinning. However, I don't know how contentious that issue was or how well known it was. A friend of mine wrote a masters thesis arguing that this is precisely the core of Hamlet -- that Hamlet is a Problem Play, and this is the moral problem Shakespeare was exploring.

Fair enough, but the murder of Hamlet's father was committed in secret by Claudius, and even a prince couldn't just kill off his hated monarch-uncle without no more justification than the word of a ghost whom only a few trusted soldiers and Horatio had seen and no one else had heard speak. The appearance of the players provides the lead Hamlet needs to test the ghost's veracity, and since there were no prior opportunities to kill Claudius, I don't accept that Hamlet was simply trying to avoid action. The way I read it, there is dramatic justification for Hamlet to put on the play, rather than just a diversion to engage in amateur theatricals. Whether Shakespeare himself believed in ghosts, or his audience did, or they believed that ghosts could be devils, that possibility exists within the fictional world of the play. 

[Mandryka]

Fair enough, but the murder of Hamlet's father was committed in secret by Claudius, and even a prince couldn't just kill off his hated monarch-uncle without no more justification than the word of a ghost whom only a few trusted soldiers and Horatio had seen and no one else had heard speak. The appearance of the players provides the lead Hamlet needs to test the ghost's veracity, and since there were no prior opportunities to kill Claudius, I don't accept that Hamlet was simply trying to avoid action. The way I read it, there is dramatic justification for Hamlet to put on the play, rather than just a diversion to engage in amateur theatricals. Whether Shakespeare himself believed in ghosts, or his audience did, or they believed that ghosts could be devils, that possibility exists within the fictional world of the play. 

Let me ask you a question. with the exception of "now might I do it pat", do you think that Hamlet ever had the opportunity to kill Claudius before being shipped off to England? I suppose one thought is that he could have maybe killed him immediately after his guilt was revealed by his response to The Mousetrap.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Let me ask you a question. with the exception of "now might I do it pat", do you think that Hamlet ever had the opportunity to kill Claudius before being shipped off to England? I suppose one thought is that he could have maybe killed him immediately after his guilt was revealed by his response to The Mousetrap.

Could have, but consider the timing. His immediate priority is to visit with his mother. In her apartments he then kills the person overhearing behind the curtain, whom he mistakenly thinks could be the king but is actually Polonius. With this impulsive crime he loses all his advantage and plays into the hands of Claudius, who now knows Hamlet suspects his own crime and uses Hamlet's reputation for lunacy to ship him off to England with secret orders for his execution.

[SimonNZ]

Emmanuella Cole also makes a good Laertes in the film.

[Ganondorf]

The latter is, IMO, unsatisfactory because it doesn't do justice to the stature of Hamlet as a man grappling with real moral problems

I personally think Shakespeare doesn't even succeed at portraying Hamlet grappling with moral problems at all. If he did he wouldn't have murdered two of his friends, killed the father of his girlfriend (?), then joked that they shall smell him soon enough, and on the top of that mocked that Laertes' grief for Ophelia's death is mere crocodile tears compared with his, even though anyone can see that only comments Hamlet makes towards Ophelia in the play are sexually and emotionally abusive. And on top of that, Hamlet sr was judging by the comments made about him a warmongering bastard who is nevertheless admired by almost everyone in the play. At least Claudius resolves war issues diplomatically in his very first scene. So thus there is even an issue whether Hamlet sr even SHOULD be avenged considering the country matters are much better after his death.

[Mandryka]

Can someone recommend me things to read about the sonnets -- criticism?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Can someone recommend me things to read about the sonnets -- criticism?

Such is My Love by Joseph Pequigney is doubtless controversial, as it presents a highly homo-erotic reading of the sonnets, but it is stimulating and well-argued.

[Mandryka]

Such is My Love by Joseph Pequigney is doubtless controversial, as it presents a highly homo-erotic reading of the sonnets, but it is stimulating and well-argued.

Thanks. I've just signed up for this

https://www.litsalon.co.uk/study-calendar/


It looks as though it could be quite serious. They've sent me an email asking me to read some sonnets by Petrarch and to come with thoughts about how Shakespeare may have been influenced. I feel like a student again.