Shakespeare

[Madiel]

There's a whole spectrum of tones. Including the so-called 'problem plays' that people have found difficult to classify. The original coiner of that term did not include Hamlet in his official list but did reference it.

I can't say I've ever found Hamlet funny, though. Only in a very wry sense that doesn't make me laugh, beyond maybe a little snort. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is funny.

[Mandryka]

Up to a point, yes. Hamlet would certainly have seen through Iago's deceptions, but even Othello could not have just committed an act of regicide against Claudius solely on the word of a ghost. As the play makes clear, Hamlet knows the ghost could have been a demon from hell, and he needs some way of testing the veracity of the ghost before he can possibly act: "The spirit I have seen may be the devil, and the devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape, and out of my weakness and my melancholy abuses me to damn me." That's why he puts on the play, and not just to waste time indulging in some amateur theatricals. Claudius's behavior during the play scene is the evidence Hamlet needs to corroborate the ghost's accusations. Unfortunately Hamlet blows everything immediately afterwards by killing Polonius, and this gives Claudius the excuse he wants to ship Hamlet to England with the plan of having Hamlet executed there.

Doesn't he blow everything by not doing it pat?  I must say, I find the "Now might I do it pat" speech utterly, totally, barbarian, alien, unchristian. Does he not know about The Lord's Prayer? Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.


On the point about shipping him to England, I wonder why Claudius forbids Hamlet to leave Elsinore at the start of the play. After all, it's already clear to all the world that he doesn't exactly fit in.

[JBS]

Doesn't he blow everything by not doing it pat?  I must say, I find the "Now might I do it pat" speech utterly, totally, barbarian, alien, unchristian. Does he not know about The Lord's Prayer? Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.


On the point about shipping him to England, I wonder why Claudius forbids Hamlet to leave Elsinore at the start of the play. After all, it's already clear to all the world that he doesn't exactly fit in.

I presumed it was a case of keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. It's certainly not unheard of for the late king's son to decide he wants to oust his uncle from the throne even if the uncle is not responsible for the late king's death.

And of course he may have done it to keep Gertrude content and not needing to worry about what trouble her son might be getting into at school.

Hamlet after all is in his late teens/early twenties. Prime age for princes at loose ends who've lost out on succeeding their father on the throne to cause trouble.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Doesn't he blow everything by not doing it pat?  I must say, I find the "Now might I do it pat" speech utterly, totally, barbarian, alien, unchristian. Does he not know about The Lord's Prayer? Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.


On the point about shipping him to England, I wonder why Claudius forbids Hamlet to leave Elsinore at the start of the play. After all, it's already clear to all the world that he doesn't exactly fit in.

He blows nothing at that point. He has just seen the play which has definitively revealed Claudius's guilt. There will be other opportunities to carry out his revenge. And yes, it's not a very Christian speech. But he has also tipped his hand to Claudius, who now knows that Hamlet has somehow found out his secret. Hence Claudius from now on will be looking for ways to eliminate Hamlet. When Hamlet kills Polonius, an act of murder by a supposed madman, Claudius now has the upper hand.

And Claudius does not forbid Hamlet to leave Elsinore. He beseeches and implores Hamlet to remain, and Hamlet does so partly at the Queen's behest. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

I presumed it was a case of keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. It's certainly not unheard of for the late king's son to decide he wants to oust his uncle from the throne even if the uncle is not responsible for the late king's death.

And of course he may have done it to keep Gertrude content and not needing to worry about what trouble her son might be getting into at school.

Hamlet after all is in his late teens/early twenties. Prime age for princes at loose ends who've lost out on succeeding their father on the throne to cause trouble.

Except that Hamlet shows next to no interest in seeking the throne for himself. Claudius refers to him as the heir apparent, and Fortinbras at the end implies the Hamlet would have made a capable ruler. But other than that there is only one line - in a 4000-line play! - where Hamlet says that Claudius "popped in between the election and my hopes." There's no sign otherwise that Hamlet had the slightest interest in ruling Denmark himself.

[JBS]

Except that Hamlet shows next to no interest in seeking the throne for himself. Claudius refers to him as the heir apparent, and Fortinbras at the end implies the Hamlet would have made a capable ruler. But other than that there is only one line - in a 4000-line play! - where Hamlet says that Claudius "popped in between the election and my hopes." There's no sign otherwise that Hamlet had the slightest interest in ruling Denmark himself.

But would Claudius have known that? Or knowing it, decide this show of no-interest was merely a display meant to allay any suspicions Claudius might have? And Claudius could not rule out any aggrieved Danish lords persuading Hamlet into revolt.

[(poco) Sforzando]

But would Claudius have known that? Or knowing it, decide this show of no-interest was merely a display meant to allay any suspicions Claudius might have? And Claudius could not rule out any aggrieved Danish lords persuading Hamlet into revolt.

For any of this to be true, I'd want to see some evidence in the play.

[Madiel]

He blows nothing at that point. He has just seen the play which has definitively revealed Claudius's guilt. There will be other opportunities to carry out his revenge. And yes, it's not a very Christian speech. But he has also tipped his hand to Claudius, who now knows that Hamlet has somehow found out his secret. Hence Claudius from now on will be looking for ways to eliminate Hamlet. When Hamlet kills Polonius, an act of murder by a supposed madman, Claudius now has the upper hand.

And Claudius does not forbid Hamlet to leave Elsinore. He beseeches and implores Hamlet to remain, and Hamlet does so partly at the Queen's behest. 

Back in school I had to write an essay about whether or not Hamlet was actually mad. I don't remember all the details about why I argued that he wasn't, but I remember an important part of it was that Claudius knew what was really going on. As you say, the play tips Hamlet's hand. From then, Claudius knows that Hamlet knows, and no doubt Hamlet knows that Claudius knows that Hamlet knows...

But what's Hamlet's proof to persuade anybody else? My dead father told me, and the king reacted funny to the play. Not likely to hold up.

So from that point on, Hamlet and Claudius are involved in a kind of contest with each other that other people don't comprehend. I'm trying to remember exactly what Hamlet says to Gertrude and how she reacts, but it's pretty bewildering.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Back in school I had to write an essay about whether or not Hamlet was actually mad. I don't remember all the details about why I argued that he wasn't, but I remember an important part of it was that Claudius knew what was really going on. As you say, the play tips Hamlet's hand. From then, Claudius knows that Hamlet knows, and no doubt Hamlet knows that Claudius knows that Hamlet knows...

But what's Hamlet's proof to persuade anybody else? My dead father told me, and the king reacted funny to the play. Not likely to hold up.

So from that point on, Hamlet and Claudius are involved in a kind of contest with each other that other people don't comprehend. I'm trying to remember exactly what Hamlet says to Gertrude and how she reacts, but it's pretty bewildering.

Exactly to all the above. Hamlet has no direct proof of the sort that could stand up in a court of law, and when the courtiers react to his final killing of Claudius as an unprovoked act of treason, he is desperate at the end to prevent Horatio from committing suicide so that Horatio can survive to tell his story and restore his good name.

As for Gertrude, he visits her in part to learn what she knew about the murder (turns out, nothing), and she is totally bewildered by his line "As kill a king, and marry with his brother." Then when the Ghost turns up again and Hamlet appears to be speaking to thin air, she concludes her poor son is mad just like everyone else says.

[JBS]

Back in school I had to write an essay about whether or not Hamlet was actually mad. I don't remember all the details about why I argued that he wasn't, but I remember an important part of it was that Claudius knew what was really going on. As you say, the play tips Hamlet's hand. From then, Claudius knows that Hamlet knows, and no doubt Hamlet knows that Claudius knows that Hamlet knows...

But what's Hamlet's proof to persuade anybody else? My dead father told me, and the king reacted funny to the play. Not likely to hold up.

So from that point on, Hamlet and Claudius are involved in a kind of contest with each other that other people don't comprehend. I'm trying to remember exactly what Hamlet says to Gertrude and how she reacts, but it's pretty bewildering.

I just read through the scene quickly. (Act 3 Scene 4)
First he kills Polonius, then subjects her to a rant that comes close to accusing her with complicity in the murder. Her responses to me sound like an admission of guilt feelings over her relationship with Claudius (and at least raise the question of what was going on between them before the murder). Then the Ghost appears, and the spectacle of Hamlet talking to a person she can neither see nor hear is the final thing to convince her Hamlet is mad.

[JBS]

Exactly to all the above. Hamlet has no direct proof of the sort that could stand up in a court of law, and when the courtiers react to his final killing of Claudius as an unprovoked act of treason, he is desperate at the end to prevent Horatio from committing suicide so that Horatio can survive to tell his story and restore his good name.

As for Gertrude, he visits her in part to learn what she knew about the murder (turns out, nothing), and she is totally bewildered by his line "As kill a king, and marry with his brother." Then when the Ghost turns up again and Hamlet appears to be speaking to thin air, she concludes her poor son is mad just like everyone else says.

What do you think her responses to Hamlet's rant mean?

QUEEN
  O Hamlet Speak no more.
Thou turns't mine eyes into my very soul,
And there I see such black and grained spots
As will not leave their tinct.
HAMLET
     Nay, but to live
In the rank sweat of an enseamed bed,
Stewed in corruption, honeying and making love
Over the nasty sty
QUEEN
   Oh speak to me no more.
These words like daggers enter in mine ears.
No more, sweet Hamlet.
(Lines 89-97)

[Madiel]

Her responses to me sound like an admission of guilt feelings over her relationship with Claudius (and at least raise the question of what was going on between them before the murder)

I think it's ambiguous at best. Because let's face it, when your son is ranting at you and has just run a sword through someone in your bedroom, your primary focus is probably on saying whatever you think will prevent you from being next.

If he's indicating unhappiness about your marriage, you're going to apologise for your marriage. Exactly how much you truly mean that, and exactly how much you actually have to be sorry for, is not so clear.

[(poco) Sforzando]

What do you think her responses to Hamlet's rant mean?

QUEEN
  O Hamlet Speak no more.
Thou turns't mine eyes into my very soul,
And there I see such black and grained spots
As will not leave their tinct.
HAMLET
     Nay, but to live
In the rank sweat of an enseamed bed,
Stewed in corruption, honeying and making love
Over the nasty sty
QUEEN
   Oh speak to me no more.
These words like daggers enter in mine ears.
No more, sweet Hamlet.
(Lines 89-97)

I take this section to mean that Hamlet is furiously upbraiding her for her marriage to a man he considers little better than a toad, and at this point she is confronting what he wants her to think of as the depths of her iniquity. But remember the Ghost's injunction: "Nor contrive against thy mother ought - leave her to heaven." It is likely that perceiving the violence of Hamlet's treatment of Queen Gertrude is the motivation for the Ghost's unexpected second appearance. However, once the Queen imagines Hamlet as carrying on a conversation with the empty air, she can toss aside everything he has accused her of with the comfort of ascribing all he has said to her poor son's madness.

[Mandryka]

There will be other opportunities to carry out his revenge. 

But he knows Claudius knows he knows and hence Hamlet also knows that Claudius understands that he is obliged to take vengeance (because that's what noble men, heroes, do in such circumstances.) Claudius is obviously going to be on his guard and in fact a threat to his safety.

The issue of the unchristian nature of Now might I do it pat is interesting because it follows on the heals of his reasoning with Gertrude - I will think about it.

[SimonNZ]

All this reminds me of Margaret Atwood's brief "Gertrude Talks Back":

https://lucylit.weebly.com/uploads/6/1/5/6/61560063/margaret_atwoods_gertrude_talks_back.pdf

[Mandryka]

Is Peter Brook's Hamlet the one from 2002? You might want to try the Branagh.

Very good -- and quite a shock to the system after the Brook.

All this reminds me of Margaret Atwood's brief "Gertrude Talks Back":

https://lucylit.weebly.com/uploads/6/1/5/6/61560063/margaret_atwoods_gertrude_talks_back.pdf

Well, that sounds fair enough to me.

[Karl Henning]

Well, having broken the ice with Much Ado, Twelfth Night, Comedy of Errors, Hamlet & Julius Cæsar, I've now finally watched that which caused me to lean towards buying the set: The Tempest. Practically all I might say after an inaugural viewing is, I love it. Oh, and of course shall watch again. The music in this production I found most charming.

[Elgarian Redux]

Well, having broken the ice with Much Ado, Twelfth Night, Comedy of Errors, Hamlet & Julius Cæsar, I've now finally watched that which caused me to lean towards buying the set: The Tempest. Practically all I might say after an inaugural viewing is, I love it. Oh, and of course shall watch again. The music in this production I found moat charming.

I'm not surprised. For years The Tempest haunted me. The first performance I ever saw was at Brantwood in 1998, outdoors on the shore of Coniston Water in the Lake District, with the evening closing in as the play unfolded. It had been preceded by the opening of a Tempest-inspired exhibition of surrealist drawings, paintings, collages and stage sets in the gallery at Brantwood, so the thing was a kind of total Tempest immersion project, and by golly it worked on me. I bought some of the works on show and came to know the artist quite well - he recommended I get a copy of Jan Kott's Shakespeare Our Contemporary, and read the chapter on The Tempest. After reading Kott, The Tempest became a kind of obsession.

A good few of the pictures from the exhibition are now on the walls of our dining room - so that even walking through the room, there is this great Tempest atmosphere. Ariel is there, in various stages of dissolution into, or from, the elements. Ferdinand is there, explaining to Miranda that he's a prince, but maybe... he thinks, as the corruption sets in ... maybe, now, he's a king.

Caliban stands in the garden of his imagination, telling us to 'be not afeared, the isle is full of noises, sounds, and sweet airs'. A large stage set takes us inside Prospero's Library (a 'dukedom large enough'), and so on. And on.

I own the pictures, but not the copyright, but I'm sure it would be fine to post a few images. Too late tonight - maybe tomorrow.

 

[Karl Henning]

... recommended I get a copy of Jan Kott's Shakespeare Our Contemporary, and read the chapter on The Tempest. After reading Kott, The Tempest became a kind of obsession.

Sounds like book I ought to look up.

[Karl Henning]

I'm not surprised. For years The Tempest haunted me. The first performance I ever saw was at Brantwood in 1998, outdoors on the shore of Coniston Water in the Lake District, with the evening closing in as the play unfolded. It had been preceded by the opening of a Tempest-inspired exhibition of surrealist drawings, paintings, collages and stage sets in the gallery at Brantwood, so the thing was a kind of total Tempest immersion project, and by golly it worked on me. I bought some of the works on show and came to know the artist quite well - he recommended I get a copy of Jan Kott's Shakespeare Our Contemporary, and read the chapter on The Tempest. After reading Kott, The Tempest became a kind of obsession.

A good few of the pictures from the exhibition are now on the walls of our dining room - so that even walking through the room, there is this great Tempest atmosphere. Ariel is there, in various stages of dissolution into, or from, the elements. Ferdinand is there, explaining to Miranda that he's a prince, but maybe... he thinks, as the corruption sets in ... maybe, now, he's a king.

Caliban stands in the garden of his imagination, telling us to 'be not afeared, the isle is full of noises, sounds, and sweet airs'. A large stage set takes us inside Prospero's Library (a 'dukedom large enough'), and so on. And on.

I own the pictures, but not the copyright, but I'm sure it would be fine to post a few images. Too late tonight - maybe tomorrow.

 

Sounds like book I ought to look up.

And, I am prompted to slip The Tempest right back into the tray.