Clash Of Titans

Shakespeare, as a figure of literary excellence transcending strong in history and wide in geography, is one of those authors whose works are hardly explained by a single version. He is, as far as most of the educated population is concerned, one of the most accomplished genius of all time. If the idea of a perfect text as a concept has ever been treated as plausible, many would argue this rare production should be found in one of his works. There are few others in history, even if we take into account all subjects and areas of study, whose name inspires so much to the modern world. If all this is true, all of which so many bright minds have strived to defend, then how can one conceive the concept of criticizing Hamlet?

In this endeavor it is only logical to recur to minds as great as Shakespeare's as one possibly can, ignoring popular response at least at the setting of the foundation for an answer. First I will introduce some concepts from Sigmund Freud, who's contributions to mankind should have no problem impressing those of Shakespeare. Father of the psychoanalytic school of psychiatry, Freud argued that much of what is reflected upon an individuals dreams and his subconscious is a direct effect from childhood experiences. Arguing that suppressed impulses are forever present in the human mind even when unnoticed, he adventures beyond Hamlet into Shakespeare's own mind. He begins by describing the character in a play as "paralyzed by excessive intellectual activity." At first we wonder why he mentions so many details in his argument, apparently unimportant to the plot. Recognizing Hamlet's thirst for revenge, he also points out his constant hesitation in said matter for uncertain reasons and his moral confusion in wondering wether he is any better man than the murderer. All the time one wonders where he is going, expecting some connection between ideas to arrive at an interpretation of the plot as so many times before with other critics' works. But Freud had no such intentions, in it he intended to demonstrate how everything that we found written in the play is but a reflection of the reality of the "creative poet." He even mentioned how Shakepeare's own father had died prior to him writing the play and how his own impulses drove him to write the every line and the every act inside his work. Without digging into the play itself but to describe its author, Freud's take on the topic gave my endeavor a whole new perspective, for it may even be plausible for a text to seem perfect before human eye, but no mind has reached perfection before human judgement.

After thinking about the author as part of an analysis to his work, it seemed reasonable to think of a critic as a person prior to the written critic. In his approach to Hamlet, T.S. Elliot argues that critics let their own creativity get involved in what should be strictly analysis of a text. I must disagree to some extent, for one can not ask human mind to approach literature with out the company of creativity. To me, literature is the fuel for creativity and without one, the other has no purpose. This said, I found the idea of critics intruding on a subject reasonable, and their intrusion shaping the meaning of the work quite plausible. If this is true, Elliot argues, then Hamlet has become a "stratification" in which our understanding builds upon that of previous critics, preventing the essence of the words to be the foundation for our interpretation. The author treats Hamlet as a myth and begins what becomes some serious criticism in which he tries to demonstrate that "more people have thought Hamlet a work of art because they found it interesting, than have found it interesting because it is a work of art." Such idea triggered much resistance on my part, for one thing is to criticize a line or said style, but another is to call some of the most admired pages of all history mere entertainment, falling short of art. He even goes as far as to claim, almost insultingly, that the simple truth is that Shakespeare tackled a problem which proved too much for him. This iv'e mentioned not to support his words but to highlight my position towards critics. Such is the case with ignorance, whose presence does not diminish art for those who know, for whom art exists.

Another pice in the puzzle, the documentary in which Derek Jacobi directs Kenneth Branagh in a production of the play, further supports previous conclusions. Not as drastic as the other two and generating not nearly as much opposition in the viewers minds, the mentioned individuals provide us with some experimental examples. As when said that each critic adds a little meaning to the play as a whole, each time the play is enacted, for every actor in which Hamlet lives for a few hours, he acquires new meaning. For this reason the actor indulges in the play trying to figure out his character as to best impersonate him, but every time we find Hamlet has become someone extremely different from his other appearances. It is as when one reads a novel and highlights the traits of certain characters he likes only to find other readers interpreted them under evil intentions. The importance of interpretation becomes a recurring theme in every commentary about the play, almost to the point where the first instinct is to allocate said idea as an excuse for a task too difficult to handle.

It is so that Shakespeare's Hamlet will continue to drill deep into the minds of literature's greatest in a quest to find the ultimate explanation that shall give every line some undebatable meaning. Interpretation will come and go, critics will talk and talk, actors will learn and vow, the public shall read in awe but Hamlet shall forever remain the same.

Beyond What Seems

In reading Hamlet, especially as I became immersed in the third act, a strange obsession has taken hold of me. I have unconsciously developed something close to an addiction for soliloquies, and not in their characteristics as a whole but as a mere coincidence. Soliloquies as such are quite common sets of words, even boring in theory. But in Hamlet, be it by necessity or mere choice, these happen to hold the most meaning, emerging far beyond other sets of lines that depend upon each other. In their independence, they become liberated to communicate deep thoughts and honest desires. It is such that they become one of the most important elements to portray reality in the midst of fraud and disguise.

It is no surprise, then, if I, yet again, write about thoughts: honest, segmented, delicate thoughts. This time it happens in the third scene of the equal act. Again, it is Hamlet's mind speaking:

"O, this is hire and salary, not revenge.

He took my father grossly, full of bread;

With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May; (85)

And how his audit stands who knows save heaven?

But in our circumstance and course of thought,

'Tis heavy with him. And I am then revenged,

To take him in the purging of his soul,

When he is fit and season'd for his passage? (90)

No!

Up, sword; and know thou a more horrid hen:

When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,

Or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed;

At game, a-swearing, or about some act (95)

That has no relish of salvation in't;

Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven, And that his soul may be as damn'd and black As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays:

This physic but prolongs thy sickly days." (Act 3, Scene3).

Hamlet begins by indicating that his actions will be a consequence of their deeds but not revenge, which I come to doubt. Then he refers to the way his father was killed full of hatred, thus further building upon my doubt. He admits that he wants the situation to be the worse possible for Claudius, when he is found sinning as to make his death humiliating and a real revenge. And he expresses his disagreement with killing him in a state of regret, for that would make him seem less evil, Hamlet thinks, in the eyes of heaven. He then confirms that he shall wait for the opportunity to strike a deadly blow not only at his body but at his memory and everything he was, thus reflecting attitude of revenge. He follows it with a list of sins that cross his mind that would fit the situation, expecting them to happen soon. And as he kicked Hamlet he shall "kick at heaven", and so kick the wrong people. It is, then, not a simple revenge in the matter of body but a spiritual revenge which Hamlet plans for his enemy.

These are the real witnesses, the real indicators of the course of the story. Many things may be said and done, but thought will always rule the rational beings even in the midst of lunacy. It is so that I will continue to take soliloquies as the real indicators of character and state of mind, for it is a play, and even actions inside it are but a disguise for pages.

The Plan

At the closure of the second scene belonging to act three, Hamlet expresses his real intentions in a short soliloquy.His plan has worked out and the play has given him the evidence he expected proving the crime. Now, much convinced of the honesty of the ghost, he begins what seems to me a cruel revenge:

"Tis now the very witching time of night, (380)

When churchyards yawn and hell itself breathes out

Contagion to this world: Now could I drink hot blood,

And do such bitter business as the day

Would quake to look on. Soft! now to my mother.

O heart, lose not thy nature; let not ever (385)

The should of Nero enter this firm bosom:

Let me be cruel, not unnatural:

I will speak daggers to her, but use none;

My tongue and soul in this be hypocrites;

How in my words soever she be shunt, (390)

To give them seals never, my soul, consent!" (Act 3, scene2).

Hamlet begins by suggesting that it is the time of night when evil must be done, when the dead rise as hell breathes out. He has set the scene for mischief, for revenge. As he realized this world is cursed he begins capable of committing murder expressed by "Now could I drink hot blood." And it must be done by night when darkness and evil approve of his deeds, otherwise the day would "quake to look on." He will restrain no more from justice and asks that in his revenge he maintain his humanity and the implications of dealing with his own mother. Then historical reference to Nero suggests that the thought of killing his own mother frightens him, being unsure of where his vengeance will appease. But he does wish to be cruel to them as where they to him and rely upon his words to inflict wounds as deep as if stabbed by daggers. And he admits hypocrisy for he is in his revenge threatening to use all this which ignited those feelings. He ends assuring that it is with words that he shall hurt his mother and with words only, but that in them he shall inscribe such guilt that they should be enough.

In his words Hamlet has outlined his plan, and so we become partners of such mischief. It is only left to witness if he shall maintain his honor and refrain from violence, or if the "should of Nero" enter his soul and incite him to murder.

Oh Great Disappointment!

Beginning Act three, Hamlet comes to expose what is, at least to me, one of the most enticing moments of the whole act and maybe even the play. He is thought to be man by his close relatives, and a whole plot is made into effect to uncover his situation. In it, the King arranges for Ohpelia to meet Hamlet when he ignores that they are being watched upon by the King. But his mind has no tenderness for women, whom have let him down so deeply in past events. He makes an erroneous generalization in his anger but then again what chance does he have when it finds womb in the actions of his own mother. If his own mother is capable of such deeds, how much more capable are other women with which that blood tie has no presence.

In his encounter with Ophelia, Hamlet pronounces one of the most famous lines written by shakespeare for a reason. After having admitted his once present love for Ophelia and shortly thereafter denying it, in his lines we read: "Get thee to a nunnery. Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?" (Act 3, Scene 1, 114-121). It is evident that his words are influenced by his current state of mind and that his experiences add up to ideas that he might not have thought of completely before. He is confused and so are we as readers, finding it difficult to draw the line between his honest words and a cruel deception. Many factors add up to the situation but the meaning of his words, without certainty for its intention, states great desperation. He is cursing all mankind as evil, warning against the cruel nature of every individual failing to exclude even himself.

Hamlet declares himself guilty of sins which would make him unfit to deserve life. After this statement we expect terrible sins and confessions of inhumane events, but we encounter common flaws in every personality. Accepting himself as "proud, revengeful, ambitious" he fails to communicate his guilt to the audience. Even if we realize that those are not noble qualities, they are far from sufficient reason to find one undeserving of existence. So in his offense and mean response to Ophelia, Hamlet is diminishing himself for those sinners which he refers to would be a result of resemblance to himself. He wishes not to have sin born into the world alongside with one of his sons. These drastic mentality, without doubt, will drive Hamlet into action later in the play, suggesting real madness. Is his exaggeration but a product of his wit or is it real and thus suicidal?

One Too Many Hamlets

A single play within the exact same words leaves room open for a variety of interpretations. Some might argue that a play should naturally reflect the intentions of an author, but some of us who rather twist the words to our will, will say that a play should but incite creativity and inspire interpretations. Making a word suggest and idea is but ordinary. Making a set of ideas compose a word is the real richness of language, even more so when these sets of possibilities and human creations come together coherently into what some may call a "sentence." This is perfectly reflected upon the two versions of Hamlet's soliloquy, each so unique but dependent on a common script at the same time.

In the modern interpretation we are introduced to an impatient Hamlet, quick to act and impulsive in his gestures. He immediately calls forth all attentions, his eyes being a magnetic field and ours pure nickel. In his gestures we encounter many things and we share some feelings, even to a point we understand his impatience only by watching his eyes barely hold into his skull. The contrast of the lights and their source together with those jumpy eyes and exaggerated gestures help define Hamlet as an unstable personality, one fit for an asylum. Subtle changes in his tone and the speed in which he communicates share a connection with his impulsivity, as if every gesture was all so natural even when we know they were infinitely rehearsed. He stares into the camera intentionally a couple of times challenging our passivity as viewers, greatly enhancing the contrast between interpretations.

On the other hand, a different interpretation of Hamlet's soliloquy is presented in black. This time, the character is one of slow gestures and serious factions. His movement is much more natural and calm even when he yells and holds his head, for the way he does it suggest human desperation inside the limits of sanity. And this time it is not his eyes the egocentric actors of a play, but his wide eyebrows who accompany his every movement arching themselves in unison with words. The movement of the camera is very similar in both interpretations, revolving slowly around the character, as if to make us consider his every angle. Seats lay steady in the back as if waiting to be considered in both possibilities and one wonders if it is mere coincidence or some intricate relationship between interpretations, suggestions of some sort of blockbuster mystery.

Each actor adds some of himself to the character, making Hamlet so much different from himself even if trying to prevent it. Hamlets begin to grow different and suddenly a single play lays the foundation for many a story. It would be incorrect to choose between Hamlets for there is no Hamlet that resembles more a same character. It is here where we draw the line between audience and critics and fail to find reason to oppose an interpretation, taking the path of what could have driven each director, each actor, every detail.