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.