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.

How Many Stories?

Samuel Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape includes in its narration some of the best dose of metafiction i've seen so far. Its is, simplified to its absurd maximum, the narration of a man listening to himself in the past, or is it not. It is obviously the same man whose listening and speaking in the tape, and the author makes no intent to hide this. But when we become immersed in the words, in how they are said, when they are said, and so many details, we begin to trace their difference so far back that they appear to be different people. It becomes a story about a man who sits in front of a recording to listen the narration of another story which in the end happens to be his own story told by someone else, another Krapp. Yes, a little redundant, as intended. No not very structured, aloof in a condition his own.

There are two stories, the one about the young man and his best days, and the one about the man listening to this story (if we exclude the third story about the reader, which we must forget, but will for the purpose of simplicity). And the situation mirrors the other, for they both follow the same patters as is the banana eating ritual and the recording of memories. In a way there are two stories that intertwine in telling a single story about a same person, so different in his two states that it would be impossible to recur to a single story and have it make sense.

The Krapp under the white hair denies his past in many ways by failing to listen to the story, be that by ignoring it, skipping forward on the tape or merely distracticting himself with some grotesque gesture. When he skips the tape he challenges his condition, for it implies that a man who has lost his memory remembers something or at least a hint of it as something unpleasant. And his connection to the story, at least in the video, is depicted by his gestures, the every detail of these.

But there would be no point whatsoever in telling two stories about a same person if, when included in his story, that person experiences no reaction. The evolution in character from the moment the tape start to the final words is evident, again, through the gestures of the contemporaneous Krapp. His expressions change, his movement, the speed which with he moves his lips, his every action. And what is most impressive is the way the same person changes in his two stories, for when we listen to Krapp record his words they are much faster, less thought of, almost clumsy.

Nearing the end we witness what seems, at least at first, to be a drop of saliva build up in his lips. As we detail his face in search of an explanation for such an unprecedented reaction, we begin to see light reflect in the tears streaming down his face. Krapp is genuinely crying to himself. He finds his other self admitting that his "best years are gone. When there was a chance of happiness. But I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now. No, I wouldn't want them back." He begins to find that he is not so content with the way he used to think, with the words coming out of the other man's mouth. Maybe this other story made him yearn for more, yet another story, a third (or fourth) story, a story about his second chance at happiness.

Conditioning The Moment

In Samuel Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape, we audience a moment in the life of a peculiar character. In the performance we witness him and none else, almost as if there were none left, if not for his story. And be it that you read it, watch it or do both (which greatly adds to the picture), one easily realizes that the subject is not a very ordinary man, but rather one who demonstrated signs of what could be a mental condition. It is this condition and the role it plays in the telling of a story that intrigued me. It is this condition that made me dig onto its meaning. It is this condition that i'd like to discuss.

It can all be summarized in the way he peels his bananas, the meticulous process by which he eats them, calculating every move, almost as if following some invisible tempo. He eats them not for that human satisfaction of placing flavors in contact with the senses, but rather as a routine, as a process to follow in his scrutinous reality. And not far down we encounter the bananas again as part of the recording, helping establish them as a pattern. It is here that the man recognizes his condition, the presence of one, at the least.

As we move into the moment and the more we listen to the tape, we realize that there are certain similarities with the narration and the man listening, as if things repeated in his story. Even without much talk about his condition, there are hints to its implications. A loss of memory is evident, especially when listening about his mother. Not only does it shock him to find out about her "viduity," but he goes as far as looking for the word in a dictionary, a word he once used so naturally. Both the memory and its meaning fade from the former Krapp.

And his condition is further described in an incident narrated by the younger voice, the one in the tape. When we listen to the voice narrate his experience with a woman who "had her eyes on me. And yet when I was bold enough to speak to her--not having been introduced--she threatened to call a policeman." I came to wonder if there was more to his condition, some denial on his part. He seemed startled at the reaction from the woman, and quite honestly, so would i under the circumstances narrated. Then I wonder what must have triggered her reaction and concluded in fear, fear to something abnormal. He has a condition that is easily identified when relating to others, but he denies it, accepting his condition only as a minor element.

With his condition described to some extent I wonder if I could get more from reading it over again, some more hints, extra evidence. And I did, for every time I read a group of words for a second time it became more evident to me, and the longer I watched the video the more convinced I was. I find it hard to believe the narration would have any thrill if the protagonist was an ordinary individual with the typical human behavior. Is it possible, then, that every word, every movement, every element is a hint to his condition, that his condition is the whole point of the moment?

The Carwasher's Tale

This is the tale of men like all other, 1

To whom their greed proved of al sins mother.

A car washer who worked to feed his son

Was soon to meet his dreams and how they're gone.

It was a cloudy day and few cars came 5

For it was going to rain: The sky to blame.

And from the distant park came a black car,

The man in suit left keys and hit the bar.

He would be in for long, his car waiting

In the dark night. The sky began to sing. 10

Under the light something was soon to shine,

The crasher thinking "That could be mine."

With key in hand he went straight for the bling,

And as he did a man began to sing.

He turned around to find him dressed in green 15

As the police came close: The car he'd seen.

Their eyes flashed and saw the big sapphire

So clear and pure it hit their deep desire.

"I'll check the bar you stay and guard the car."

And as he did conscience declared a war. 20

So in the bar he stood with suit and all,

He stood with glass in hand about to fall.

So suddenly his greed began to show,

In his authority we saw him grow.

Back to the car his mind set on the goal, 25

Double treasure if he fulfill his role.

The big sapphire his most profound desire,

He'd keep the stone, with no one else conspire.

And so the crasher he'd send to jail

HIs plan was great the thief was going to fail. 30

And left alone the crasher then thought:

"Replace the stone. A plastic one I've bought."

So in the night for good he swapped the jewel,

Without a hint they'd gone into a duel.

Back came to cop and found the stone in place 35

And crasher, naivety in face.

Soon came his friends red lights upon the road

They took the thief, in his pocket a load.

And so their plan had worked! Or had it not?

Our poor old friend what he wanted he'd got. 40

Behind gray bars and with much time to think

And realize that in his deed he'd sink.

The other thief a plastic in his hand

Within his lame conscience the pain was grand.

A man in jail, his kid was left alone 45

And in this day their misery had grown.