Hamlet, Part II
Following up on my previous post, http://mmmetropolis.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/its-like-that-one-time-at-band-camp/ I made it through the rest of Hamlet and finally see what all the fuss is about.
I think the question every reader has to consider is this: what is Hamlet so upset about? The play is ambiguous enough that there’s a variety of plausible answers: Is Hamlet grieving over his dad’s death? Is he upset because his mother married his dad’s murderer? Did he secretly want to take his father’s place as King of Denmark? Is he crazy? Your answer will shape your impression of what happens and what you think the play is about.
A case could certainly be made that Hamlet is nuts. Besides his bizarre behavior, there’s also his insistence that he can communicate with the ghost of his dead dad. But that alone isn’t enough to consider him crazy. See, Hamlet breaks the number one rule of stories with supernatural elements: consistency. Stories with supernatural elements tend to establish a set of rules. In True Blood when vampires are exposed to sunlight, their flesh burns, while in
When Vampire Bill is exposed to sunlight he burns. Period. Consistent.
Twilight, vampires in the sunshine sparkle like one of Elvis’ jumpsuits. Every time, sparkle or burn, you know what to expect and how each fictional world works. However, in Hamlet, the ghost is not consistent. In its first appearances a number of people can see the ghost (Hamlet, his buddy Horatio and two watchmen). Yet, later in the play only Hamlet can see it. Because it’s not consistent, we don’t know for certain that the ghost is a ghost, what kind of powers he has, if Hamlet is crazy – or if he becomes crazy when the ghost reveals itself the second time. We’re kept guessing.
Still, I don’t think Hamlet is nuts. Impulsive? Yes. Mouthy? Yes. In my opinion, the answer to the question of what’s bothering Hamlet stems from his idealism. He believes his parents had a perfect marriage. He believes that upon his father’s death, his mother should have mourned his father for a long, long time – possibly forever. He believes his father was murdered and the murderer has not been punished. He believes that his country is now being ruled by a corrupt, murdering, lying King – who also happens to be his uncle. Hamlet believes firmly – passionately- that life isn’t supposed to be this way and he is the only person who can make things right. Thus his plan to avenge his father’s death by killing his uncle. The ghost just had to give him a little nudge. Further proof of his idealism is his willingness to die for a cause. When he famously declares, “To be or not to be” he wonders aloud if he should commit suicide. He is so idealistic that life as it is doesn’t seem worth living.
The problem is, like many an idealistic crusader, Hamlet doesn’t live up to his ideals. He uses his grief and his revenge plot as an excuse to mistreat a number of people: he cruelly dumps Ophelia (“I loved you not…Get thee to a nunnery!”). He kills Polonius, inflicting on Ophelia and Laetres the the pain of losing a parent (the same pain the he is struggling with). Late in the play, after getting into a brawl with Laetres at Ophelia’s funeral, Hamlet attempts to use his grief as an excuse for his bad behavior, saying “Give me your pardon, sir: I’ve done you wrong …/ [But]you must needs have heard, how I am punish’d / With sore distraction.” He takes no responsibility for his behavior, blaming it on outside factors that “punish” him with distraction. That’s like saying, “Sorry I caused a scene at your sister’s funeral, but you may have heard that my dad just died and I have a lot on my mind.” Hamlet doesn’t even make reference to the fact that just a few days before he killed Laetres’ father. He is unable to see beyond his own grief and empathize with others and ultimately becomes what he despises – an insensitive murderer – just like his uncle-turned-step-dad, Claudius.
It's hard to say whose funeral goes worse, Ophelia's or Laura Palmer's
If we are to believe Freud, Hamlet and Claudius have more in common than their willingness to kill for a cause. According to Freud, Hamlet identifies with Claudius because of his oedipal desire for his mother. Freud’s evidence is that when Hamlet finds Claudius alone in a church and has the chance to kill him, he hesitates. Freud believes that Hamlet hesitates because Claudius did precisely what Hamlet himself secretly wanted to do: kill his father and marry his mother. Personally, I don’t buy this. It’s true, Hamlet is a little too obsessed with his mom’s sex life, but I blame that on his youth. He is as mean and vulgar as possible in talking about his mom and how unacceptable her actions are, but teenagers do that. They like being shocking and outrageous – especially idealistic ones like Hamlet, who are trying to make a point. Further reason to disagree with Freud is that Hamlet’s hesitation in killing Claudius is short lived, as just a scene or two later he stabs Polonius through a curtain, thinking that he’s killing Claudius. Rather than a desire to be Claudius, I think Hamlet’s initial hesitation in killing Claudius comes from his sensitivity. After all, Hamlet has never killed anyone before – he’s led the charmed life of a prince. It makes sense that the brutal act of stabbing someone openly would be a little frightening, and that he would prefer the easier, cleaner option of stabbing through a curtain (unfortunately, it’s also the more reckless option, as he kills the wrong man).
As far as the iconic talking to skulls scene that I mentioned in my previous post, can I just say, what the hell kind of graveyard recycles cemetery plots, so that when you prepare a fresh grave, you dig up multiple random skulls? Skulls that your gravedigger tosses out, just as the newly bereft family arrives graveside? Yikes. Although the scene is supposedly Hamlet’s meditation on the temporary nature of human life, in typical Shakespeare fashion, it’s a pretty funny scene. The gravediggers are making morbid jokes and Hamlet’s picking up skulls and playing with them. When the funeral party arrives and Hamlet realizes that the grave is for his former girlfriend, Ophelia, Hamlet freaks out, jumping into her grave along with Laertes and arguing with him over who loved her more. Despite setting forth a chain of events that would lead to her death, he claims he would do anything for her – including fasting, being buried alive with her or eating a crocodile (wtf?). The whole funeral goes so horribly wrong, it reminded me of Laura Palmer’s funeral in Twin Peaks, which also included a fight and people yelling and jumping into the grave.
Does eating one of these really prove that you love someone?
In all, the story shows that violence begets violence. Revenge plots beget more revenge plots – we see this especially at the end of the play, when Laertes hatches his own revenge plot against Hamlet, avenging his own father’s death. This is indeed the beauty of the play: key elements are repeated, each time revealing some new angle. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems – one of the signs of great literature.
Now, I’m no expert on Shakespeare, so I’d love to hear what you think – am I getting something wrong? Do you think Hamle is crazy? Is eating a crocodile really a sign of true love?
1. Freud, Sigmund. 1900. The Interpretation of Dreams. Trans. James Strachey. Ed. Angela Richards. The Penguin Freud Library, vol. 4. London: Penguin, 1991 (I’m breaking a cardinal rule of quoting and relying on Wikipedia’s quote here).
