Life, Death And Intermediates

As Hamlet’s death approaches, we are overwhelmed with conclusions about the nature of death and its impact in a human’s life. Hamlet questions how death doesn’t discriminate individuals, it takes all individuals as humans and not for whom they are: “Do you think Alexander looked o’ this / fashion i’ th’ earth?” (V.i.204-205). The idea of becoming dust, of having a smell grow in your bones and live on forever in our bodies comprehends the importance of our lives, not our deaths. As Hamlet confronts his imminent death and how he will transform into a lifeless skull, we are presented with a dispassionate individual who understands his existence as the culmination of his suffering, as the importance of acting on behalf of his father and his own desires. In the screenshot to the right we see this individual, one who tries to comprehend what life and death truly signify, one who sees and confronts death in this skull, the bones of what once was a joyful individual.

In the preceding moments to Hamlet’s death we are exposed to the character’s reflections on destiny and afterlife as he states: “There is a / special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be / now, ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be / now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all” (V.ii.233-236). As we try to comprehend life and how the decisions we make should or are reflected in our afterlives we are presented with the crudest shadow form of our existence, that which reveals our fears, our impotence and loneliness as we journey on to our final quest. The complexity of such an understanding is captured by the screenshot to the left, the reflection of a fractioned Hamlet, an individual who hopes to be ready for that unavoidable next step.

Polonius: Madness, Power And Responsibility

In the second part of Discovering Hamlet, we are presented with a depiction of each of the character’s importance, roles and interesting facts in Hamlet. One of the character’s the video presents, Polonius, is exposed as a powerful individual who is absorbed in trying to be intimate with the monarchy, losing touch with his family. Edward Jewesbury, who plays Polonius in Jacobi’s version of the play explains that his character “is usually played rather more as a joke figure and as a buffoon, but he is a minister of state [. . .] he obviously has an enormous amount of authority and power” (Jewesbury, 2:13-2:42). It is interesting how powerful individual’s are depicted in satire, comedy and plays as buffoons, individuals who are simply too ridiculous in their actions, probably due to the power they have, to be presented in any other way. I think it is very worrisome to know that a lunatic is handling a country, to be able to go to sleep thinking about what could be happening in that instant due to the poor choices one’s representative is making.

Jewesbury continues describing his character as he mentions that “Laertes and Ophelia are Polonius’s children, so he does have a sudden feeling of responsibility. I don’t think he has pretty much affection for them, even for Ophelia. You see, he is a statesman, I think the focus of his attention is his work, his relationship with the monarchy, with the state. His family are, I think, secondary to him” (Jewesbury, 2:52-3:23). Definitely Polonius has some strange relationship with his daughter, as we see in the dialog of Act I, Scene iii, where he exposes his contradictory and insane feelings and ideas about how she should proceed with Hamlet. Power corrupts Polonius, to the point where we don’t have a clear understanding of his relationship with his children, the only one’s who show true love and consideration for him.

In the picture to the left we see how Jewesbury chooses to act Polonius as if convinced by what he is saying, exposing a truly mad character who tries to use the power he has to order his children around. Polonius’s grim and semi-erect position reflect the authority he has in Denmark and how serious he is compared to other characters in the play such as Claudius. Overall we are presented with a self-absorbed, confused individual who brings laughter to a dense play. The juxtaposition of such a character with reflective Hamlet or the worried but confident Claudius generates an interesting depiction of the powerful, male roles in the play.

Not So Fast…

T. S. Eliot’s, Hamlet and His Problems, exposes some impressive insight about Hamlet’s transcendence and importance compared to Shakespeare’s other plays. Eliot exposes how “Qua work of art, the work of art cannot be interpreted; there is nothing to interpret; we can only criticize it according to standards, in comparison to other works of art; and for "interpretation" the chief task is the presentation of relevant historical facts which the reader is not assumed to know.” (Eliot) The idea of interpreting a play involves the concept of comparing, of correlating an individual piece of art in a wider spectrum of literature, of understanding the influence of the sole piece in a time period. T. S. Eliot helps us understand the importance of such an interpretation process, one which he does with Hamlet, thus questioning the play’s accepted place in literature.

The author states that the birth of such a play as Hamlet must have roots in other plays, noticing how influential Thomas Kyd’s, The Spanish Tragedy and the Ur-Hamlet, must have been for Shakespeare. I consider that being truly original is impossible. There is always a preceding event, object, or piece of art that sparks an individual’s mind to do or have an opinion of a certain thing. There is a necessity in human beings to understand something palpable in order to have an appreciation of the world, this is no different for playwrights. I like the idea of being able to track down the inspiration or motivation of influential art pieces, since it gives us a deeper, more transcendent look at the existence of the thematic involved.

Eliot explains how “Coriolanus may be not as "interesting" as Hamlet, but it is, with Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare's most assured artistic success. And probably 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. It is the "Mona Lisa" of literature.” (Eliot) As individual’s personalities and professions vary, the importance and focus with which an individual approaches literature varies. For me, literature is a break of one’s struggles and dilemmas, the moment in which I can put my mind to work in another’s problems, views and questioning. For a writer this may not be the case. It may be to understand how their colleagues use different stylistic resources to expose the thematic of their creation, or other literary elements. I consider one’s opinion to be valid within one’s context as it is the direct effect of the interaction with a certain event. For this reason Hamlet is considered such an "interesting” play, probably Shakespeare’s most transcendent one, as it reflects human beings biggest difficulty, picking that personality, that possibility.

Dream-Interpretation Vocabulary

-Touchstone
-Scanty

-Forlorn

-Appease

-Bereave

-Romping

Remorse

Sorrowful Claudius appears in Act III Scene iii, desperate for holy forgiveness. Claudius appears alone in a room, illumined by a hanging light which constructs on his solitude. As he tries to ask for forgiveness he states: “Pray can I not, / Though inclination be as sharp as will” (Act III, Scene iii). We see him looking down at his hands, those hands that murdered his brother for ambition, and he doesn’t see how he can be dissolved of his crime, for his will isn’t righteous enough to be forgiven. It is interesting how hands are related to acting, to deciding what to do. The idea of having Claudius look down at his hands reflects such an incapacity of action, of remorse for his actions.

Shakespeare continues presenting this remorse, forgiveness theme when Claudius asks: “What if this cursèd hand / Were thicker than itself with brother’s blood? / Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens / To wash it white as snow?” (Act III, Scene iii). Is there a limit for forgiveness? Is there a crime that can’t be forgotten? Claudius brings this up, as he continues looking at those sinful hands, at those perpetrators of the living. I think it is interesting how Claudius develops this sense of guilt through Act III, how the results of Hamlet’s fathers assassination doesn’t begin with other individuals but with Claudius himself.

I don’t know how somebody that has killed must feel like, but I have felt remorse for my actions. As I consider Claudius’ sin, I question the idea of sinning, is there some occasion where assassination is moral? Are there exceptions to the moral grounds? It is interesting how so many people are involved with determining this, and how varied laws are around the world on the subject of murder. Is killing somebody in Colombia somewhat different from killing someone in the US, for example? How can there be international consensus in such matters? Who has the final word? The church? The government? Ourselves? Maybe guilt is the ultimate form of law, the universal crime punisher for all humans with a conscience.

Mischief

Act III Scene ii exposes Hamlet’s decision to confront Claudius in terms of his father’s assassination through a play which exposes such treason in a comical way. After the first scene, Ophelia asks Hamlet “What means this, my lord? / [. . .] It means mischief” (Act III, Scene ii). I find it interesting how the complex character observed in the first scene becomes so simplistic, so reserved in his decisions, in his responses to such questions.

The conversation between Ophelia and Hamlet may generate questioning around the subject of mischief, defined as the “playfulness that is intended to tease, mock, or create trouble” by Oxford dictionaries. Following this line of thought, Hamlet reflects on his own actions, as deciding to create trouble through the presentation of this play. Shakespeare is creating a situation of laughter within a tragedy, a situation that serves as a break for the troubled reader, the individual who has seen Hamlet develop strength to act upon what he thinks is the correct thing to do.

David Tennant’s version of this scene exposes a playful Hamlet, an individual who is making the best out of this difficult situation, looking for answers in his taping of Claudius’ reactions. I like this modern-version appreciation seen in the idea of having Hamlet record his uncle’s reactions, as it exposes the true mischief in his actions, the steps he is taking towards revenge and the necessity to employ all the available resources in his enterprise. Mischief becomes the central actor in this scene, as we are immersed in the play within the play, with all of its splendor and revenge.

Oh, The Silence!

In David Tennant’s version of Act III we encounter Hamlet’s long, emotive soliloquy, acted in such a way that we are immersed in each word, in every pause, in the silence evoked by our questions. Tennant appears leaning on a wall, as if trying to look for any kind of help, of company, of support. We are asked to perceive Hamlet’s dilemma as the dilemma of humankind, to believe in the suffering of the human mind when it searches for a distant, complex answer, that answer which will determine our future. Tennant glares at the future to come, at the results and consequences of the decisions he will make, without any confidence, without assertiveness.

The actor ponders for a full ten seconds after delivering Shakespeare’s most famous line, until he states: “Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, / or to take arms against a sea of troubles / And, by opposing, end them” (Act III, Scene i). Tennant’s face, illumined by a distant light, looking upwards reflects the individual’s solemnity when pondering such a question, to decide whether to act or not to, to be partial in such a matter as one’s father’s assassination, to be able to live with the suffering or act upon it, end the farce. This question, the question of taking action, becomes more and more important as life progresses. The impossibility of changing the past, of having to live the consequences and results of our decisions, makes the process of such a task as decision-making fundamental in our quest for happiness.

By choosing something we are thus opposing the other choice, deciding to terminate a whole new set of new realities and possibilities. I think it is very interesting how Shakespeare chooses the word being, instead of acting for Hamlet’s first soliloquy line. Such a decision probably reflects how our choices are reflected in what we become, in the be part of living and deciding, not in the act itself. Considering how language must be a tool for a writer, not an enemy, explains how we must understand this question in its overwhelming expression, its huge umbrella-like display, as the question that understands all questioning, as the question that creates all questioning.

Acting Oneself

In the Hamlet episode of This American Life I found out fascinating things about how a criminal understands and appreciates Hamlet as the reflection of conflicts they have had throughout their lives. I find it interesting how Jack Hitt explains that “this production was different because this is a play of a man pondering a violent crime and its consequences, performed by violent criminals living out those consequences” (7:00-7:11). Through the episode we can see how these individuals are so fond of the play, of how Hamlet’s doubts and conflicts resemble their own, that performing Shakespeare has become a type of therapy, involving the understanding of their role for the play, for the community in which they dwell in. It becomes fundamental to understand Hamlet in our context, to appreciate the complexities of such a drama and apply them to our own, in such a way that we are bonded with the character and his dilemma.

My reading of Hamlet has shown me how a concept or play that was valid long ago can still be valid today by connecting it with a human dilemma such as deciding when to act, or just letting things follow their regular course of action. I think the different versions of Hamlet reflect just that, how the language can transport such complex human concepts and dilemmas though time, how it is possible to understand the situation of another human being as time progresses, as we have less time left to take a decision, to act or not to do so. The questions Hamlet invokes are dependent on our context, on what decisions we must make for our survival, well-being etc. but we are still forced to understand a more general concept of the play, the portrayal of all individuals as reasoning individuals, that even though they might know what’s right, they not necessarily wind up doing exactly that.

One of the individuals Hitt interviews is Hutch, alias ‘The Killer Whale’, who raises an interesting question regarding Hamlet’s state of mind: “Now, if I’m strong enough to believe in ghosts, then I’m strong enough to believe what the ghosts tell me” (16:16-16:24). I hadn’t thought about or questioned Shakespeare’s position regarding the role of ghosts and the rules involving their interactions with the characters, but I understand what Hutch is trying to say: How is it possible that a man who has heard from his own father that he was killed by his brother in order to become king not believe what he is being told? Why does Hamlet take so long questioning this theory before he acts upon it? I consider that the answer resides in the question: “To be, or not to be?” For what would be left of the drama and play if there weren’t such a question? What would be our role in the world, if a ghost was telling us what truly happened, how we should act? Is the ghost real or a part of his own psyche coming up with its own conclusions and suspicions? What would be of life if there were only one path instead of two or more? Life would become incredibly boring!

Innovation and Shakespeare

How can a play like Hamlet live for such a long time and still be innovative? In David Tennant’s interpretation of the conspiring Hamlet we find an individual who has decided to act upon what he knows, in this case, trying to expose how his uncle is responsible for his father’s death. This modern, technological portrayal of Hamlet shows the protagonist’s wish to be alone through the pulling of the camera installed in the room he will conspire in. The original lines of this scene fit in perfectly with the actions as Hamlet states: “Now I am alone” (Act II, Scene ii) David Tennant opts for exaggerated facial expressions that expose Hamlet’s feelings and thoughts. It is necessary to understand how these expressions fit in with the play, specially with a modern version. It is interesting how the props contrast with the language of the play, at times it seems as if they can’t both subsist, but David Tennant’s acting makes this possible as our attention is directed to him, instead of the scenery and words.

David Tennant tries his best at giving Shakespeare’s words a meaning in this modern context. Long pauses, exaggerated actions and direct camera contact make this possible. The actor suddenly adopts a low position and conspiring look when he states: “For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak / With most miraculous organ” (Act II, Scene ii). It is interesting how valid this interpretation is, how the tone and visual exposition of Hamlet becomes so important in making the viewer understand the development of Hamlet’s plan of tricking his uncle. The direct eye contact with Hamlet intimidates the viewer who has changed his perception of this impotent, sorrow individual for a strong, conspiring one.

Kenneth Branagh’s interpretation of Hamlet is much more solemn and classic. This is obviously due to the nature of his Hamlet version, but can still result impressive how the actor seems convinced by his ideas and feelings and how the soliloquy becomes a sot of exposition or explanation of these conclusions. The screenshot on the left demonstrates how Branagh is exposing rather than acting Hamlet, how it is important for him to make the words relevant to the acting when Hamlet states: “O God, a beast that wants discourse of reason / Would have mourned longer!), married with my uncle, / My father’s brother” (Act I, Scene ii). The individual’s sorrow is exposed through the tone of his voice and the relevant facial expressions. Compared to David Tennant’s interpretation, we find a troubled individual, who takes his time to expose his feelings and is constantly trying to prove himself of what he is thinking. Innovative acting is necessary for both plays, as Hamlet becomes immersed in his troubles, and Shakespeare transcends with his plays.

One Person, Two Characters

In the second half of Krapp’s Last Tape, we observe how the old, sad-looking version of Krapp has two completely opposite personalities, one of which tries to hide and destroy the other, by pausing the tape, throwing out the remaining of that old self. This is seen when Krapp begins recording his a new tape in which he states: “Just been listening to that stupid bastard I took myself for thirty years ago, hard to believe I was ever as bad as that.” (Beckett) It is interesting how Krapp seems to be an alter ego of Beckett, who had his own drinking and love problems. Maybe he had these same internal conflicts, by which he was able to capture this personality conflict. The superior Krapp, the one that tries to hide his true self, is the one who laughs at his aspirations and drinking problems, the one who tries to eliminate his pain in the alcohol and the tape recordings.

But we rapidly see how the other self runs up to scream how he is feeling, how beautiful were “The eyes she had” (Beckett). It becomes monumentally important for the reader to see Krapp’s true personality and to understand the suffering and the complexities of his life that have made him dependant in alcohol and alienated form society. The juxtaposition of both characters, the defying, strong Krapp, and the weak but truthful individual who abruptly shows up in the play, make up a scene of trickery, a play of one person but several characters. The visual Krapp’s Last Tape understands this relationship between Krapp’s personalities, exposing them in the facial expressions and actions of the character as seen on the screen shot to the right.

The final resolution Krapp makes, of listening to the whole part of his love for the woman, exposes how the weaker but truthful self manages to win over the other, to expose the truth of his feelings about love and what he has become. The old Krapp listens to his younger self stating how they “lay there without moving. But under us all moved, and moved us, gently, up and down, and from side to side” (Beckett). The tape becomes the old Krapp’s possibility to escape, to remember and cherish that moment in which he was happy, in which he wished be back again at. Does life become this? The limited list of memories, or can one arrange it to be unique in its individual, day to day essence?

Conserved Moments

In Krapp’s Last Tape, Beckett captures the image of a lonely, alcoholic man, and slowly uncovers the life of this individual. The written play is extremely specific, something that the presentation shows. Beckett describes how the sixty-nine year old Krapp eats a banana and he suddenly “has an idea, puts banana in his waistcoat pocket, the end emerging, and goes with all the speed he can muster backstage into darkness. Ten seconds. Loud pop of cork. Fifteen seconds. He comes back into light carrying an old ledger and sits down at table” (Beckett). The image of Krapp limping towards the end of a corridor is well represented in the presentation, as seen on the right, where the actor is able to demonstrate the feelings and conditions of his character. I find it interesting how specific a screenplay can be, and how useful it becomes to act a certain play. This is somewhat different to Shakespeare, who does include some basic instructions of entrances and exits but doesn’t focus that much on the specific actions and props the actors should have.

As the play continues we find ourselves immersed in the discussion of Krapp’s life and feelings. We soon discover that he is a drinker, and a disappointed individual, as his younger version states in the tape: “Hard to believe I was ever that young whelp. The voice! Jesus! And the aspirations! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.) And the resolutions! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.) To drink less, in particular” (Beckett). It is interesting how the Beckett captures the essence of his character through the tape recordings, through the reflections of the individual about his own life. It becomes the duty of the viewer/reader to decompose the play into simpler concepts, the alcohol dependency of the individual, his love problems etc. The possibility of having both versions of Krapp in the same scene, basically talking and laughing at each other is the element that makes the play possible, the concept that makes us see what this individual truly is, seeing what is happening in his reactions to the tape, as seen on the left.

The author captures the essence of remembering, of understanding the moments we have live through the tape recordings and the character’s expressions. In a scene the young version of Krapp sais: “Moments. Her moments, my moments. (Pause.) The dog's moments.” (Beckett) I find it interesting how Beckett includes the “moments”-theme in his play. Clearly what we see in the recordings and the old version of Krapp are the main events and narrations that marked his life. The possibility of understanding a life of observation is made possible by these “moments”, the glimpses to the past in which our personalities and inner feelings are demonstrated. The suffering Krapp exposes when listening to his own voice remembering him of those “moments”, shows how a troubled life he has had and how the recordings are all that he is left with. This makes me reflect on my own little “moments”, how they will be seen, if not in tape at least in memory.