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!