Response to Course Materials: Revolution

As we all run into the home stretch on our Hamlet annotations, I have to say that we spent a whole lot of time on this play. I'm still not done discussing it, though, maybe because I missed a few days here and there, or maybe because we haven't had a whole lot of discussion about the play itself. We've been presented with the mysteries- is Ophelia an innocent maiden or a conniving woman, what's up with Gertrude, is Hamlet truly crazy, and obviously most importatntly: Hamlet and Horatio- are they or aren't they? but we haven't had the opportunity to discuss what we ourselves think based only on the text. We've discussed them in conjunction with the films and their interpretation, but I think it would've been better if we'd had a chance to hash out our own opinions before seeing everyone else's. In case you were wondering about mine- Ophelia totally knows what's up, Gertrude doesn't, I still can't tell I need to talk about it, and yes they are. We've also had the chance to talk in groups about Hamlet's relationship with language, but that isn't a complete discussion of the whole play, and it leaves a lot unsaid.

One thing I really love about Hamlet is the sheer number of comparative characters there are for Hamlet- Fortinbras, Laertes, and Claudius. Similar to the familial situation of the play, with Claudius being Hamlet's uncle/stepfather, and Gertrude's brother in law/husband, ect, everyone's relationship to Hamlet shifts around and multiple characters act in the same role. Laertes, upon hearing of his father's death, RUSHES in and starts a revolution against Claudius in a revenge attempt, and has no compunctions about killing Hamlet until after the act. Hamlet, for all his protestations and flowery speeches about how wonderful and godlike his father was, waffles around for 4 acts and then some, not choosing to kill Claudius until a fit of passion strikes him. Fortinbras, the warlike and hasty prince of France, sends his troops into battle for unnecessary chunks of Poland (It is always Poland. Always), inspiring Hamlet to 'man up'- and not necessarily with positive results. That's part of what made the Branagh Hamlet so interesting, at least to me, was their choice to make Fortinbras' takeover a literal takeover. It definitely upped the foil-ing. Claudius, interestingly enough, is presented as more like Hamlet than unlike him. Hamlet says Claudius is 'no more like [his father] that I am to Hercules' which lumps the two in the same group. They use similar speech patterns. Patrick Stewart's Claudius (which was fantastic, might I add) expresses a lot of remorse for the crime he committed, showing a brooding nature that's similar to Hamlet's. And see there I go talking about the different movies again.

I might as well compare them, while I'm on a roll. As movies, I vastly preferred the Branagh. The hall of mirrors perfectly highlights what I personally see as the biggest theme of Hamlet; the question of the nature of reality and what makes us real. Having a bunch of reflective pretenders to reality floating around all the time really plays that up. Branagh's Hamlet is a little playful, but it does make his endless moping somewhat more bearable, and when he abandons the playful there's a dearth of talented portrayals of madness. His Hamlet is definitely more crazy than the BBC's is, although I applaud his decision to do his monologues facing the audience. That, I think, plays up on the meta nature of Hamlet as a play, which I thought was kind of nuts considering it came from the 1600s. When "I think this imparts the meaning of the play" is an actual line in an actual play, it ought to raise some eyebrows. Hamlet constantly discusses art, treats his life like he's acting it, Ophelia pleads with him to stop his "act" and I might be wrong but that all indicates to me that just about every character is at some level aware they're on stage. When BBC's Hamlet breaks the fourth wall, it's just the icing on the cake.

Obviously, there's a lot that I wish I had the opportunity to discuss in relation to Hamlet.

The only other thing in my notes is the mood/tone/atmosphere heading, and I must say that those exercises are fun, if difficult. As much as I love you guys, I'd rather have things pushed under my fingernails than write in a group, because it's such a long and arduous process and I turn into a huge baby when I don't get my way. It's just too difficult to try and please everybody with every phrase and word, especially when people's visions of the original subject differ. It is definitely helpful to learn how to craft a scene, and its interesting to hear everyone else's opinion and their ideas on how do to what we're attempting to do, but at the same time I flat out refuse to believe that any author actually does that, so the point is rendered half moot to me. I will believe that certain words and phrasings and syntax choices create certain moods, but not that conscious thought was put behind each and every one. It is proving immensely difficult to lose the bugbear of authorial intent, apparently.