“To be, or not to be - that is the question:/ 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, i)
Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s most iconic plays, perhaps the most iconic. I can see why - a son is visited by his father’s ghost, demanding to be avenged. The ghost states that his brother has slain him and married his wife. Hamlet’s uncle is now his step-father and his mother has now, oddly become his aunt. Scandalous! (Anyone else getting The Lion King vibes, here?) Hamlet’s mission to avenge his dead father, in true Shakespearian fashion, turns into complete and utter chaos.
I think this play provides interesting commentary about grief, specifically regarding men being allowed to grieve. It’s considered “unmanly” for men to display overwhelming emotion, especially sadness, and Hamlet is berated for mourning for his father.
“Tis sweet and commendable in your nature Hamlet,/ To give these mourning duties to your father,/ But you must know your father lost a father,/ That father lost, lost his father, and the survivor bound,/ In filial obligation for some terms/ To do obsequious sorrow. But to persever/ In obstinate condolement is a course of impious stubbornness. ’Tis unmanly grief.”
Shakespeare’s son Hamnet did die approximately four years prior to Hamlet being written. I’m curious to know if Shakespeare is making a comment about his own grief, at having lost a child.
Shakespeare also has a play within a play, for dramatic irony (he frequently does this in his work). They are actually revealing something pivotal to the plot, to the other characters, and the audience if fully aware of what’s happening. There is commentary that player/actors actually have a significant role in society - they embody a particular period of time and have the power to shape public opinion about a person or an event.
“Let them be well used, for they are the abstract and brief chroniclers of the time. After your death you were better have a bad epitaph than their ill report while you live.”
I kind of love this element; it feels as if Shakespeare is commenting on his own profession and cheekily letting people know that he can wield a lot of power with his pen.
Circling back around to Hamlet and his mission to carry out a murder; he becomes a bit obsessed and other characters begin to think he’s gone mad. He treats his love interest, Ophelia, scathingly, and the poor girl is so confused and hurt. He’s got blinders on and he justifies his behavior by saying, “I must be cruel only to be kind.”
Overall, I found Hamlet enjoyable, but’s it no where near being one of my favorite Shakespeare plays - those positions are held by Julius Casear and Macbeth. Even though this is a tragedy, I still found portions of it to be funny and witty. However, I often found myself spacing out frequently while reading Hamlet.
Rating: 3/5
Questions to think about:
- Can cruelty every be justified as means to an end?
- Hamlet became obsessed with avenging his father’s death/murder. Did he really become “mad” or was his just completely focused on his task? Can these two things be mutually exclusive?
- What do you think about Shakespeare’s comments about grief? Do you think that men showing “vulnerable” emotions is still taboo in today’s society?
Post a Comment