Behind Bars

People often wonder how the plays Shakespeare writes are supposed to turn out. One play, for example, would be Hamlet. There have been various interpretations by different people, and they all imagine it in a different way. In This American Life radio show, the program encounters one particular way of understanding the play, and that is by a production staged by prisoners sent to jail for terrible crimes. It’s obvious that these people will have a very particular way of reacting to Hamlet, due to their notoriously violent past. Hamlet seems to be the perfect play for a staging by cell mates, since it constantly deals with the issue of murder. It is very interesting to imagine the famous play, which involves nobility, the graciousness of a ruling court and other such terms of honor, combined with the brutality of cold blooded murderers, sent to prison for the most terrible crimes. This special way of interpreting the play certainly gives a very new perspective on how the audience can view the play.

The main bridge that connects Hamlet with top security jail convicts is the idea of murder. This topic is quite a delicate one, and it raises many different questions. For example, is murder ever justified? Do we have any right to end another person’s life, regardless of who it might be or what he has done?

Hamlet, for example, wonders deeply on this delicate ground. Claudius killed his father, and the ghost of him even entreats him to take revenge. But, then again, is Hamlet in the right to kill Claudius? Wouldn’t killing him turn him into the same monster he was? To kill or not to kill, that is the question.  The answer isn’t as simple as we can imagine. Our society has established its rules in order to create a community were everybody can live safely, without fearing its members. However, society hasn’t been able to eliminate that suppressed, wild feeling of violence that exists in every human being. Humans are after all, animals, and as well as any other living thing, they have savage instincts. Despite society’s effort to suppress these untamed impulses, many humans are indeed, prone to act in that savage way. Revenge, for example is nothing more than a feeling of rage that can drive some to terrible actions in order to get even with someone who might have hurt you.

These savage instincts are the ones responsible for the dreadful crimes some of the actors in this special Hamlet production were sent to prison. It is certainly very fascinating to observe how this performance will bring to the spotlight the bestial side of Hamlet, and how assertive they can make it be. There are so many ways to interpret Hamlet, that over the last 400 years, it's what has kept it alive.

Get Thee To a Shrink

Hamlet's gone crazy! That's what some people would say. However, how can we define crazy? How can we explain Hamlet's complicated state of mind, avoiding being misled by his tricks and devious actions? This problem calls for a well-trained psychiatrist and who better than the father of psychology himself, Sigmund Freud.
Freud begins by analyzing Hamlet's character, comparing his dilemma to the one of Oedipus in the work Oedipus Rex.  According to Freud, both situations deal with realizing a forbidden desire. However, instead of wanting to marry his mother, Hamlet wants to avenge his father.
As the play develops, Hamlet is revealed as incapable of carrying out his task. No matter how much he thinks and reasons with himself, he always arrives to the conclusion that he is incapable of acting against his uncle.
The question is why? Is he a coward, does he not abhor Claudius, or is he scared?
Freud wonders about these questions too, but he further explains what really happens in Hamlet's mind. Indeed, Hamlet is unable to take action, but only in his task. In the play Hamlet has no problem in killing an eavesdropper and sending two courtiers to their deaths in his place. What he cannot do is kill his uncle. Does he like him or something? No, he actually hates his guts. However "the loathing which would drive him on to revenge is replaced in him by self-reproaches, by scruples of conscience, which remind him that he himself is literally no better than the sinner whom he is to punish"(41). Hamlet, in other words, feels guilty. He can't bring himself to murder his uncle, because he then would be just as terrible as Claudius was. To Hamlet, that murder would be just wrong. The evil Claudius is a murderer who killed his father and then married his mother. He is the man who has taken his place and is the one "who shows him the repressed wishes of his own childhood realized"(41). All these factors have come together, forming an impediment in Hamlet's mind, which leads to his consequent "to do or not to do" action.
This, to Freud, is the explanation of Hamlet's weird character. All his crazy behavior and incoherent actions is merely a mask from which behind lies a man in doubt, confused by his own thoughts and unable to decide what to do. This simply proves that Hamlet is the perfect example of a human being. In some way, it might be possible that there is a Hamlet lying behind every person. Every conscience must have its doubts, its expectations, wishes and repressed dreams. It is simply the way of the human mind, and perhaps we all are a little crazy, for our own sake.

No Need for Silly Action

To do or not to do, that is Hamlet's dilemma. Throughout the play we have seen nothing but thinking, meditating, grieving and cursing from a mentally disturbed Hamlet. The only thing lacking is the action.
Friedrich Nietzsche compares Hamlet to the Dionysian man. He describes both them as those who "have once looked truly into the essence of things, they have gained knowledge, and nausea inhibits action"(39). The very theme of action versus inaction is clearly depicted in one of Hamlet's most famous soliloquies.  He quietly meditates and thinks to be or not to be, to act or not to act, to remedy his situation or quietly suffer. Throughout his solemn wonderings Hamlet argues with himself, considering all the options and their opposites. Whether it would be better to suffer the effects of his misfortune or act against the rising obstacles. In the end, after mulling over the possibilities, he concludes with the fact that thinking too much has ruined the possibility of doing anything at all. As Nietzsche finely words it, "knowledge kills action"(39) of man. Hamlet considers actually doing anything impossible when second thoughts come into mind. There is no way anything will be done when "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought"(III.i.92-93).
And thus, people like Hamlet or the Dionysian man have been cursed to a life of doing nothing. It is very hard for them to do anything, as they consider the fact of being asked to correct all the wrongness in the world as ridiculous and even humiliating. It seems that they consider that action is not able to change the eternal nature of things. Perhaps it may sound foolish and even lazy. But this conclusion has not been formulated out of ignorance or even an excuse to avoid work. It is the true and sad knowledge that "an insight into the horrible truth outweighs any motive for action"(39). Dreaming is hopeless when reality breaks in. According to Hamlet, "enterprises of great pitch and moment, with this regard their currents turn awry, and lose the name of action"(III.i.94-96).
For this, Hamlet will remain as inactive as he has been throughout the play. It may be easy to dream, to imagine and to fantasize over great projects and clever actions that could possibly improve the situation he has been forced to live through. However, Hamlet knows that there is little chance that any of those dreams will ever be able to give any product. The knowledge that there is so much more behind wishful thinking and hopeful daydreaming has dragged him deep down to earth, practically helpless by his pessimistic thoughts.
When it comes to consider whether to be or not to be for Hamlet and the Dionysian man, it seems that the inaction will be the very essence of their action.

A Play Called Hamlet

Shakespeare has written a multitude of famous plays, such as Macbeth, Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night and other celebrated masterpieces. However, there is none other that can compare itself to Hamlet, Shakespeare's unbeatable champion.

Before getting to know the play better, many begin to wonder about the factors that make it such an incredible piece. According to A.C Bradley, the main ingredient to the play's great taste is the main character, Hamlet himself. Not for nothing did Shakespeare decide to honor him with the title of his story. It is Hamlet the one who makes the play the extraordinary artwork the play managed to become.

Bradley declares that without Hamlet "the remaining characters could not yield a Shakespearean tragedy at all"(Bradley, 57). In my opinion, this observation is correct, and I think that it is Hamlet the one who makes this story something more than a typical struggle for power within a royal family.

Hamlet is the central character, standing alone surrounded by the rest of the cast members. As opposed to other Shakespeare plays like Macbeth or Othello, Hamlet has no accompanying figure of similar importance to him. There is no accomplice like Lady Macbeth, or plotting traitor like Iago that share comparing importance in the narrative. Everything happens because of Hamlet, and everyone seems to act in accordance to Hamlet's scheme.

Up to Act II Scene II, the turn of events has been occurring as an effect of Hamlet's actions. Determined to avenge the murder of his father, Hamlet has taken a rather peculiar but brilliant attitude in the presence of the others. From the moment he talks to his "father's ghost" and discovered the truth about his death, Hamlet has devised a plan to get back at Claudius. It's still not certain how he will accomplish this difficult task, but it seems that part of his plot is to feign insanity, and make sure to make it apparent to his mother and uncle. I still wonder how the rest of his plan will unfold, but Hamlet's character is making of this play and argument to prove Shakespeare's genius.

If you think about it, without a character as complex and developed as Hamlet, the rest of the story would have no particular importance. Bradley himself confesses that without Hamlet, he would have considered it to be a play similar to "those early tragedies of blood and horror"(Bradley, 57). Practically primitive and hardly considered worth being called a child of Shakespeare. Thanks to Hamlet's presence, the play has gained the fame and prestige it has deservedly acquired. After all, only Shakespeare can create a character so fantastic that it is able to alter the course of the entire play.