10 years of teaching Hamlet

I've been meaning to write a blog about Hamlet for a while now, and I was hoping to get to it during my Spring Break (where I have had more "me" time than I've had in a long time). I suppose the ghost of Hamlet's dad must have been trying to send me a sign, as my uncle sent me this link from NPR about Shakespeare's 450th birthday and how the Globe Theater is planning on bringing Hamlet on a world tour. What finally clinched it is that while out on a bike ride this morning, I passed a "Hamlet Drive". The signs (are everywhere. (Shakespeare would appreciate that pun, no doubt.) Plus, I just finished up teaching the play with my seniors right before Spring Break, so it's pretty fresh on my mind.

I've written about the play before, or more specifically, the movie adaptations. You can check that out at this link here and that link there. Plus, here's a write-up about a live performance that I saw. I have a lot of things to say, obviously, and for this one I think that I will hit on a variety of topics and observations that I've had after teaching it for ten years. The best part about the play is that it continues to surprise me, and every year I feel like I'm pointing out stuff that hadn't occurred to me before. Here's what I have to say about the play now. (Warning: I'm writing this with the assumption that anybody reading it is already pretty familiar with the play.)

Claudius kinda sucks, and he might be a bit of a drunk as well.

I was once at a comic book convention and attended a panel for the creators of Kill Shakespeare, a comic book series that brought together many of the playwright's characters in a huge meta-adventure. Hamlet is the main character, so he was a central focus of the discussion at the panel. With the creators was a college professor who taught Shakespeare and offered some expert advice. For the most part, I found her comments to be enlightening, but one of them has really stuck in my craw. She said, in so many words, that the text hints that Claudius, while an evil bastard for killing his brother, may have been a pretty decent ruler.

Say what now?

First of all, I have no idea where one would get that. The character traits that I get from Claudius is that he's a schemer, perhaps a bit of a drunk, and not really engaged with the affairs of state. Hopefully the bit about him being a schemer is self-evident to anybody who reads the play, but where do I get the bit about him being a drunk?

For starters, after trying to console Hamlet in the second scene of the play, he drinks a toast to Hamlet's decision to stay at Elsinore. He's not just enjoying a glass, as his toast-making will echo in the very heavens:

in grace whereof,
No jocund health that Denmark drinks to-day,
But the great cannon to the clouds shall tell,
And the king's rouse the heavens all bruit again,
Re-speaking earthly thunder.

Okay, so the guy's getting his drink on since he just got married. That doesn't make him a drunk necessarily. I guess what makes me believe this is that I take Prince Hamlet as a reliable source when it comes to describing his uncle, and he makes several suggestions that indicate Claudius's rummy disposition. He tells Horatio that "We'll teach you to drink deep ere you depart" and when Rosencrantz (or is it Guildenstern?) tells him that his uncle is "distempered", Hamlet immediately assumes that it's "With drink, sir?" Plus, there's a whole bit where Hamlet bemoans the drinking game that the king is engaged in. According to him, this tradition makes all of Denmark look bad.

This heavy-headed revel east and west
Makes us traduced and tax'd of other nations:
They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrase
Soil our addition; and indeed it takes
From our achievements...

Maybe one can be a drunkard and still be a good king, but Claudius doesn't strike me as though he's got his act together. First of all, when told that Fortinbras is going to march his army through Denmark in order to attack Poland, the King's only response is: "It likes us well!" Seriously, dude? Fortinbras originally raised that army to invade Denmark, and now you just trust him to just pass through your country? I think that Kenneth Branagh really improved upon the text when he made Fortinbras's entrance a full-scale invasion, unless there's something about medieval Scandinavian political strategy that I just don't understand.

The guy also doesn't seem to have the people on his side. The whole reason why he doesn't just punish Hamlet directly is because the prince is "loved of the distracted multitude" And then what happens when Laertes comes to town to find out what happened to his father? He's able to storm right into the palace, a huge crowd behind him, all of them chanting  that they want Laertes to be king. Call me crazy, but that doesn't sound like Claudius has the loyalty of his constituents if the son of the adviser can rally the people to his side like that.

Claudius is motivated by an obsessive love for Gertrude

The fact that Claudius doesn't seem to be too engaged in the running of his kingdom indicates that his motivation for killing his brother had more to do with his wanting Gertrude than wanting the kingdom. Sure, becoming king is a nice bonus prize, but it's all about Gertrude, as it's pretty much directly suggested that their "overhasty marriage" within "less than a month" was due to the fact that the "adulterate beast" and the Queen were boinking each other on the side before King Hamlet was "stung by a serpent".

The guy may be a villain and an "arrant knave", but he does love Gertrude with all his black heart. Another reason he gave for not punishing Hamlet directly was that:

...The queen his mother
Lives almost by his looks; and for myself--
My virtue or my plague, be it either which--
She's so conjunctive to my life and soul,
That, as the star moves not but in his sphere,
I could not but by her...

So, he's not going to do anything to upset her. Having her is one thing though, but having to share her love? Oh no. He's not going to have that. The fact is that he was scheming to kill Prince Hamlet all along. One might make the mistake of thinking that Claudius was only planning on killing Hamlet after the death of Polonius. The plan, for those who don't quite remember, was to have Hamlet's companions deliver a sealed letter to the King of England. The contents of the letter ordered the King to have Hamlet's head cut off.

Now we know that Claudius was planning on sending Hamlet to England before Polonius's death because he revealed that much to Polonius himself during the scene where the two of them spied on Hamlet and Ophelia's "get thee to a nunnery" scene. Also, immediately after the death of Polonius, Hamlet explains to his mother that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were going to be bringing "sealed letters". Unless Claudius wrote up a new letter between finding out that Polonius was dead and sending Hamlet packing, which is unlikely considering the rapid pace from those two points, he was planning on getting rid of his nephew all along.

Some folks might argue that he only schemed Hamlet's death after Hamlet started acting all crazy, but we know from the beginning that he wanted to keep Hamlet close by.

...For your intent
In going back to school in Wittenberg,
It is most retrograde to our desire:
And we beseech you, bend you to remain
Here, in the cheer and comfort of our eye,
Our chiefest courtier, cousin, and our son.

Is it really such a stretch to think that he wanted to keep him close so he could have him killed? This is the guy who killed his own brother, isn't it? Claudius is a guy who had to have the Gertrude all to himself, and he wasn't willing to share it in any sense of the word.

That ghost is a ghost.

When it comes to some of Shakespeare's other ghosts, one could make the argument that we're only supposed to take them as a figment of the character's imagination. In the case of Banquo's ghost in Macbeth or Caesar's in Julius Caesar, they could be the product of Macbeth's and Brutus's (respectively) fevered imaginations, and it would serve the same purpose if it was a literal ghost. In the case of Hamlet though, Shakespeare wants us to take that ghost for exactly what it appears to be.

The first indicator is that the ghost's appearance is confirmed by Horatio, a "scholar" and a skeptic who thinks that it will not appear, but when it comes along again, Horatio declares:

Before my God, I might not this believe
Without the sensible and true avouch
Of mine own eyes.

We also can trust Horatio because Hamlet praises him to his face:

 ...Give me that man
That is not passion's slave, and I will wear him
In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart,
As I do thee.

This, coupled with the fact that what the ghost reveals bears itself out, is Shakespeare's way of letting us know that we should just go with the flow. Sure, it's only Hamlet who sees his father's spirit in that scene in his mother's bedroom, but why would it be a real ghost throughout and just in his head that one time?

Hamlet is an introvert

He gives long speeches, which in a Shakespeare play indicates that he's got a lot of thoughts in his head. Plus, he can't stand nosy, intruding people like Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern. As Shakespeare used to say: "'Nuff said."

Hamlet's character arc is about accepting life and finding the will to live

When we first meet him, he wishes that his "solid flesh would thaw, melt, and resolve itself into a dew" or that God hadn't made a "no killing yourself" rule. When he gets the mission to avenge his father, he is given a purpose, and even though he doesn't act, he is moved to question himself and explore the deepest questions that remain with humankind to this day: How can you know when it's time to stop thinking and time to start acting? Why do we keep ourselves alive when we can so easily end it all? What is the meaning of it all when we're all just going to wind up as a pile of bones?

Hamlet wants to die at the beginning of the play, and by the end, he's fighting to live. More importantly, his journey has enabled him to accept that end with dignity and heroism.

It gets better with age.

At 30, I was able to understand it in a way that I couldn't when I was first introduced to it at 20 while in college. Now that I'm 40, I feel that I get it in a way that my 30-year-old self missed. Here's hoping that I'll be able to write an addendum when I'm 50. Also, if you think that I'm totally off-base with any of this, please share your thoughts.

It's boring.

Hella boring.

CalShakes - Hamlet - Too Much in the Sun

My first year teaching seniors, I had a class that was filled with a few particularly negative nellies.  Upon finishing Hamlet, I had to hear how it was "pointless".  I was also informed by one particularly bright individual that even he could "write a story where everybody dies in the end".  Now, I didn't think that there was something wrong with the writing of William Shakespeare.  I'm the kind of person who blames himself for everything, so my assumption was that I must have somehow did something wrong.

Imagine my surprise at the end of the year when I asked the class to write down what their favorite things we did all year.  More than half the class picked Hamlet and if you counted Macbeth, the works of William Shakespeare counted for about 2/3 of what my students liked best.  I'm on my 9th year teaching seniors, and this is a pretty standard result.  Even last year, when I had a lot of kids not like much of anything, the enthusiasm for Hamlet was noticeable.  Basically the lesson I learned is to never listen to the one or two kids who think that their opinions represent the class as a whole.

Anyway, over the years I have found myself liking the play more and more, and while it doesn't strike me in quite such a personal way as Cyrano de Bergerac does, it definitely is something that provokes an emotional reaction out of me.  I've written my thoughts on various movie versions, but I have never had a chance to see the play live.  That's why I was especially excited about the last play for the CalShakes season when my wife bought us the tickets.

I'll start off with my biggest complaint.  It was frikken' hot, and I felt like I should have brought a change of shirt with me.  Where we were sitting, the sun was blaring right down on us for about 2/3 of the play.  My body tends to have only two settings when it comes to sweat, and those are "not at all" and "full blast".  So, I was slightly distracted by the heat which threatened to dry up my brains.

My second complaint is that the stage decoration made no sense.  It was a swimming pool that looked like the water had been drained from it months ago.  This really distracted Kirsti.  I got over it pretty quickly.  I know the play pretty well by now, but I don't even have a good guess as to why they may have gone for this.    It just strikes me as being random.  I completely understand why everything is dingy.  That makes sense, as while Denmark is "rotten", everybody (but Hamlet) pretends like everything is just fine and dandy.  But a swimming pool?  If anybody out there can figure it out, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Aside from that, the play was pretty good.  LeRoy McClain did a good job as the title character, which is pretty important.  One thing that I've always found important with the character is that you need an actor who can show a range of emotions.  It's not just important that you have a guy who can brood, but you need somebody who can elicit some genuine laughter during the scenes with Polonius.  McClain did a pretty good job of that.  I probably didn't like him as much as I liked the David Tennant in the BBC version, but he held my attention just fine.  Oh, I do think that he goofed up a line though, as he said "Farewell dear father" to Claudius when it's supposed to be "dear mother".  The joke afterward doesn't make much sense if you don't get that bit right.

The rest of the cast was pretty good as well.  Two standouts are Zainab Jah as Ophelia and Dan Hiatt as both Polonius and the Gravedigger.  With Polonius, he didn't go the doddering, senile old man route.  Instead he went with the full-of-his-own importance interpretation.  One part that I found amusing was when he was giving his long preamble about Hamlet's madness.  He was searching for a phrase (I believe it was "outward flourishes").  He had his hand out to the audience like was looking for help in finding the right word.  I didn't shout it out, but I bet that my lips probably moved as I certainly wanted to feed him the line.

As for the overall direction, I thought that they made some good choices.  A lot was cut out, including the whole Fortinbras subplot, but that's to be expected unless you want to sit there for another hour.  Aside from that, I like that they had Hamlet do the "To be or not to be" speech not as a soliloquy but as him talking to Ophelia.  That's a nice touch, and it makes her fate make more sense.  Also, usually Hamlet is speaking to Laertes when he says "What is the reason that you use me thus?  I loved you ever."  I think it's pretty clear that's what Shakespeare intended, because the line starts with "Hear you, sir".  However, in this version, Hamlet jumps into the grave with Ophelia and says it to her, sans the "sir" part.  I liked that, and it adds to the idea that one of Hamlet's problems might be that he's a bit self-absorbed.

Other than that, I only caught some minor changes, like changing words for clarity.  For instance "bodkin" became "dagger" and "fardel" became "burden" in the "To be or not to be" speech.

Overall, I had a good time, and it really went by rather quickly.  I hope to see another production or two of this play before I shuffle off this mortal coil, as it's always great when something so familiar can continue to surprise you.

Rating the Hamlets - Addendum

About two years ago, I wrote my thoughts on Hamlet in film. Specifically, I discussed my thoughts on four adaptations, which you can read at this link. To quickly summarize it though, I wrote about how I love the Kenneth Branagh version, really like the Mel Gibson one, only somewhat like the Lawrence Olivier film, and somewhat detest the Ethan Hawke movie.

Last night, I finished watching a more recent one, starring David Tennant as the title character, so I wanted to get down my thoughts about that one. Technically, it's not a film like the other four, as it was not released for the theaters. In fact, it was originally a stage production from the Royal Shakespeare Company. The BBC then went and created a made-for-TV movie using all of the actors from the stage production.

I have to admit that when I first heard of this, I wasn't really interested. I've seen the BBC's stage adaptations before, and while I really hate to use this word (as it makes me sound like a teenager with limited vocabulary) they tend to be pretty damned boring. The main problem is that they simply have the actors perform it on a stage, and then you wind up with a very static view of the whole thing. In other words, they're not filmed like movies, and so it doesn't just lack the immediacy of a live performance, but it lacks the dynamic qualities that film can provide.

I changed my mind when I saw a clip on YouTube though. While it certainly doesn't have the production values of a Hollywood film, it seems to me that the producers wanted to avoid the aforementioned problems. You get more camera angles and a lot more movement from the camera than you normally do with these things. Also, in a decision that could have proven to be somewhat cheesy, the camera often gets close up on the actors when they give their soliloquies and asides, and that's the closest you'll ever get to the personal feeling of live theater when you're watching something on your television.

The clip was enough to convince me to pre-order the Blu-Ray. Part of me wondered if I should just settle for the standard DVD, as it wasn't like they were showcasing all kinds of dynamic cinematography like you have with Kenneth Branagh's version. Then again, the Blu-Ray was only a couple bucks more, so I figured why not? I can tell you that I'm glad that I went for it. The picture is crystal clear, and when Hamlet looks into the camera and bemoans his mother's hasty marriage to his uncle, you feel like he's in the room with you. There is also an effective use of black and white contrasts that really come through with high definition.

What about the film itself? I have to say that I was really impressed. Sure, they went and cut some stuff - some of it I can do without like when Claudius talks to Laertes about some Norman who was impressed with Laertes' swordfighting skills. Other stuff I miss, like Fortinbras coming in and becoming the new king while bodies are strewn about the throne room. For me, that bit is crucial as it restores order and lets the audience know that tomorrow will be a better day even though our protagonist has shuffled off this mortal coil.

Still, the acting was top-notch. I might even dare say that I like Tennant better than Branagh in the title role. Branagh can sometimes be a little too whiny and teary-eyed. I like how Tennant plays the scene in the above clip, where he seems more annoyed and angry than anything else. Still, just like any good Hamlet, Tennant manages to convey a wide range of emotions and moods - something that the Olivier version doesn't do enough and that the Hawke version completely lacks.

The other actors did a great job as well, and I found myself laughing out loud when Oliver Ford Davies delivered many of Polonius' lines. He did a great job of making the King's advisor look absent-minded and foolish without making you wonder why Claudius would even want this guy as an advisor. Oh, and speaking of Claudius, I have to say that Captain Picard/Professor X does a great job in the role. Not only that, but he also plays the ghost of Hamlet's dad. I don't know if that's ever been done before, but I think that it creates all sorts of interesting psychological possibilities if the two brothers were also identical twins.

Much like the Ethan Hawke version, this one is given a more modern setting. Hamlet wears jeans and kills Polonius with a gun. Also, the whole motif of spying is showcased using surveillance technology just like in Hawke's Hamlet. This one, however, puts it all to better use. Oftentimes the camera angle changes, and we are made aware that all of Elsinore is littered with cameras. Hamlet even tears one off the wall, making even more sense of why he would start off his second soliloquy with "Now I am alone".

The running time is three hours, so while they do cut some stuff out, they don't cut out much. As for moving things around, there's only one major instance of that. I found it jarring at first, but then I found myself really liking it and even wishing that Shakespeare had done it that way in the first place. Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy and his subsequent falling-out with Ophelia is placed earlier in the play and is immediately followed by when Polonius attempts to question him only to get a series of "pregnant" replies. Considering that during the scene with Ophelia, Hamlet discovers that Polonius is spying on them, (that's the implication from the text, and I always see it interpreted that way) it makes far more sense that Hamlet would be so passive-aggressive toward the old man.

I'm often reluctant to give any sort of absolute statement on my feelings regarding a movie so soon after I've viewed it. However, I think it's safe to say that this very well might be my second-favorite Hamlet. If they were able to have the same production values (and kept Fortinbras in the ending) as Branagh's, it might very well have been my favorite.

Rating the Hamlets

In my movie collection, if you go to the "H" section, you'll find Hamlet, Hamlet, Hamlet and a movie called Hamlet. That's right, four versions of Shakespeare's play. I know that there are much more, but the ones that I'm familiar with are Laurence Olivier's, Franco Zeffirelli's (starring Mel Gibson), Kenneth Branagh's, and Michael Almereyda's (starring Ethan Hawke). Which one is the best? Which is the worst? Here's what I think, from worst to the best.

Worst - Almereyda's Hamlet (2000)



This was an easy pick, as there isn't much good to say about it. In this version, the prince is transported to modern times, and instead of the country of Denmark, it's the Denmark corporation. Instead of hiding behind the curtain (arras), Polonius puts a microphone on his daughter. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are a couple of fratboy-type party guys. You get the idea. No, that's not what's wrong with the film.

I actually like all of those ideas. The problem is the execution and Ethan Hawke. While there are some cool visual moments, and cool ideas, it all simply doesn't come together. Hawke just can't hold the movie together, as he plays the tragic hero as a one-note character. Hamlet, of all of Shakespeare's characters, is probably the least one-note, having a variety of moods and feelings. Hawke has him stuck as the emo boy from Act I, scene 2 and never climbs out of it.

I once made the mistake of letting my class of seniors choose a version of Hamlet to watch when we were all done reading the play. They chose this one, and it was universally hated. Oftentimes, students will say, "nobody liked it" and they're pretty much just speaking for themselves and maybe a couple of friends. This time, it was absolutely true. Even the kids (or maybe even especially the kids) who really loved the play hated this movie. I can't recall a single student having anything positive to say about it. While I don't think that it's completely without merits, it's basically a stinker.

Not so bad - Olivier's Hamlet (1948)



Wait...what? Olivier's not the top choice! Blasphemy! Yeah, well, I don't like this one that much. Mainly because it's in black and white and black and white movies are boring. Nah, just kidding. Some of my favorite films are in black and white - really! This one is actually pretty good, even though perhaps just a bit dated. Olivier's performance is good and definitely more nuanced than Hawke's. Still, it just doesn't quite hit the right note with me.

It might have something to do with the opening line about how it's a story of a man who "can't make up his mind." Well, that's not really what Hamlet's problem is. At least, that's not the best way to explain it. He makes up his mind, he's just never certain enough about the situation to finally act upon it.

Also, I don't like what the movie cuts out. There's no Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Now, with a play like Hamlet, you simply have to cut out around half of what Shakespeare wrote (unless you're Kenneth Branagh - more on him later). Still, cutting the two of them out feels like blasphemy to me. That's more of a subjective thing though. Overall, it's a good film, but I wouldn't recommend it to a young audience. Die hard Shakespeare fans only for this one.

Pretty good - Zeffirelli's Hamlet (1990)



I genuinely like this one quite a bit. The one thing that it really has going for it is the fact that it's probably the most accessible version. It's also the first one that I saw, and I remember being able to follow the story pretty well, despite the fact that I had never read it. Watching the documentaries on the DVD reveals that's exactly what they were going for, and I'd definitely say mission accomplished on that one.

Every now and then, I feel like I'm watching Martin Riggs (his character in the Lethal Weapon films) as Hamlet (like when he does this weird groan when he gets pissed off at his mom). Still, I think that Gibson does an admirable job. He definitely seems to be treating the role with the seriousness that it deserves, and he pretty much pulls it off. One thing's for sure, his performance doesn't suffer from what Hawke's does. This is a Hamlet with a variety of emotions and moods - from moping to playful, loving to dangerous. There are a lot of genuinely brilliant moments in the film - especially the swordfight at the end.

The best - Branagh's Hamlet (1996)



What's not great about this film? Branagh decided to film every single flippin' line of the play, and he managed to create the hands-down best version of them all. While it's certainly a task to sit through all four hours at once, in many ways it goes by the quickest. It's also the one that I show to my students (in little, bit-sized pieces - basically reviewing what we had read the previous day). The sheer fact that this version includes Fortinbras (the prince of Norway who doesn't suffer from being indecisive like Hamlet is) is enough to make me happy, but there's so much more.

First of all, Branagh plays the character as multi-layered as an actor should. Still, there are other actors who really shine in this one. Kate Winslet creates more sympathy for Ophelia than any other version that I know. Derek Jacobi's King Claudius is a complex villain who seems to realize that he's dug his own grave. Billy Crystal seems as though he was born to play the Gravedigger. And, how about that Charlton Heston fella? He plays the main actor in the group of performers that visit Elsinore Castle. When he rails on about the damned dirty apes and how they destroyed the Statue of Liberty...oh, wait, wrong film. Seriously though, Heston is fantastic as the "Player King," especially in the scene where he's so moved by what he's saying that he bursts into tears.

I have a fellow English teacher who doesn't like this version, and she cites the ending and Fortinbras' dramatic entrance as the main reason why. Personally, I love the way it ends. Another reason why this is such an amazing accomplishment isn't so much that they manage to not cut a single line from the play, but Branagh understands that he's creating a movie and not just filming a play. They're different art forms, and the entrance of Fortinbras creates the catharsis that the movie needs.

So, while Branagh's version is my favorite, I'd probably recommend the Zeffirelli/Gibson one to the casual Shakespeare fan. The other two are for the big-time Shakespeare fan. And yes, they do exist, and not all of them are English teachers! (We're not a powerful enough of a lobby to get so many versions of this play made!)