Hamlet

This continues to remain my second-least-favorite of the seven Tragedies I've read so far. This preference isn't based upon the quality of the play qua play; it boils down to the fact that I simply don't enjoy Mr. Prince Hamlet, Jr.

Despite some arguments to the contrary, he still comes across to me as a bipolar obsessive with impulse control problems, a distinct lack of responsibility, a poor attitude toward girlfriends and who, if we read only what is written, appears to make monumental judgments about his mother on little or no evidence. In other words, I don't like him. Of course, I don't particularly like fellows such as Mr. Macbeth either, but it's a different lack of esteem: a dislike for the bad guy (which is a sneaking regard) show more rather than a disdain for the self-absorbed.

I find the characters of Polonius, Ophelia and Gertrude much more intriguing in this play and I do enjoy it for them. So, while I love the language of this play, and the supporting cast, and acknowledge the structure and plot, I still don't enjoy it as much as a romp through Birnham Wood or, better yet, Lear's Britain. show less

One of the bard's all time classics, so frequently performed that it occasionally needs to be re-read to experience it the way he wrote it, without all the directorial impulses to pretty it up or modernize it. It had been a long time since my last read, and I was somewhat surprised to realize that this play comes with very few stage directions outside of entrances and exits; there are so many things that directors do exactly the same, you forget they weren't mentioned in the stage directions, and have simply become habit. Anyway, this play, about ambition and revenge, still holds up well through the centuries, though many of the actions seem outdated to us now. The poetry of the language and the rich texturing of the characters, even show more the most minor of characters, creates a complex story that successfully holds many balls in the air at once. Shakespeare's frequent use of ghosts is noteworthy, since that is something that modern day playwrights are told to be very careful about, and avoid if at all possible. A satisfying story, and a satisfying re-read. show less

This is it. The big kahuna. The Shakespeare play to end all Shakespeare plays. And I confess, I have fallen in love with it completely.

When I was a child reading about Shakespeare plays in my Tales from Shakespeare (and seeing occasional live performances of the comedies), and later when I was a teenager watching them on videotape, I couldn’t quite see what the big deal was with Hamlet. It sounded to me like it lacked the romance of Romeo and Juliet, the fun of the comedies, the magic of the romances, and the bloodiness of some of the other tragedies like Macbeth.

How wrong I was.

While I wouldn’t necessarily advocate using a complete performance text—that would make for a long evening—and there are actually a large number of show more contradictions in the play as it has come down to us, what a joy it is to read all of Shakespeare’s words! Hamlet is a long play, but in general it flows beautifully, with long, elaborate scenes that fold into each other. I haven’t made a count, but I’d wager that in addition to being Shakespeare’s lengthiest play, Hamlet has, on average, the longest scenes. To me, this makes it read easier, but I might be in the minority in that respect.

Hamlet as a character is a vehicle for some of Shakespeare’s most beautiful poetry and most searching philosophy. The play has gained its worldwide renown almost solely because of his soliloquies, which are many and lengthy. With all due respect to the famous “To be or not to be,” my favorite of the lot is “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” I’m not an actor by profession, and haven’t been on the stage since junior high, but this speech stirred the actor in me. It’s a virtuosic piece, which opens with Hamlet’s typical melancholy and self-deprecation and ends with a moment of true resolve and excitement. Of course, the next time we see him, he’s depressed again and contemplating suicide.

Going in, of course, I already knew about the wonderful poetry and philosophy in Hamlet. What I didn’t expect was how powerfully I would relate to the main character. Perhaps this is because I was approaching the play for the first time with the understanding that Hamlet is a very young man. He has traditionally been thought to be about 30 due to a remark of the gravedigger’s, but all other internal evidence points to him being in his late teens or so, and it’s very much possible that the gravedigger’s remark was a later addition to accommodate an older actor. When I instead read him as a teenager or young adult, all the pieces came together and the play made sense to me for the first time.

Not that one has to be young in order to relate to Hamlet—he is a universal character, and it’s really remarkable how many different ways he can be interpreted. A friend and I were discussing how we might each play the role were we ever given the chance: he would probably emphasize his intellectualism, his shrewdness, his struggle with madness, and his quest for revenge, whereas I would stress his youth, depression, and emotional variance.

There’s so much in this play that it is utterly impossible to touch on everything in a single review, so I suppose I’ll stop while I’m ahead. I’m sure that when I reread, I will notice new things that I never saw before. And I do plan on rereading Hamlet. Like all truly great works of literature, it’s an inexhaustible gold mine, a fountain of insight one can’t help returning to. show less

You cannot give Hamlet, as written, a bad review. Starting out as a simple revenge tragedy, it just stretches out to a study of our attitude to life itself. The characters are well drawn, and while the conflict is clear, "Is Hamlet going to exact revenge for his father's death? And on Whom?" We readers soon are drawn to examining our own conflicts, and the solutions we have, or will have tried for them. At the end, after " ...carnal,Bloody and unnatural acts, of accidental judgements,casual slaughters,of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause...and purposes mistook fall'n on the inventor's heads"...the stage is filled with corpses, and only a messager character Horatio is left to explain to the eventual heir of the country what show more happened. As with almost all of the plays, you will find yourself reading aloud. The play was presented to the Lord Chamberlain in 1602. I seem to have read it nine times. show less

★★★★★ (or as close as a tragedy can get 😅)
I’ve read Hamlet before, but listening to this full, uncut production felt like discovering it again. 🎭 The language is still razor-sharp funny, cruel, philosophical, and heartbreakingly human yet the performance makes it move in a way that reading on the page sometimes can’t.
Kenneth Branagh brings a restless, wired energy to Hamlet that keeps the tension humming ⚡️, and the ensemble is stacked with absolute legends. Hearing voices like John Gielgud, Derek Jacobi, and Emma Thompson in the mix adds a kind of theatrical gravity that’s hard to describe without sounding dramatic myself 😄.
The music and sound effects are used with real restraint enough to pull you into the show more world without drowning out Shakespeare’s words 🎧. And because it’s the complete version, you get those “ohhh THAT’S where that line comes from” moments constantly.
It’s intense, it’s haunting, it’s oddly relatable… and yes, I still stared into the middle distance afterward 🖤👑. show less

O que distingue Hamlet de outras revenge tragedies (e talvez de todas as peças escritas antes dele) é a ação protelada até que Hamlet tenha mais conhecimento do que está fazendo ou prestes a fazer. O texto coloca perguntas cujas respostas as outras peças simplesmente presumem pressupostas. Podemos conhecer ou encontrar fantasmas? É o fantasma o que parece ser? Ou é, na realidade, um demônio enganador? O fantasma tem consciência de sua própria morte, ou é ele próprio um iludido? Passando às coisas mais terrenas: como podemos saber com certeza os fatos sobre um crime que não teve testemunhas? Pode Hamlet conhecer o estado d'alma de Claudius observando-lhe o comportamento? Se assim for, pode ele conhecer os fatos referentes show more ao que Claudius fez, observando-lhe o estado d'alma? Pode Claudius (ou o público) saber o estado de espírito de Hamlet, observando-lhe o comportamento e ouvindo-lhe o discurso? Podemos saber se nossas ações terarão as consequências que queremos que elas tenham? Podemos descobrir alguma coisa sobre a vida após a morte? show less

It is notable how often reviews of Hamlet become apologia. It is one of William Shakespeare's most famous plays, with many of his most quotable lines and, in the young Prince of Denmark, one of his most compelling and modern characters. As with most of the Bard's work, there is astonishing wealth in and in-between the lines. It is incredible to think that he managed to fuse so much into so small a space: at about 150 pages it is the longest of Shakespeare's plays, whereas most contemporary writers seek immortality by penning 900-page tomes. There is perhaps a lesson there.

Nevertheless, it quickly becomes obvious why so many people feel the need to defend something which is unquestionably seen as a masterpiece, for Hamlet is often show more unpolished, unfocused and contradictory. Even allowing for the well-known labour of trying to find a 'definitive' version of any of Shakespeare's plays – folios, drafts, and whatever else survived the Elizabethan age – Hamlet still seems unfocused compared to other Shakespeare pieces. The central revenge plot lacks the single-mindedness and the intensity which bleeds through, say, Macbeth, and the divergences away from Hamlet's story – I'm thinking of the long Pyrrhus speech and the silly 'hey nonny nonny' stuff at the end – very often misfire.

That said, Hamlet is the one work of Shakespeare that emphasises his skill as a playwright as opposed to a storyteller or poet. A lot of Shakespeare's reputation in modern times is based on his literary genius and his plays are often read as much as performed (guilty as charged). But the inconsistencies and the divergences in Hamlet make it ripe for editing and interpretation: ideal for a stage director or acting troupe. It is, as the cliché has it, a 'living play'. Even as literature, which is how I personally approached it, an unfocused Shakespeare still shoots straighter than just about any other writer. There are riches in here that you couldn't find anywhere else. And, of course, Shakespeare himself says it best in Act 3: "You shall see anon. 'Tis a knavish piece of work, but what of that?" show less