Gertrude Talks Back

Well, this freaked me out. It's weird reading something to do with Hamlet that isn't in Shakespeare's English, but I did think it was good though. It shed new light on Gertrude and I feel that it gave the character of Gertrude a chance to be explored in a different way, rather than just the girly 'oooooo Hamlet stop saying bad words!!' sort of character that it seems like she is portrayed as in Hamlet.

I don't agree with the 'It was me' part at the end, but I think that it makes it a good monologue, like it adds drama and it just seems right for the play, like I sort of want it to be true. I think that it could be true for this version of Gertrude, but I think the actual Gertrude would never be able to do that. I LOVE the part where she is talking about Ophelia, 'Borderline. Any little shock could push her right over the edge.', it shows that she does actually notice what's going on. I sort of feel like if she could notice Ophelia, why didn't she notice that Hamlet's hatred for Claudius was more than 'You married my mother but you're my uncle' sort of thing.

Presenting Hamlet

By the end of Act Two, Hamlet is a  confusing character in regards to 'tragic hero' - he is the protagonist of a tragedy, therefore he should be the tragic hero? Hmmm.

Well, to me, although he doesn't have the excessive pride that is associated with the tragic hero, he still does things to excess, like thinks to excess, which I believe is his downfall. I might be wrong and just trying to fit things, but it sort of works. For example, if the ghost is not real, and is a figure of Hamlet's imagination, then he has imagined that up to try and justify and make right all of the things that he has been thinking, which is some MAJOR overthinking and just going way too far into his own head!! I really hope you understand what I mean because otherwise all of that just makes no sense.

Although I've just made that point about how Hamlet does have something that leads to his downfall, I don't really believe that he is a tragic hero at this point. A tragic hero would have started to plan to actually DO something about what  they are thinking, like if Hamlet was a tragic hero, he would have probably gone ahead  and attempted to kill the King by now, but because he's Hamlet, he's decided to put on a play to try and see whether the King is guilty or not. Tragic heroes seem to follow their gut instinct straight away, whereas Hamlet doubts himself, (which could be to do with the overthinking thing) and it feels like he's making excuses not to act on his instincts. It's like he doesn't trust his own judgement.

I think that the way David Tennant plays Hamlet - sort of sensitive, like he's sad but that he could also flip to complete insanity and rage at any moment- is the best way of performing the character. I also think that because David Tennant is not some massive beefy muscly guy, it gives Hamlet the femininity that should show through,like the whole 'women words men action' sort of thing, and Hamlet is a very wordy guy.

Presentation of the ghost in Act One.

The character of the ghost in Hamlet can be presented in many different ways, because he can be interpreted differently by each person who reads/performs Hamlet.

Some people say that the ghost of the King isn’t real, and that it is just a figure of Hamlet’s imagination, and his way of clarifying his belief’s about Claudius and his dead father. Hamlet declares that he has a ‘prophetic soul’ after the ghost says that it was Claudius who killed his father, causing the reader to wonder whether Hamlet is just trying to find an excuse to believe his own suspicions, in the form of the ghost of his father. After all, the ghost does say a lot of the things that Hamlet has said himself, ‘damned incest’; Hamlet has said something along these lines in his soliloquy ‘incestuous sheets’, which gives the impression that the ghost is just Hamlet’s mind playing tricks on him telling him what he wants to hear.

The ghost could be interpreted as evil, and something that is out to do harm to Hamlet - he teases Hamlet with information it is not going to tell ‘I could a tale unfold’; he is manipulative, saying that ‘if’ he ever loved him when he was human and his father, he should revenge his murder, which causes the audience to ask the question of whether or not the ghost is trustworthy, or whether it is something sent to sway Hamlet and force him to kill Claudius. The ghost tells Hamlet of how his father was killed by poison being poured into his ears, but there is also the question of is that what the ghost is doing to Hamlet? Pouring poison into his ears, so to speak, so that he believes his own thoughts about who killed his father, and also to make him angry, by telling him details like how the poison would have reacted within his body, to make Hamlet emotional and more vengeful.

The Laurence Olivier version of Hamlet helps to portray the ghost as a gentle being, with his soft voice and simple effects. This supports the interpretation of the ghost that some readers may take, which is that the ghost simply is Hamlet’s father, who was murdered by his brother, and a character that should be felt sympathy for. Most readers could sympathise with the ghost dying before he was allowed to repent for his sins (‘no reckoning made but sent to my account with all my imperfections on my head’), whether you believe in heaven/hell/purgatory or not, because you can tell of his distress of this by how he describes it as ‘O horrible, O horrible, most horrible!’.

While the Laurence Olivier version of Hamlet could be seen to make the ghost seem more gentle, the ghost could also be seen as something scary; it is the stereotypical ghost in the sense that you can’t fully see it, and it is whispering in a manner that is not simply to say something quietly, it is like they are trying to achieve a ‘shivers down your spine’ scared feeling from the audience. There are elements of this in the play; the ghost is telling of his own murder, a subject that isn’t supposed to be friendly and happy, its supposed to spook people, and could have spooked people in the time that Shakespeare wrote it because people relied on religion more, so ghosts would not be seen as friendly helpful beings but rather a being that should not be trusted and would be seen as a bad sign.

The ghost played by Patrick Stewart seems angrier, which is understandable to the viewer because he has been killed by his own brother. This is evident in the text with the way the ghost talks about his brother, ‘that incestuous, that adulterate beast’ – the repetition of ‘that’ implies that there are many other things that the ghost could have chosen to say about his murderous brother. There are also a lot of negative words in the text, which gives the impression of anger and bitterness, ‘vile’, damned’, ‘wretch’.

My interpretation of the ghost is that I believe that it is an actual ghost, even though there is reason behind the belief that the ghost is a product of Hamlet’s imagination, but because Horatio and Marcellus have both seen it it reinforces my belief that the ghost is real. I also think that the ghost is supposed to be slightly scary, and untrustworthy, which helps to make Hamlet seem more mad to the reader, because even now if a person believes in ghosts they generally don’t see ghosts as a good thing, or at least find them slightly unnerving, whereas Hamlet trusts every word the ghost says. This makes Hamlet seem desperate, like he is so thankful that he has got to see his father again he will believe anything this figure says, which makes him seem slightly without reason, and therefore mad, or at least going mad.