Criticism of Shakespeare's Hamlet
Over the past several centuries the tragedy of Hamlet has divided both critics and readers alike. T.S. Eliot deemed it an artistic failure, while Sir Laurence Olivier called it pound for pound, the greatest play ever written. Perhaps T.S. Eliot was caught in the tunnel of his own criticism and failed to see the larger picture. Through Shakespeare's brilliant use of language, characterization, and Hamlet's soliloquies, Hamlet has stood as a literary masterpiece for almost four hundred years.
Although William Shakespeare did not invent the pun, he certainly perfected it. He conveys much of Hamlet's contempt toward his father's murderer, the new king, through abstracted language. In Act I, scene ii, line 64, the King addresses Hamlet as "my son." Hamlet wittily responds, "A little more than kin, and less than kind!" This falls on deaf ears to the disillusioned King, but the reader picks up the double meaning. He is asserting that he neither resembles Claudius in nature nor feels kindly to him. Along with the pun, Shakespeare makes abundant use of intricate, roundabout language. In Act I, scene ii, line 156, Hamlet cries, "O, most wicked speed, to post / With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!" The language suggests more outrage and emotion than if he had said "It's bad for my mother to be sleeping with my uncle so soon after my father's death." Though it may bother some that his puns and fuzzy language are not always easy to notice, that was Shakespeare's intent. With every successive perusal of the tragedy the reader picks up on still another brilliant use of language.
Much of the negative criticism Hamlet has received is in regard to vague characterization. This only helps the play. It allows the reader to make his or her own inferences about the character. Prince Hamlet is the best example of this. There is no quintessential Hamlet to be discovered by poring over the text, and there is no need for such a discovery; yet one can hardly shrug their shoulders in resignation, for the pleasure of this play comes largely from the quest to solve its mysteries, to interrogate its ghost; and if one fails to seek what it never surrenders, they fail to enjoy what it renders (Bloom 31). Many shortcomings of other works come in overdeveloping characters.
Sometimes, revenge can be utterly nasty and repeated. A Serbian patriot once slayed an Austrian archduke to exact his revenge for Austria’s occupation of his land. Austria retaliated by starting World War I. After the war, the Allied powers took revenge by enforcing massive fines and taking away land from the defeated countries. One of them was Germany. This led to Hitler’s rise to power and took revenge against France by making them sign their surrender in the same train where Germany gave up in World War I. Following World War II, Germany was obligated to repair some of the damage done by paying war reparations to the Allies and Jewish people after the war. When countries recur to revenge, history reiterates, more often than not, it means war. On a smaller scale, in Hamlet, the prince of Denmark begins an inner war that provokes quite significant inner struggles as well as an outer war with Claudius to avenge his father’s death. William Shakespeare masterfully portrays Hamlet, whose experiences and emotions drive him to alternate between the realms of sanity and insanity to achieve his ambition. As the ancient proverb states, “desperate times call for desperate measures.” These “desperate times” include the murder of his father Hamlet Senior, King of the Danes, by his malicious uncle, Claudius, the seeming suicide of his love, Ophelia, his mother's quick remarriage to Claudius after his father's death.
Originally titled The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, this tragedy has been reproduced more times than any other play written by William Shakespeare (en.wikipedia.org 1 of 9). Prince Hamlet also has the lengthiest appearance of any character in all of Shakespeare's plays (en.wikpedia.org 6 of 9). In the play, Prince Hamlet is caught between balancing his need to avenge his father's death, dealing with the disgust he felt for Gertrude and Claudius' love affair, and maintaining the relationship he has with Ophelia without exposing his plans to kill his uncle Claudius for the murder of King Hamlet.
In William Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet” there are many different events throughout the play that affect and shape the main character Hamlet. The biggest event being when Hamlet meets the ghost of his father, the king, who then proceeds to tell him that his uncle murdered him. This event will lead Hamlet to madness with sanity while plotting his revenge on his uncle which will ultimately end in his, his uncle and several other’s deaths at the end of the play.
Tragedies in the Greek theater when compared to tragedies in the Renaissance theater varied in similarities and differences. Greek theater encouraged the use of religious figures while Renaissance theater was supposed to be strictly pagan in its ideologies. Theater was most dominantly used to depict the social and religious constraints of the time period. For example, Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex are both portrayals of deceit, murder, and revenge all of which lead to the demise of its leading characters. Hamlet is depicted as a young man who is seeking revenge for his fathers death. Oedipus is a king who means to free the people of Thebes from a disease that has been plaguing them. They share similarities in that each of their love interest are conduits of their pain and anguish, further pushing the protagonists over the precipice. The voice of reason that they share is Creon in Oedipus Rex and Horatio in Hamlet. Their tragic flaw is that they are both ultimately and utterly doomed and no amount of guidance will steer them away from what has been predestined by fate. They are ultimately doomed to be their own Achilles heel.
One of Shakespeare’s great pieces of work, Hamlet, has been divided to alternate versions Quarto 1and Quarto 2. Focusing on Act I Scene iii, apparently the differences in these two versions are mainly on the way the characters are formed and the language that is used. Quarto 1 is a much more compact version that has weakly defined characters and uninformed language. As for Quarto 2 this lack of complexity is not so. This version has a higher quality of character depth and a language that is more comprehensible to allow more meaning to the play. Nonetheless the mutuality between these two versions main idea are clearly the significant mutilations to these scene are factors that make the play have a different meaning. The Quarto that would be most appealing to actors and the one that would be more fulfilling to the reader would be the second one because of it richness in characters and language.
Foremost, is the character of Hamlet: the causes and effects of his actions, or lack thereof. Hamlet is a very thoughtful person by nature, and often spends more time thinking than acting. However, Hamlet does realize that "...conscience does make cowards of us all, And thus the native hue of resolution/ Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought"(III.i.84-85). Although Hamlet recognizes the fact that too much reflection could end poorly, he does it nonetheless. Every situation he is faced with he insists upon planning it out first, and rarely actually acting upon these plans. Additionally, since Hamlet is considered to be a tragedy, there must be a tragic hero. All tragic heroes have some kind of flaw or blemish, which, according to the article "Characters", "Hamlet's weakness may be that he 'thinks too much' and cannot make up his mind. The resulting inactions leads to his death" ("Characters"). Because Hamlet spends so much time pondering his surroundings, he sometimes misses the chance to act on them. This inability to accomplish anything slowly pulls Hamlet to a point where no amount of thought or action could possibly help him. However, at one point in the play Hamlet comes very near to followin...
William Shakespeare is seen to many as one of the great writers in history. More specifically, the characters in his plays are reviewed and criticized and have been so for nearly four centuries. The character that many have revered Shakespeare for is perhaps the greatest such character ever in literature, Hamlet from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. The commentary and response to this legend of literature is of wide array and opinion, though most, such as Pennington, believe him to be a truly magnificent character: "Hamlet is perhaps the cleverest hero ever written, the subject of the first European tragedy, a form of genius. A type Shakespeare despaired of writing thereafter, having perceived that the heroes of tragedies must be sublime idiots" (185). However, despite his clear gifts and aura, Hamlet was a doomed character from the beginning: Hamlet is dominated by an emotion that is inexpressible. It is thus a feeling he cannot understand, he cannot objectify it, and it therefore remains open to poison life and to obstruct action" (Eliot 25). Thus, Hamlet, while possessing the traits of no other men of his time, a true Renaissance man, was doomed from the beginning of the play partly by forces he could not control, and also partly by his own character. It leads to a slow but definite ending to one of literature's great characters, one that he could not control. In the end, Hamlet was out of place in his environment, he was simply not meant to be.
The movie of Hamlet was an excellent, as far as book-movies go. I believe it was produced with focus, reason, and logic. The characters were also portrayed with a good interpretation. There were several changes to the play compared to the book, although the movie was done in such a way that they were not particularly missed, from the movie's point of view.
I do not agree with the comment of Hazlitt: 'There is no play that suffers so much in being transferred to the stage' Based on performances I have seen and other plays by Shakespeare, I think this is one of his better plays as it does not stick to guidelines. Although a long play, it has a depth to it, that, if transferred to the stage well, is transformed from a long and winding script to a fascinating play filled with suspense and the emotions of the characters run high. 'Hamlet', nonetheless is a challenging script and Hamlet himself can either create the play, or destroy it, he is the key element.
I thought Hamlet was a selfish, self-centered, weak and crazy person. How can you call a person a hero after killing friends and family in order to get what one wants? Hamlet can be a very smart and noble person but in parts of the play he exhibited actions that are completely opposite of the person he can be. He acted with a sense of madness that made me think he was actually going mad. He acted obnoxious and annoying to other characters in the play.
Hamlet's problem is not exact; it cannot be pinpointed. In fact, Hamlet has numerous problems that contribute to his dilemma. The first of these problems is the appearance of King Hamlet's ghost to his son, Hamlet. Hamlet's morality adds a great deal to his delay in murdering the current king, Claudius. One of Hamlet's biggest drawbacks is that he tends to think things out too much. Hamlet does not act on instinct; however, he makes certain that every action is premeditated. Hamlet suffers a great deal from melancholy; this in turn causes him to constantly second guess himself. The Ghost is the main cause of Hamlet's melancholy. Also, Hamlet's melancholy helps to clear up certain aspects of the play. These are just a few of the problems that Hamlet encounters throughout his ordeal.
The perfection of Hamlet’s character has been called in question - perhaps by those who do not understand it. The character of Hamlet stands by itself. It is not a character marked by strength of will or even of passion, but by refinement of thought and sentiment. Hamlet is as little of the hero as a man can be. He is a young and princely novice, full of high enthusiasm and quick sensibility - the sport of circumstances, questioning with fortune and refining on his own feelings, and forced from his natural disposition by the strangeness of his situation.
Keys to Interpretation of Hamlet & nbsp; William Shakespeare's Hamlet is, at heart, a play about suicide. Though it is surrounded by a fairly standard revenge plot, the play's core is an intense psychodrama about a prince gone mad from the pressures of his station and his unrequited love for Ophelia. He longs for the ultimate release of killing himself - but why? In this respect, Hamlet is equivocal - he gives several different motives depending on the situation. But we learn to trust his soliloquies - his thoughts - more than his actions.
"Hamlet." Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Michelle Lee. Vol. 92. Detroit: Gale, 2005. Literature Resource Center. Web. 5 Apr. 2014.
There are many reasons why Hamlet had his downfall. One being his decision to keeping the murder of his father a secret. Another one being the betrayals of his closest friends. Perhaps if Guildenstern or Rosencrantz had been there for Hamlet, to rely and place trust upon, he might not had to fell so alone. A little sympathy from his girlfriend Ophelia, and even his mother Gertrude would have been nice as well. Unfortunately Ophelia is held back from Hamlet, due to her father. Gertrude marries his uncle Claudius, who is responsible for his fathers death, and is looking to kill him next. And Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are ordered by Claudius to spy on Hamlet, and betray him as a friend.