Over on the Shakespeare section of Reddit, a question came up that I’d never seen before:

Is Hamlet really telling the truth about what happened on the ship?

The submitter’s argument is basically that the story is too unbelievable.  Why would the pirate take Hamlet prisoner, and then taxi him back home?  Why would Rosencrantz and Guildenstern just sit back and let that happen, having been charged to get Hamlet to England?

The general consensus is that no, Hamlet’s not lying, and there’s enough evidence to prove that (both in the text and historically).

It’s fun to grab at a random angle like this every now and then, and re-examine bits of the play you might previously have been skimming over.  During the conversation I wondered, “Once they lost Hamlet, why did R&G bother continuing on to England, anyway?”  But then I remembered, their mission was to deliver that letter (which ended up being their execution order). They never knew that Hamlet was the primary reason for their trip.  It does make you wonder what they were thinking when they watched a pirate ship sail away with the prince, though.  “Oooooo!  Claudius is gonna be *pissed*!”

Don’t miss the later posts in the thread that focus on Shakespeare’s use of exposition, and just how big a deal it would be to have a character lie while doing that.  I personally like digging through the text, but that’s mostly because at any given time I can find and search texts, whereas the historical stuff?  I never know if there’s some book I’ve missed that completely negates everything I think I’ve just learned.

Tell me, what would you do with a book that attempts to capture the history of Hamlet? I’m talking all of it, from the original Amleth story all the way through to screen captures of Ethan Hawke moping about when Kyle MacLachlan watches in the background.

So it is with David Bevinton’s Murder Most Foul: Hamlet Through the Ages
(Oxford University Press), which surprisingly still weighs in at just under 200 pages.  What do you say to that, Harold Bloom? 🙂

The author is not just tackling how the character of Hamlet has been portrayed over the years, either. He’s truly gone for a complete history of the play in every sense. There’s a diagram of the Swan Theatre, which has no trap door in the stage, and discussion about what this would have meant for a performance of Hamlet, which requires one.  How would Polonius have hidden behind the arras? Would he fall through it and back onto the stage, or would Hamlet have to pull back the curtain to see him? What does Hamlet do with the body when he drags it offstage? That’s all just in one early chapter. There’s depth like that on every page.

These issues may seem trivial, particularly to the theatre-folk in the crowd who have to deal with such details every performance. But this is not a lesson plan in how *you* might stage Hamlet, this is a history of how Hamlet *was* staged. That is what makes it fascinating. There are times you want the plays to be timeless, and there are times when you want to feel connected to their origins.

Jump forward to modern days and Bevington has something to say about all the most popular modern video interpretations. There’s a surprisingly lengthy and positive description of Mel Gibson’s version (which, according to Bevington, was always intended as an “action movie” Hamlet), and then a story about the disastrous timing of Kevin Kline’s production coming out the same year and basically getting lost on PBS, despite its emphasis on “superb performances” and “insightful interpretation”. Branagh’s, Tenant’s and event Ethan Hawke’s interpretation also get a fairly detailed examination.

I have to admit, books like this are intimidating to me. They are so densely packed with stuff that I just plain didn’t know that I can’t get through 3 pages without saying, “I could make a post out of that!”  Typically several times.  I know my style, and this is not the kind of book I sit and read and absorb end to end.  I can’t do it.  Instead I’ll grab it and flip to a random chapter, knowing that wherever I land I’ll learn something new and want to talk about it.

This is a great addition to my reference library, and I thank Oxford University Press for sending me a copy.
 

When I first saw Lion King, I never recognized it as a Hamlet story. In fact, I’ve never really bought it as a deliberate Hamlet story – I always thought that the similarities were coincidental at best.  Not every “Uncle kills the father, son avenges” story is Hamlet.

Well now, with the new 3D release of the movie, we can confirm the answer (courtesy of The Hamlet Weblog):

When we first pitched the revised outline of the movie to Michael
Eisner, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Peter Schneider and Tom Schumacher, someone
in the room announced that Hamlet was similar in its themes and
relationships. Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were
doing something Shakespearean and so we continued to look for ways to
model our film on that all time classic.

This may or may not be the answer you were looking for. It was not written to be Hamlet.  How many “ways to model” their film they found, we don’t know.

Sometimes when I’m looking for content, I troll for homework questions. Today, I got this one: What does Hamlet symbolize?

I find questions like that odd. And, really, unanswerable.  I think Shakespeare wrote primarily to entertain.  I think that his stuff entertains more than the other guy because his stuff really digs in and gets at what it means to be a human, and he puts that out there on the stage. I don’t think Hamlet symbolizes indecision or consequences or thought versus action, I think that Shakespeare tells the story of what happens to a man who embodies those characteristics.

Does that make sense?  When I hear “symbolize” I think, “The author wants me to discover a deeper meaning here, something that I must interpret for myself because he’s not going to come out and tell me.”  I can’t imagine the groundlings doing their English homework and debating the symbolism.

Am I way off base?  Maybe the English teachers in the crowd can chime in.  What is the expected answer for a question like that?  Do we really think it’s what Shakespeare meant from the beginning, or are we really just asking for an answer that is mutually agreed upon by later generations? 

I’m always on the lookout for Shakespeare games, particularly those that would help introduce my kids to Shakespeare. Well, not introduce, since I’ve done that – but, games that will allow them to learn more about Shakespeare without having to already have a high school education, you know?

Hamlet! A Game in Five Acts looks promising (although it does say 12+). If I understand the game correctly, you have an ending in mind, and you try to manipulate to play to achieve your ending. I already dig that. Plays with the whole “bloodbath ending” idea while still suggesting that most of the elements of the original will still be in there, somewhere.
So, for instance, you might get an ending card that says “Ophelia married to Hamlet. Horatio dead.” (I made that one up). You have to figure out how to make that happen. If Ophelia ends up dead, you can’t win. Each turn in the game is a Scene, and within each Scene your characters can perform Actions to make the play go their way. So for instance an action might be “Ophelia commits suicide”, *but* the requirement for that action is “Ophelia is insane.” So before you can play that action, you need to have played other actions that cause Ophelia to lose sanity points. “Hamlet rejects Ophelia. Ophelia loses 1 sanity point.” You get the idea.
Somebody buy this so I can learn more about it :). With that 12+ rating and a price tag of almost $20 I can’t bring myself to do it. My oldest daughter may be able to figure it out but with the 5yr old still not knowing how to read yet, I have to focus my game purchases on things that can be played on family night.
That is, of course, unless the author of the game happens to be listening and wants to send me a review copy? Hint hint hint! Anybody know this Mike Young fellow? 🙂 I’m sure there’s value in hearing about my 5/7/9yr olds successfully playing his game, no?