Parent-Child Relationships…

^Best title ever, right? 😉

The following post contains spoilers.

  • Parent-child relationships are central to Hamlet (by William Shakespeare). What do these relationships suggest about the roles of parents? About the roles of children? What about step-parents?

I feel that the relationships between parents and children in Hamlet suggest that children are meant to show great respect to or for their parents. In other words, they are supposed to see their parents in high regard and treat them as highly.

3-pelicula-hamlet-kenneth-branagh-trabalibros

When Hamlet’s father died, he was outraged at his mother’s remarriage to Claudius,  his uncle, not only because it was only two (if even) months after his father’s death, but also because Claudius’ presence overthrew his whole world: he was forbidden from returning to college, he was ordered to forget his grief and to accept Claudius as his new father, and even his own friends were spying on him (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern).

Now, the appearance of the ghost certainly did no wonders for Hamlet retaining his sanity, but it definitely solidified the evidence that Hamlet greatly respected his father (labelling it simply as love does not quite explain it fully; after all, you can love someone and not respect them or vice versa). Although he does not quite believe in the ghost at first, he quickly decides to “take the ghost’s word for a thousand pound” after Claudius ran away from the play he orchestrated (The Mousetrap) (III.ii.292-293).

So, you just told us Hamlet’s life story… your point? Well, as soon as he believes in the ghost, Hamlet begins to craft a big elaborate scheme to both prove Claudius guilty of killing his father and succeed with his revenge. He even goes so far as to pass up a perfectly good opportunity to kill Claudius to ensure that “his soul may be as damned and black as hell, whereto it goes” (III.iii.94-95). This reveals how devoted Hamlet is to revenging his father (and maybe also getting back at Claudius). Now, usually a person will take revenge for someone else if they respected them greatly or had some other close relationship with them, so I am assuming that Hamlet follows those general guidelines.

In Ophelia’s case, she gave up on Hamlet because her father, Polonius, “advised” (told) her not “to give words or talk with the Lord Hamlet” (I.iii.134). Afterwards, she is frightened when Hamlet approaches her seemingly in his madness, but continues to do as her father bid her, even though she says she loves him. To me, that at least shows that she is obedient and obedience normally requires a certain level of respect for the one you are obeying or, at the very least, a sense of inferiority.

Film and Television

Fortinbras is very similar to Hamlet in that his goal is to take back land from Denmark that his father had previously lost (and most likely died defending) as a form of revenge… or redemption. Anyway, since Denmark had quite a few good connections and his own uncle (the old king of Norway, old meaning elderly) did not support him, it is implied that he had some form of respect or sense of responsibility inherited from his father to get the land back.

Pretty much, the children are meant to obey their parents over following through with their own thoughts and opinions. Although, the main exceptions seem to be when it came to their mothers. As seen with Gertrude, Hamlet did not particularly respect her, mainly because she married his uncle a short time after his father had died AND his uncle turned out to have murdered his father. He even tells her that despite her being his mother, he “would it were not so” (III.iv. 17).

In Ophelia, Laertes, and Fortinbras’ cases, their mothers are simply never in the picture, so there isn’t really anything to compare with them.

As far as step-parents… well, to keep it short and sweet, the play suggests that they tend to be disrespected and disliked, especially when they try to become an influence to replace the dead parent (like when Claudius told Hamlet to think of him as his father and forget his grief).

Kenneth Branagh in Hamlet

Grass Ties

john-william-waterhouse-ophelia-1345239159_b

Ophelia (1894)

So, while searching for images inspired by Hamlet, I came across this painting of Ophelia by John William Waterhouse.

Apparently, it is not his only painting of Ophelia, as he has, at the very least, two others. One made in 1889 and the other in 1910.

jww_ophelia_1889

Ophelia (1889)

ophelia_1910

Ophelia (1910)

There is a third that is called Gather Ye Rosebuds, which may or may not be a study of Ophelia as well.

gather_ye_rosebuds_-_ophelia

Gather Ye Rosebuds or Ophelia (a study) (1908)

I will be mostly speaking about the first painting in this post, but I thought it was interesting that he had so many different interpretations. (My source for the above was Wikipedia 😉 )

So, this painting (see right to refresh your memory 🙂 ) john-william-waterhouse-ophelia-1345239159_bappears to depict Ophelia before her death, described by the words:

There is a willow grows askant the brook

That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream:

Therewith fantastic garlands did she make

Of crowflowers, nettles, daisies, and long purples,

I know that the quote kind of cuts off… but, I thought this excerpt best fit the image that Waterhouse depicted in his painting. Although, cornflowers, daisies, and nettles seem to be what most of her garlands are made of. I really don’t see any long purples.

long purples

nettles

crowflower?

Okay, to be honest I’m not entirely sure which flower is supposed to be a crowflower, but I think that the picture I found is the safest bet, so I went with it.

I left out a picture of a daisy since they are a pretty common symbol/image/flower used nowadays in pretty much everything you can think of. (Example: typical bouquets/gift baskets, as a cute/girly image for marketing products, etc.)

The exact medium of this painting is oil on canvas, and I believe it is held in a private collection at present, but my sources (the Internet, all-powerful and all-knowing) could be wrong (I didn’t check to see when the information was last updated).

I read somewhere on the World Wide Web that his three paintings of Ophelia represent the events leading up to her death (her youth, when she was in love, and when she went insane), so that might point towards why each painting seems to be an almost completely different interpretation of Ophelia and what she is supposed to be like.

Anyway, I like Waterhouse’s depictions of Ophelia because he emphasizes her close relationship to nature and flowers, making her a much more interesting character than if you just read the play without analyzing it (which makes her seem much more bland). In fact, I didn’t quite realize her connection with nature until after I saw all three of these paintings together.

Also, you know how Hamlet’s famous “to be or not to be” speech is supposed to be about him contemplating suicide? Well, looking at this painting one way, it almost seems like Ophelia is going through the same thing with her aloofness and separation from the rest of the world. Looking at it another way, it might seem like Ophelia’s eventual fate (if you believe she committed suicide) was because of a loss of her will to live after her father was killed by Hamlet, who was supposed to love her and whom she may or may not have loved. And her aloofness in the painting is not caused by her contemplating her demise, but about her contemplating her love for Hamlet, or even her following through with her brother and fathers’ requests for her to stay away from him.

If you do not believe she committed suicide, but rather fell into the water by accident during her madness, this scene explains why she would have been there in the first place: because it was a favorite place of hers to rest and maybe enjoy the scenery, to be at peace. Maybe it even calmed her down to be there. (See? Nature.)

If you do not believe she committed suicide and do not believe she was really crazy, this scene could depict her moments before she died and it may have been that she was pushed in to the water (murdered) by Horatio (who was sent to watch her by Claudius) or even Claudius himself because they viewed her as a hindrance. They may even have knocked her over the head first, which would explain why, if she was not truly insane, she was unable to save herself before she drowned.

Another option is that her food was poisoned, which led to her falling into the water. After all, I’m sure all of us who have read Hamlet are very aware of Claudius’ love for poisons. Claudius may even have foreseen that it would enrage Laertes (her brother) further, and took steps to ensure that Ophelia would not survive long after her father’s death.

I say all this, but it’s all pure speculation. Since Ophelia’s death is not explicitly explained in the play, all of these are equally possible in my mind, and there are even more possibilities that I have left unexplored. In the end, it all comes down to which scenario you choose to believe.

First ≠ Best

As I’m sure many of you know, the First Quarto of Hamlet, also known as the Bad Quarto, is highly inaccurate, as well as incomplete and almost definitely plagiarized.

The following post will be pointing out several of its flaws and contains some spoilers of Acts I, II, and III. It’s really bad, by the way. You have been warned!!

I am comparing the First Quarto to the commonly accepted version of Hamlet, and am really only covering the first two Acts (approximately Scene 1-7 of the First Quarto).

So, after reading the First Quarto, the first thing that stood out like a sore thumb were the names. For one, Ophelia was misspelled as Ofelia, which I found very irritating, and I almost couldn’t bear to read her parts and kind of skipped over wherever I saw her name misspelled. I guess that’s a bit of a minor thing, but it really made me cringe.

Another thing to notice is that Polonius somehow turned into “Corambis” and Cornelius turned into “Cornelia”. However, despite Polonius being referred to as “Corambis throughout the entire thing, at some point in one of Hamlet’s lines it read:

‘Tis well, ’tis very well. [To Polonius I pray, my lord,
Will you see the players well bestowed?
(Around line 1562 in the “Complete Text” version. If you don’t want to count lines, you can always hit either Cmd/Ctl (depending on if you have a Mac or a Windows, respectively) + F and type in “Polonius” to find the only use of that name in the document.)
Anyway, the best part is, after it was clearly Hamlet speaking to Polonius, Polonius magically turns back into Corambis as it is Corambis who is named to have replied to Hamlet.
Another thing that cracked me up is that Montano from Othello made a special appearance in Scene 6 as the replacement for Polonius’ *ahem* I mean Corambis‘ servant, Reynaldo. This is coincidentally also the scene where Polonius in the accepted version sent his servant to spy on his son and also to damage his son’s reputation only slightly in the process if need be. However, in the First Quarto, Po- Corambis asks Montano to deliver letters and money to Laertes, much as in the original, but then goes on to say
You shall do very well, Montano, to say thus: (905)
“I knew the gentleman,” or “know his father,”
To inquire the manner of his life,  (898.1)
As thus; being amongst his acquaintance,
You may say, you saw him at such a time, mark you me,
At game, or drinking, swearing, or drabbing,
You may go so far.
 which makes it sound like he is having Montano directly ask Laertes if he has been fooling around and not following his studies properly. This would imply a much greater amount of trust in Laertes than Polonius is shown to have, and also takes away from the two-faced nature that he is portrayed as having, diminishing his overall impact in the play, and making him a much more likable character.
There are several more mistakes in names, but I think I have covered the main ones that bothered me.
Anyway, funnily enough, in Scene 7 of the First Quarto, the scene following the King and Queen hiring Rosencrantz and Gildenstern (referred to as Rossencraft and Gilderstone, lol) skips over Hamlet confronting them, his insulting of Polonius, meeting the players, and much of the third Act, to go straight into the famous “to be, or not to be” speech and Hamlet’s “coincidental” meeting with Ofelia arranged by the King, the Queen, and Corambis. They next backtrack and include Hamlet insulting Corambis, Hamlet talking to R & G, and the arrival of the Players, but attempt to fuse it in such a way that it makes sense, but it gives off a feel that Hamlet has revealed his hand too soon.
Not only does the whole thing seem to develop too quickly, but many of the speeches are greatly shortened, including Hamlet’s recital and the finishing of by the Player. Also, many of the dramatic references like that of Hecuba in Hamlet’s monologue are cut off completely, making it lose much of its impact and become much more bland. It is funny in its own way, but I don’t believe that Hamlet was meant to be such a play.
Well, that’s all for now. Until next time!
hamlet-poster-design
P.S. Isn’t this picture cool? I found it on Google 🙂