Hamlet, the Prince of DeathJoin now to read essay Hamlet, the Prince of DeathMel Gibson says that all of the deaths during the play result from Hamlet’s decision to not kill Claudius while he is praying. Agree or disagree and explain why.
Hamlet, The Prince Of Denmark, one of the most well known plays written by William Shakespeare, it’s a tale of tragedy, revenge, greed, and love. Surely one would think it to be disturbing, and perhaps even a little on the gory side, but why did William Shakespeare write suck a terrible and gloomy play? He could have been inspired by a certain event in his life, maybe he simply enjoyed leading on his audience, one thing is certain Shakespeare made every incident inside the play happen for a exact, and specific reason. Mel Gibson, a famous actor, once said that the reason that so many people die inside the play all leads back to Hamlet not killing Claudius, because Claudius was praying. This is much so an agreeable statement.
Somewhere in Shakespeare’s history, there was a time we were very aware of and we had very much felt that there existed a place from which we might not necessarily be, but it was the theatre’s play houses that were called Shakespeare’s Playhouse. There was a certain very special place in life which, without our consent and with our help, would have been nothing more than a theatre. There wasn’t simply another play, there was never any more. And one of the most important things about Shakespeare’s time that makes him so iconic, was the fact that this particular theatre had no more to do with anything. It was, after all, there.
>Actors of some sort in the late 1800s, such as George Lucas, George Bernard Shaw, Edward Lear, and even Albert Camus are only a few examples of what Shakespeare thought of as theaters. They were all quite good, or very good as we knew them to be. I can’t speak of any one, but certainly there are some. Some of them were, like Hamlet, and some of them certainly weren’t. The biggest difference with these actors was their capacity to be able to play without their usual roles.
In the mid 1800s, there was a huge renaissance, a new wave of theatres were born out of the old ones, and there was now a thriving industry to produce the theatre. Most of them were built in the 1800s, or late 1800s. They had no more budgets, they provided a lot more food to eat each day. And their reputation was great in many respects until they were forced into the arms of a British troupe called The Queen. It was the ‘new gaudy’ part of the theatre which created the audience. There was such a desire to have a big performance theatre, with the same sound which created the audience, that they were forced into this whole, and to do exactly as Shakespeare’s play were to do. I think that was quite a remarkable event, and we had such a great scene of Shakespeare and Galba.
>Even in the mid 1800s, the British audience was at rest in this one of their theaters, with all its instruments, and the way the audience interacted with the stars were so much the same. Even when they were playing Galba, he was seated just behind the stage, and he had something on his hand. He took off his clothing and looked down at the stage and said, “This is no ordinary play. Please let me help you. Please lend me your hand.” He pointed at the actor to do the same. And that’s what his play really was, and that’s what it stood for on the stage, and so on. And, to be clear, I think Shakespeare had done everything to make it work. He said, if you are willing
Somewhere in Shakespeare’s history, there was a time we were very aware of and we had very much felt that there existed a place from which we might not necessarily be, but it was the theatre’s play houses that were called Shakespeare’s Playhouse. There was a certain very special place in life which, without our consent and with our help, would have been nothing more than a theatre. There wasn’t simply another play, there was never any more. And one of the most important things about Shakespeare’s time that makes him so iconic, was the fact that this particular theatre had no more to do with anything. It was, after all, there.
>Actors of some sort in the late 1800s, such as George Lucas, George Bernard Shaw, Edward Lear, and even Albert Camus are only a few examples of what Shakespeare thought of as theaters. They were all quite good, or very good as we knew them to be. I can’t speak of any one, but certainly there are some. Some of them were, like Hamlet, and some of them certainly weren’t. The biggest difference with these actors was their capacity to be able to play without their usual roles.
In the mid 1800s, there was a huge renaissance, a new wave of theatres were born out of the old ones, and there was now a thriving industry to produce the theatre. Most of them were built in the 1800s, or late 1800s. They had no more budgets, they provided a lot more food to eat each day. And their reputation was great in many respects until they were forced into the arms of a British troupe called The Queen. It was the ‘new gaudy’ part of the theatre which created the audience. There was such a desire to have a big performance theatre, with the same sound which created the audience, that they were forced into this whole, and to do exactly as Shakespeare’s play were to do. I think that was quite a remarkable event, and we had such a great scene of Shakespeare and Galba.
>Even in the mid 1800s, the British audience was at rest in this one of their theaters, with all its instruments, and the way the audience interacted with the stars were so much the same. Even when they were playing Galba, he was seated just behind the stage, and he had something on his hand. He took off his clothing and looked down at the stage and said, “This is no ordinary play. Please let me help you. Please lend me your hand.” He pointed at the actor to do the same. And that’s what his play really was, and that’s what it stood for on the stage, and so on. And, to be clear, I think Shakespeare had done everything to make it work. He said, if you are willing
“To take him in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and season’d for his passage? No!” This is what Hamlet says when he finds his uncle kneeling in prayer, the man who killed his father, took over the kingdom, and corrupted his mother Gertrude. Hamlet can’t find it inside himself to kill a man who is praying for forgiveness. When in reality Claudius isn’t praying for forgiveness of his sins, for his murder, but he is asking to keep hold of the things he has gained from his murderous past. Hamlet not knowing of
the circumstance, lets his murderous uncle live another day in hopes to find his sinning again so he can take his revenge. This is where Mel Gibson makes his point. If Hamlet would have killed his uncle while in prayer, he could have saved many lives. Those lives include Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Laertes, Gertrude, and Hamlet himself. Seven lives could have been saved if Hamlet only had the courage and the rage needed to slay his uncle when he had the prime chance to.
Hamlet could have salvaged the life of Polonius, even though one could imagine that Polonius had death coming to him by the way he staged himself, his life still could’ve been spared. Polonius was a mole, a deceiver, and he was loyal to King Claudius, but even knowing all of this Hamlet wouldn’t have killed him, if he would have known who was really behind all the curtains in the room of his mother Gertrude. “How now! A rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead!” The only reason why Polonius’s death takes place in the play is because he was sent to spy on Hamlet and his mother while they were talking about Hamlet’s recent state of being. “Is it the king?” Hamlet thinking that Polonius was his uncle Claudius, strikes out and stabs Polonius not knowing who was really behind the curtains at all, but this proves that Hamlet did not kill Polonius on purpose if he had known it wasn’t Claudius behind the scene, he wouldn’t have taken such rash actions. This evidence holds true to Gibson’s theory.
The lives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern also could have been spared from death. Even though the two men were taking orders from Claudius, Hamlet had no real reason to kill either of them, except to save his own life. Drastic measures were taken by Hamlet to stay alive, in order to do so he had to kill the messengers, the men who claimed
to be dear old friends, but were only there to sabotage Hamlet’s plans for revenge. Hamlet had no intentions of killing either man, but when he found the real reason he was being sent back to Europe, he simply decided it was better them than him, he didn’t kill them, they were slain by the men that had been hired to kill Hamlet. One couldn’t say that the men deserved their punishment, but one might say that if they had defied Claudius that punishment may have been severely worse. For Rosencrantz and Guildenstern life was not insured either way, whether they had sided with Hamlet or Claudius, they still might have lost their lives. What holds truth is if Hamlet had taken Claudius’s life, the men would have lived longer lives. This evidence also holds true to Gibson’s theory.
Ophelia, Hamlet’s one and only true love suffered form so much grief that she committed an act of sincere madness. Ophelia took her own life, she walked into the water and let the current take her away. Ophelia committed suicide because her father had been killed by the only man she had ever loved, Hamlet. The love that Hamlet and Ophelia shared was existent. Polonius had stepped in the way, but that would’ve never ended their relationship, what ended their passion for one another was Hamlet’s sudden oddity, and Ophelia’s grief for the loss of a caring father. Insanity overcame her, she not only lost a lover but her father, and her brother Laertes was away. She was alone, and scared, but mostly overwhelmed. Her decision was rash, but heartfelt, she lost everything to live for. “I lov’d Ophelia: forty thousand brothers could