Lions, Downton, and Madness

Hamlet is full of eerie nights.

From the day we arrive on the planet, and blinking, step into the sun . . .

Oh, wait. The Lion King is nothing like Hamlet, so I probably shouldn’t quote the music. That was one of our first discussion points, actually. If the beloved cartoon was actually anything like the play, Simba would have died, Nala would have gone crazy and committed suicide, Simba would have indirectly killed Timon and Pumbaa . . .

Sorry, I’m done destroying your Disney memories now. But stay with me here. Even though not every one of us had read Hamlet before, we all had had some sort of experience with it. (Katy even pointed out that Sir Richard subtly quotes Hamlet in season 2 of Downton Abbey.) Our culture has used themes, quotes, characters, and plot points of Hamlet so much that it’s kind of hard to approach this play blindly. That said, our discussion seemed to follow themes and purpose more so than in past conversations which covered more of the plot. We had a great conversation, and I’ll touch on a couple of the biggest points.

Is Hamlet really mad? This has been addressed countless times in articles, classrooms, and theater groups. Our verdict: no, Hamlet isn’t really insane. The first reason for our conclusion can be summed up with Polonius’s line,  “Though this be madness, yet there / is method in’t” (2.2.207-208). If you follow Hamlet’s speech patterns, you’ll notice that his lines of prose are filled with puns which make sense in an odd sort of way. He actually reminded me of the common clown character, who appears in Shakespeare’s plays with nonsensical lines which, when explored more deeply, carry more truth than many of the most beautiful lines of verse. Compare this to Ophelia, who clearly does go insane, and whose lines don’t make nearly as much sense. Hamlet’s dialogue is not that of a madman.

Another reason why we think Hamlet isn’t insane is that his soliloquies are all in verse. Would it make sense for a madman to speak beautiful, well-structured lines of verse when by himself but not while around others? The most reasonable answer is that he’s trying to keep up a persona of a madman in the company of others to help him achieve his goal of murder. Whether this was effective or not is another discussion altogether. (As Whitney Tweeted, “Hamlet could learn from a TNT Law & Order marathon: making everyone talk about your strange behavior does NOT help you get away with murder.”)

Even though we didn’t see Hamlet as literally insane, we recognized that he underwent more and more psychological pressure as the play developed. While this isn’t insanity, it does play a role in Hamlet’s behavior, just as it would with any 3o-year-old whose father is murdered by his uncle. Yet this brings up another issue, which is the topic of insanity in general. In our modern day, we consider insanity  a reasonable excuse for behavior. If you’re not in your right mind when you commit a crime, you’re not liable to the same punishment as if you committed a premeditated crime. While Hamlet alludes to this idea when apologizing to Laertes (5.2.234-240), it’s never used as an argument anywhere else in this play, even when madness drives Ophelia to her death. It makes little sense to us, but we surmised that Shakespeare’s audience didn’t hold the same understanding of mental illness that we do today, and therefore their point of view on this subject would have been much different from ours. Perhaps Shakespeare was commenting on this in Hamlet’s apology; yet, if he was, he was doing a weak job of it, since Hamlet’s excuse doesn’t sound very believable in my opinion.

Whether or not Hamlet is mad, is he justified in his actions? I don’t think we ever came to an agreement on this topic. One theory is that we should consider him a hero (albeit tragic), since the play ends with Hamlet being glorified very much like Brutus in Julius Caesar. Not everyone in our group agreed with this view, however. Someone pointed out that Horatio was Hamlet’s version of a BFF, even an accomplice by the end of the play; in such a role, he would naturally tell a Hamlet-flattering tale. Therefore, in reality, it wasn’t so much Shakespeare telling us to justify Hamlet as much as it was a good friend remembering a not-so-good person. Rather than celebrating Hamlet’s accomplishment, the audience simply breathes a sigh of relief as Denmark is given a fresh start and the world becomes balanced again.

One interesting side thought I just have to bring up before closing: Fortinbras is an interesting parallel to Hamlet. Both princes haven’t been crowned king and instead see their uncles take the throne, with no real explanation for those of us who are interested in Scandinavian monarchy. Yet while Fortinbras becomes impatient and decides to go to battle with little thought of the consequences, Hamlet does the opposite and overthinks every action. Yet in the end, we know that it’s the impetuous Fortinbras who will be the next king of Denmark. Perhaps Hamlet admires Fortinbras’s drive and bravery, or maybe he simply wants to save the people from another struggle for the throne. We didn’t really have time to develop this thought fully, but it was an interesting line of discussion nonetheless.

And that’s how Hamlet leaves us: thinking. This play is so complex, full of action, and overflowing with themes, that I don’t believe we could have gotten anywhere near fully covering it in only one discussion. No wonder our culture so liberally borrows from Hamlet.

Read Full Post »