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 »

The Immortal Caesar

Julius Caesar is one of Shakespeare’s most well-known works, but if you’re not familiar with the plot, here’s a summary to check out before you read any further.

Also, I would like to share with our readership that when the members of the Bard’s Book Club met (via video chat) to discuss this play, we all wore togas (the nicest of which was modeled by Whitney, who had a Constantine costume from a school project).

Now, on to our discussion…

Were the conspirators right?

The question we immediately asked each other was which side we were supposed to back?  Are Brutus & Co. right to assassinate Caesar before he rises to power?  Is Caesar truly as ambitious as Cassius and the other conspirators think him to be?   Is Brutus acting for the common good as he says and everyone else believes, or is he, too, ambitious (more discussion on Brutus below)?

The answer I argued was that we weren’t supposed to know a clear side.  There is not meant to be a right and a wrong or a good and a bad side in this story.  We have no way of knowing whether the conspirators act justly or if Caesar would have turned tyrant in the end.  The point of the play, I believe, is that we don’t know; we never know the intentions and ambitions of political leaders, yet we must act.

There have been many Caesars since Julius Caesar, and many Brutuses, and many Cassiuses.  And many people questioning and arguing over who was right and who was wrong.  Julius Caesar is not really dead.  He is never going to die because there will always be another Caesar.  And with every new Caesar in this world there’s also a new batch of supporters and a new group of conspirators.

My belief in the immortality of Caesar is strongly influenced by a production of Julius Caesar I saw at the 2011 Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, OR.  The OSF theatrical experience was the best Shakespeare production I had seen in the U.S. and was right up there with the remarkable productions my co-readers and I saw when we studied in London and visited Stratford-Upon-Avon.

The vision of this production was clear and striking.  Hanging outside the theater were gigantic banners (shown below) of political leaders who had been assassinated throughout history.  These banners reflected dual views of the political leader.  One portrayed Abraham Lincoln as “Emancipator.”  Another labeled him as “Tyrant.”  Inside the small black box theater, identical banners hung with Caesar’s name.  The directorial vision demanded that the audience consider the similarities between the story they were about to witness, the two-sided political rebellions that had come to pass since Caesar, and the political leaders that undoubtedly will rise (and fall) again.

2011 Production of Julius Caesar at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, OR

In each instance, there were a group of people who believed the leader was god-like and others who believed the leader was an ambitious tyrant and still more whose opinions and loyalty were easily swayed.  And there will be more Caesar-like figures to come.  In his play, I think Shakespeare asks, though there are always two sides, is there ever really a clear right and wrong side?  When are political figures leaders, and when are they ambitious tyrants?  Or are they both at the same time in the different minds of different people?  At what point do the people need to take action and stamp out tyranny, and when are they murderers?

My point is, don’t read Caesar and think it’s a historical play with no implications in the modern world.  We are asking the same questions about our leaders and rebellions today and are continuing to act on the different answers to those questions.

Et tu, Brute?

Caesar’s last words are to his trusted friend, Brutus.  “Et tu, Brute? Then, fall Caesar.”  When Caesar realizes that noble Brutus is one of his assassins, he accepts death.  If Brutus was numbered amongst the assassins, then their cause must have been just, right?  Are Brutus’s intentions really as noble as everyone thinks?

I think ultimately the part can be played either way, but there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting Brutus truly does have noble intentions.  Firstly, he attempts to avoid the topic of Caesar’s ambition, especially when Cassius suggests Brutus could just as easily be in charge (“Brutus and Caesar: what should be in that ‘Caesar’? Why should that name be sounded more than yours?” Act I, Scene II).  But as soon as Cassius mentions the common good, Brutus starts paying attention, and it is this angle that Cassius uses as he continues to persuade Brutus to join the conspiracy.

Secondly, the common people as well as Brutus’s peers believe Brutus to be the most noble and just figure in Rome.  Multiple times throughout the play, other characters reference the nobility and righteousness of Brutus.  Perhaps we should trust the opinion of the other characters in the play, or are they being fooled?

Finally, the most compelling argument for Brutus’s nobility is Antony’s final speech.

This was the noblest Roman of them all:
All the conspirators save only he
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;
He only, in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mix’d in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world ‘This was a man!’ (Act V, Scene V)

Shakespeare’s final statement of the play testifies to the nobility of Brutus.  If that is the final statement, perhaps it is the opinion we should believe.

But an argument can be made that Brutus persuades himself to believe he acts on behalf of the common good, and denies his ambition.  As soon as he joins the conspiracy, he takes charge (Act II, Scene I).  Do we see a glimpse of his own ambition as he starts calling the shots?

Other observations worth noting:

• Caesar has very little stage time in the play, and yet he has such a powerful impact on these characters that he is present in every scene.  Caesar is the personification of power, and he is so powerful that he has infiltrated the minds of all the characters.  Every scene explores the question of Caesar’s power, ambition, and leadership.  Every scene is about Caesar. This is the power of this political leader.
• What’s up with Pindarus?  Does he truly mistake the events during the final battle and accidentally relay misinformation that leads to Cassius’s death?  Or, since he is a slave of Cassius, is he trying to drive Cassius to suicide so he can be free by relaying the misinformation (Act V, Scene III)?  After doing some research, we found evidence for both possibilities and are not sure what to believe.
• Those inconstant commoners!  What is Shakespeare saying about the groundlings and common folk?  They are so inconstant with their loyalty throughout Julius Caesar.  In the first scene, Flavius and Marullus chastise the commoners for so quickly changing their loyalty from Pompey to Caesar.  Later they’re cheering for Brutus after Caesar’s death but moments later are backing Marc Antony (Act III, Scene II).  Julius Caesar portrays a true mob mentality and insanity, even murdering an innocent man because he has the same name as one of the conspirators (Act III, Scene III).  This play indicates that Shakespeare didn’t have the highest opinion of the commoners.

Read Full Post »