Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2009 :: February ::
Heroes
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0066  Wednesday, 18 February 2009

From:      Conrad Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:      Tuesday, 3 Feb 2009 02:52:37 -0500
Subject: Heroes
Comment:   SHK 20.0054 Heroes

Donald Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >wrote:

 >Both are, I think, not taking into account the fact that the situation
 >is quite crazy to begin with. In the preceding scene they were trying to
 >strangle each other over the dead body of Ophelia. An hour or so later a
 >friendly competition using deadly weapons is proposed between the two. A
 >trifle suspicious, I think we'd all agree.

Well, let's be accurate. Fencing foils are not deadly weapons, provided 
that the bate has not been removed or poison applied.

 >Hamlet apologizes to Laertes ("Sorry about killing your dad, mate, but I
 >was off my chump at the time") but as a prelude to a fencing match it's
 >entirely goofy. Laertes offers a guarded response ("I'll consult some
 >experts to determine whether I'll have to challenge you or knife you in
 >the back to get revenge, but until then we'll pretend it never
 >happened") that is hardly less loopy. The king takes his part with the
 >hokum about the priceless pearl that will go to Hamlet if he gets an
 >early hit, and then drinks his health as if they were best of friends.
 >Granted they have to continue the sham in front of the public but what
 >are they doing in front of the public if not setting up something
 >underhanded? It is not a friendly match. Nobody's friends and nobody's
 >having fun.

It calls to mind Bugs Bunny's commentary at the end of his Wagner 
adaptation:  "Well what did you expect -- a happy ending?"

Quite beyond "nobody's friends," the three players participating in the 
three-way duel, Claudius, Laertes and Hamlet, each are kings who fall 
short of kingship: Claudius is the king of Denmark, but in fact he is a 
murderer and usurper, which renders his rule illegal. Laertes was chosen 
by the people to be king, but he forfeited that kingship in return for 
Claudius's promise of revenge.  Hamlet is the hereditary king, but has 
had trouble in claiming the throne.

 >The queen, bless her heart, seems to take it all at face value, not
 >suspecting her husband of his murderous deceit. But then again, maybe
 >she does. Maybe she is weary of life: she has acted very scandalously,
 >married with the murderer of her first husband, seen a man killed by her
 >son. Maybe one could stage it such that she suspects that the cup is
 >poisoned and drinks it deliberately, tearing it away from Claudius,
 >expecting to die.

It's played that way sometimes.

You can find the queen suiciding to protect her son in the Ethan Hawke 
_Hamlet_.  An interesting interpretation, but it seems to me 
inconsistent with the queen offering Hamlet the drink.

But if Shakespeare intends to raise the issue in our minds, then there 
is a nice parallel with Ophelia's doubtful death, who the Gravedigger 
says drowned herself in her own defense, and the Queen reports was 
dragged under by her clothes "heavy with their drink."

Conrad.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.