“A problem facing any production of Hamlet is how to interpret his madness”. Do you agree?
Iain Lill
"A problem facing any production of Hamlet is how to interpret his madness"
Do you agree?
Hamlet is a play that has been written without strict guidelines as to how to interpret the actions of characters on stage. This leaves a lot to the director or producers personal preference, as has been revealed in many modern productions of Hamlet. The earliest performances of Hamlet took the play very much at face value, especially Burbage in the early 1600s. This was a traditional view of Hamlet, where he fakes his madness after his encounter with the ghost, but is still in full control of himself. Another interpretation of the madness is that Hamlet himself goes mad after the death of his father and the ghost never exists. This view contradicts Shakespeare's own text, but has been used by Mark Rylance in the late 20th century. Shakespeare wrote the play for the entertainment of large crowds, and deep psychological forces, such as the possible schizophrenia of Hamlet if the ghost did not exist, would not be suitable for this type of production. Another 20th Century interpretation is that by Richard Eyre, where Hamlet is possessed by the ghost, and this causes his madness.
The traditional interpretation of Hamlet has been used in the earliest performances such as Burbage, right up to contemporary productions, notably Lawrence Olivier and Zefirelli. However these two performances were very different and showed the two extremes of the traditional view. The Olivier performance shows a calm, introspective Hamlet, only stirred to violence in moments of high excitement. Soon after Hamlet's first encounter with the ghost he becomes very agitated, the experience of communication with the supernatural has shaken him badly, and this is revealed in his lines and actions. Even on Hamlet's first glance of the ghost he is affected to violence, threatening his own comrades and friends: "I'll make a ghost of him that lets me". In the Zefirelli version Hamlet has a more violent temperament, and uses violence more often, but again this is one of the most noticeable use of this. The attitude suggests that Hamlet is not in complete control, but the traditional view shows Hamlet to be using this as part of his "antic disposition".
The antic disposition is shown by Hamlet only when he considers his audience to be in a suitably receptive state of mind, the first example of which is when he encounters Polonius. Hamlet chooses to use his false madness as an excuse to insult Polonius, and to mock and upset him. However, Hamlet does seem 'only human', because when he feels a genuine emotion he casts off the antic disposition for a time. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern enter Hamlet is genuinely pleased to see them, and this is a theme carried through all the traditional productions as a ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The antic disposition is shown by Hamlet only when he considers his audience to be in a suitably receptive state of mind, the first example of which is when he encounters Polonius. Hamlet chooses to use his false madness as an excuse to insult Polonius, and to mock and upset him. However, Hamlet does seem 'only human', because when he feels a genuine emotion he casts off the antic disposition for a time. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern enter Hamlet is genuinely pleased to see them, and this is a theme carried through all the traditional productions as a demonstration of the way Hamlet's madness is clearly false. It also shows Hamlet's way of covering for himself when he considers his purpose to be under attack, hiding under madness. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern enter Hamlet seems ready to confide in them, but quickly sees that the King has had words, and holds off divulging his exact purpose, but does talk out his plan concerning the players. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem to be pushing him too far he returns once more to his madness: "I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw."
The difference in the traditional versions studied here is the way Hamlet avoids the action of revenge. The Olivier version shows Hamlet to be one who, in the words of the critic Coleridge, 'vacillates from sensibility, and procrastinates and looses the power of action in the energy of resolve.' The difference between this and the version by Zefirelli is that his Hamlet feels more inclination towards violence, and in those lines that other productions have viewed as excuse for the inactivity, they are spoken with such force that they seem to be less excuses, more real reasons for avoiding the time of revenge. This is shown most clearly in Act 3 Scene 3 with Hamlet happening upon the King praying, and off his guard.
"Now might I do it pat, now 'a is a-praying.
And now I'll do't.
And so 'a goes to heaven."
Many productions of the traditional Hamlet, such as the Olivier consider this to be an excuse, but in the Zefirelli production Hamlet seems to genuinely believe his words.
This shows a reasoning not usually associated with the mad and this point is brought out in the traditional productions. A.C. Bradley considered that madness was not too far from Hamlet; "'Melancholy,' I said, not dejection, nor insanity. That Hamlet was not far from insanity is very probable."
A more radical and modern production by Richard Eyre shows a very unusual view of Hamlet. There is no actor playing the Ghost, rather Hamlet is shown as possessed, or believing he is possessed. The audience is left to decide whether a supernatural spirit has really possessed Hamlet, or whether he is schizophrenic and this could pose one problem for the production; the audience may perceive Hamlet as genuinely mad. This interpretation is very much moving away from the traditional Hamlet, and is not how the play was envisioned by Shakespeare, which makes for problems in the production. The play would have to be edited to remove the parts where other people see the ghost such as Act 1 Scene1, or if not cut, these scenes would have to be changed, perhaps using some the psychology behind "Psycho", with Hamlet dressing as his father and saying the ghost's lines. Act 1 Scene 4 could have Horatio and Hamlet's sighting of the ghost cut, with Hamlet alone on the stage speaking the ghost's lines, revealing the old Hamlet's murder.
However, the whole play could be perceived as a result of madness on Hamlet's part, or deception from the ghost, because, apart from one line, the murder of Hamlet senior is not confirmed. This one line from Claudius: "O, my offence is rank...A brother's murder." comes nearly half way through the play, and so if the audience chose to disbelieve the ghost up to this point Hamlet could be seen as, if not mad, certainly very disturbed enough to look for a figure to blame for his father's murder. The ghost's evidence is unreliable to a degree, admitted as much by Hamlet himself: "The devil has power to assume a pleasing shape," and when it was first seen by him he calls it "questionable", unsure at several points during the play of it's honesty, and when this happens Hamlet will argue with himself until he has resolved once again to perform the deed he was asked. It has been suggested by Sir Israel Gollancz in 'The Sources of Hamlet' that Claudius' line in Act 3 Scene 3 was added, not by Shakespeare, but by some other producer to simplify the plot, for without this line much doubt is thrown on Hamlet's cause and it's righteousness.
This modern interpretation is veering from the original text, but can still produce a very interesting story, as shown by the popularity of Eyre's production when it was shown.
Genuine madness is the final possible interpretation for the actions of Hamlet, and it is possible this is what was originally intended by Shakespeare, that the ghost was genuine, but it's visit to Hamlet had such a profound effect as to drive him insane. The first soliloquy by Hamlet demonstrates his disturbed state of mind very clearly, the death of his father has made him very unhappy to the point at which he is considering suicide, restrained only by his religious beliefs:
"Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self slaughter."
Another place to mark the possibility that Hamlet was mad from the start is in Act 3 Scene 4, in the Queen's chambers. Hamlet sees the ghost enter and hears it speak, although the queen, also present sees and hears nothing. This is contrary to the first scene in which the ghost was visible by all present, and could be the result of Hamlet's imagination, or the ghosts desire not to be seen by the queen.
"you do bend your eye on vacancy...
Your bedded hair...
start up and stand on end"
It would be difficult to keep Hamlet in the same state of mind through the play to the end as he needs to gather his wits to actually carry through his revenge, and his madness seems to subside after his trip to England. His antic disposition may just be Hamlet fooling himself into thinking he is still sane and in control, but is just an excuse to himself to explain his actions and what he says. This internal strife shows a deeper more psychological madness that can alter his perceptions of himself and those around. Another interpretation may be that Hamlet puts on the antic disposition at first, but then this develops into a real madness, although the text seem to suggest the opposite happens. When he returns from his trip it seems that acting mad has made his real madness die down. When Hamlet is talking with Polonius in Act 2 Scene 2 deliberately finds the excuse to insult him, covering it with his antic disposition. However when Hamlet appears to Ophelia in a state of undress the is ambiguity whether it is part of his faked madness or a genuine affliction. After he returns from his trip there seems to be less made of the antic disposition, and Hamlet seems more focussed on what he must do, and more angry, perhaps leaning more towards the traditional revenge hero, seeking to right a wrong without prevarication.
This manipulation of the text through new editions, and productions such as Pryce and Rylance mean the text of Hamlet is open for debate, and these questions about the productions make it harder to chose a method of interpretation of his madness, if indeed that is what it is. The madness is a problem for anyone staging a production of Hamlet as it would involve a personal handling of not only the visual acting but in some cases the text itself.
