Shakespeare lived and worked in Elizabethan England. At this time there was much corruption in England and amongst the upper classes and in the monarchy. Shakespeare reflects this in Hamlet. Hamlet has an obvious theme of corruption, which may be a reflection on the corruption in England at the time Shakespeare was writing. “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (1.4.90) In this quote Marcellus is reflecting on the state of the monarchy, it is arguable that through Hamlet Shakespeare is making a statement about monarchy in general which could well be based on his experience of the corruption in England. The role of the supernatural is also very important in Hamlet and in other Shakespeare plays such as Macbeth. The supernatural is a recurring aspect in Hamlet and is an essential part of the structure of the plot. As with other Shakespeare plays, the supernatural provides a means for action by the characters. The supernatural appeals to the audience’s curiosity of the mysterious and strengthens their interest. An Elizabethan audience would be shocked by the idea of anyone committing treachery and be appalled by Claudius’s crime.
Hamlet’s revenge is fuelled by a deep hatred of his uncle. Claudius killed his father and took both the Danish crown and Hamlet’s mother. This enrages Hamlet. However, Hamlet doesn’t kill Claudius immediately as the audience might expect; instead he contemplates the murder and spends much time wondering about the consequences of his actions. Therefore leading to his tragic downfall at the end of the play. His delay leads to much debate about Hamlet’s state of mind and of his motivation for murder, which he seems to lack. It appears as if Hamlet is not entirely satisfied with what the ghost tells him of the murder and therefore looks to find the truth before seeking revenge. Hamlet suspects the ghost maybe the devil in disguise. “The spirit I hath seen may be a devil” (2.2.596) Hamlet is frustrated with himself for his delay on murdering Claudius “O what a rouge and peasant slave am I…” (2.2.547) At several points in the play Hamlet seems to psych himself up ready for the murder, yet it never comes “from this day forth, my thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!” In fact the irony is that for all Hamlet’s delaying the murder and for his entire planning Hamlet kills Claudius in a fit of anger during the duel scene in a way that was most unplanned. It leaves a modern audience wondering whether Hamlet would ever have had his revenge if it had not been for Laertes reviling the King’s plans to kill Hamlet.
Another factor of Hamlet’s revenge is the question of his madness and if it is feigned or real, or if it is a combination of the two. In act 2, scene 2 Hamlet talks to Polonius and appears to be in a state of madness. It is apparent here that Hamlet is playing at madness in order to trick Polonius into believing that he is in fact mad. However, at times in the play it is questionable whether Hamlet is entirely sane or not. For example, when Hamlet speaks with his mother in act 3, scene 4 she is unable to see the ghost as Hamlet can, or imagines he can. Leading her to believe he is mad “this is the very coinage of your brain”(3.4.137). It also leads the audience to wonder on Hamlet’s state of mind, could it be that the ghost is a creation of Hamlet’s brain? It could well be that hamlet has gone in mad with grief and imagined the ghost. In this case is killing Claudius justified? As it is impossible for Hamlet to make a sensible decision if he is in fact mad. Some of Hamlet’s violent outbursts to Ophelia indicate that Hamlet may have had an element of madness about him. However, his behaviour in general throughout the play would suggest to a modern audience that Hamlet was simply reacting to the awful grief and stress he is put under by his fathers murder and his mother’s marriage to his uncle. In my opinion I believe the audience would feel that Hamlet is not mad or indecisive, he's just human, he lashes out at people and keeps them at a distance because he is simply unsure of whom to trust. He is understandably confused by his complicated situation and his actions simply reflect this.
Hamlet's procrastination speech is the portal into his soul, in which the audience finds the answers to all their questions about him. Both in his soliloquies and in his heavy dialogue he gives clues to his intentions, his purpose, and the strongest enemy: his conscience. In Hamlet’s first soliloquy in act 2, scene 2 Hamlet is angry at himself for not being quicker in murdering Claudius. He tells the audience of his plans: “Ill have the player play something like the murder of my father before mine uncle, ill observe his looks” (2.2.592-594) Hamlet’s soliloquies are full of negative imagery. He hates himself and talks of himself as a “dull and muddy mettled rascal” (2.2.564) His self-doubt is one of the many factors that cause the delay of Claudius’ murder. Hamlet often wonders ‘what if’ rather than taking action. In his “to be or not to be” speech in act 3, scene 1 Hamlet is doing just this. Many argue about the meaning of this speech. However, most evidence suggests that Hamlet is contemplating suicide, once again causing the audience to wonder about his state of mind. He thinks about whether it is better to live and “bear those ills we have” (3.1.81) than move on to an afterlife that we know nothing of. “To die to sleep, to sleep perchance to dream…for in that sleep of death what dreams may come” (3.1.64-66) Hamlet is worried about what he would face after death. He ponders on the question of whether there is life after death or if we simply cease to exist. Hamlets philosophical outlook on life stops him from acting on his initial feelings.
In act 3, scene 3 Hamlet has the perfect opportunity to kill Claudius. However he cannot. This is yet another example of the way Hamlet thinks too much on the consequences of his actions rather than acting on his emotions. Hamlet believes Claudius is praying and that to kill him now would send him straight to heaven: “This villain killed my father and now for that I his sole son do send this same villain to heaven” (3.3.76-78) The ironic twist however is that Claudius could not in fact pray as he wasn’t truly sorry for his crime. Therefore it would have been the ideal time for Hamlet to kill him. Hamlet’s doubt, his tragic flaw, stops him from committing the murder and leads to his death at the end of the play.
Quite opposite to Hamlet’s approach to revenge is Laertes’. Wanting revenge for his own father Polonius’ murder, Laertes is much more direct in his approach to revenge than Hamlet. Laertes is fuelled by rage and doesn’t stop once to think of the consequences of his actions. He contrasts sharply with Hamlet’s slow scheming, rather more sinister revenge. Unlike Hamlet, Laertes does not stop to check the facts. He storms in on the King in a fit of rage and accuses Claudius of Polonius’ murder. “Oh vile King…that drop of blood that’s calm proclaims me bastard” (4.5.116-119) Laertes doesn’t worry about the consequence of his actions or that he may go to hell as Hamlet spends much of the play doing, instead he proclaims “let come what comes, only ill be revenged most thoroughly for my father” (4.5.136) in saying “let come what comes” he is established as the exact opposite to Hamlet. This leads the audience to have an entirely different opinion of him. Many may find him brave, however, through his plotting with the King and his very direct approach to his revenge he does not have the sympathy of the audience, whereas Hamlet does.
The council Laertes receives from the King is similar to the council Hamlet receives from the ghost. Claudius wishes Hamlet dead and convinces Laertes to kill him. The Ghost wants Claudius dead and convinces Hamlet to kill him. It is ironic then how both revengers meet the same end although their approach to revenge was somewhat different. The only difference is that Laertes doesn’t plan the revenge himself, he uses the Kings plan, not his own. This leads the audience to feel as if Laertes ids being mislead by the evil King. “Will you be ruled by me?” (4.7.56)
In this play Hamlet by William Shakespeare the two characters Hamlet and Laertes both seek to revenge their murdered fathers. Hamlet with his slow and scheming approach manages to kill his father's murderer his Uncle Claudius. Laertes with his direct, and forceful dedication slays His father’s killer Hamlet. Although Laertes took a much more direct approach than Hamlet, wasting no time, they both however, accomplished their goal but at the ultimate price of both their lives. It is ironic that both the revengers are murdered with the same sword. Even the King is killed with the same sword and by his own poison. In a revenge tragedy everyone is justly served for his or her actions. Hamlet has murdered and must therefore die, Claudius has murdered and must therefore die, the Queen has had an incestuous marriage and therefore dies. The only person that dies without a reason or as an act of revenge is Ophelia. It is therefore symbolic that she is the only one of the characters not murdered with a sword or poison but instead slowly lets herself be drowned by the river in which she fell. As is the case with revenge tragedy the major characters are all slain. Fortinbras says, “He (Hamlet) is likely to have proved most royal” (5.2.391-392) It is important in a tragedy for the tragic hero to have been great. Hamlet would have made a great King therefore his death is a tragedy. The play as a whole still appeals to modern audiences as much as it would have appealed to an Elizabethan audience. However, a modern audience would certainly have sympathy for Hamlet’s situation and therefore react better to him than to Laertes.
