This video is part of my Outschool course “Macbeth: An Immersive Horror Experience.” I use it to explain the plot of the play before playing a game and an escape room to test the student’s knowledge. Let me know in the comments what you think of it, and if you like it, please consider signing up for the course on Outschool.com
Just in time for October, I’m offering an online class for kids ages 13-18 about Shakespeare’s most spooky and cursed play:
If you follow this blog you know I’ve written a lot about this play before. Though this class will be more like a game where I teach the class using multimedia, games, and a digital escape room!
I’ll start by speaking to the students in character as Shakespeare, and tell them the story of Macbeth using a multimedia presentation.
I will then test the students’ knowledge with a fun quiz that was inspired by the popular mobile game Among Us. As you know, the game is similar to a scene from the play, so I thought it would be an appropriate way to test the kids’ knowledge.
The final part of the class is a digital escape room I’ve created. I don’t want to give too much away, and you can’t play it unless you sign up for the class, but let’s just say it’s fun, spooky, educational, and challenging!
If you want to sign up now, the course is available every weekend in October, and then by request after that. Register now at Outschool.com. if you take the course, please leave me a good review.
Hope to see you soon!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58517401
I am deeply saddened to report that one of the greatest Shakespearean actors of our day, Sir Antony Sher has been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Sir Antony has been responsible for generation-defining portrayals of Richard III, Falstaff, and others. I myself got to see him onstage in a production of Jean Paul Sartre’s Kean, where he played another legendary actor, Edmund Kean. My thoughts and prayers are with Sir Antony and his husband, Royal Shakespeare Company Artistic Director Greg Doran.
If you want a little insight into this wonderful actor and his process behind one of his greatest theatrical triumphs, read his book Year Of The King, where he chronicles in detail his work in creating Richard III in the picture above.
I’ve been working on a remote learning class for Outschool.com where I take some of the audition advice I wrote in Creating A Character: Macbeth, and some of the other acting posts I’ve published over the years. This will be a weekly virtual acting course for kids ages 13-18, starting September 12th at 10AM EST.
This class will outline the tools and techniques of Shakespearean acting such as projection, articulation, and imagination. Each We’ll also go over Shakespeare’s own advice on acting in his play “Hamlet: Prince of Denmark.” The course will culminate with the students choosing their own Shakespearean monologues and scenes, which they can use going forward in auditions, school plays, and classes.
The best thing about the course is that each week builds on the previous week’s experience, but you don’t need to go to all of them. I’ll be flexible and work with the student’s schedule so everyone gets as much out of the class as possible.
If you’re interested in signing up, go to Outschool.com. If you have any questions, email me by clicking here:
Hope to see you online soon!
Thanks for recommending this topic. I really enjoyed researching it. Disclaimer: Although I have a degree in Renaissance literature, I don’t have a degree in world religions. I don’t pretend to be an expert in Judaism and I apologize if I have gotten any cultural details wrong. As I have written before, this play has been used to spread harmful stereotypes and misinformation against Jews and Muslims, and I have no desire to do so. So don’t take this information as a comprehensive guide to the lives of Jews or indeed any 16th century Venetians. What I do intend to do is analyze how costumes from the play can evoke the people and cultures of that time.
1. Background https://youtu.be/BvqZ0JUljfo
Venice in the 16th century was a lot like modern day Manhattan- a multicultural epicenter of trade and commerce. https://youtu.be/FNZa9qazTvc
Many productions have costumes that emphasize the wealth and privilege of the Venetian world, except for Shylock
As this video shows, Jews in 16th century Venice were segregated into separate communities known as ghettos. Although the Jews found ways to survive and thrive in this situation, they faced constant discrimination and harassment.
In a modern productions or a period production the costume has to reflect a single vision for the show. Watch this interview with Globe Costume coordinator Laura Rushton: https://youtu.be/PaZmAuKE-Jg
2. Men’s Fashion- Italian fashion was all the rage in Shakespeare’s day. Gone were the stiff woolen tunics of the Middle ages, in with brightly colored silks and leathers. Young Men wore leather jackets called doublets and tight pants that showed off their legs. In the hot sun of Venice, light linnen undershirts were wore underneath the doublet. Wealthy men would wear fine silks and their jackets had slashed sleeves to show off the fine embroidered silk underneath.
Servants- Servants were given distinctive clothes known as liveries by their masters, which for a man would typically be a distinct colorful jacket. Women like Narissa, who were high-ranking ladies maids, would wear hand me down clothes from their mistresses. So this is why in most productions I have seen, Narissa and Portia wear similar clothing. This also helps show the trust and respect they have for each other.
A Note On Masks:
Act II, Scene 5, takes place during Carnival, one of the most celebrated holidays of Venice, and it’s usually celebrated by people wearing brightly colored masks. This great video below from history YouTuber Metetron shows just a little bit of background on Venetian masks:
3. Women’s Fashion- The women in the play Merchant Of Venice are treated line birds in a cage, especially Portia who literally lives on an island and has to marry the man who wins her at a carnival! With the restrictions of garments like partlets, bodies, or corsets, if you wore the fashions of the period, you would feel like your lungs were birds in a cage!
Although the dress was richer and more ornate (reflecting the relative peace during this period), the clothing was much more physically restrictive than medieval dresses: https://youtu.be/KCeqG47LI1Y
Jessica- Though most productions have Shylock’s daughter dressing like the Christian women, there is a long history of distinctive clothing for Jewish women as well as men. Sadly, the only video I could find refers to 14th century clothes, I think this video is very informative and extremely thoughtful
4. Shylock
It’s worth noting that Shylock is not the central character in the story; the titular merchant is Antonio. Probably Shakespeare’s original audience saw him as a one dimensional villain for the audience to boo and hiss, then rejoice when he fails. He probably came onstage in 1596 wearing stereotypical red wig, a long gown, and a grotesquely oversized nose. The costume and performance gave the impression of someone foreign, alien, even demonic. This was one reason why some modern actors have balked at playing Shylock, as Patrick Stewart explains: https://youtu.be/7UOdMHW7J2Q
That said, Shakespeare clearly didn’t write him as one dimensional; he dominates the scenes he’s in and for centuries great actors have yearned to play Shylock over all the other characters. Slowly Shylock has become the focus of the play and the romantic comedy aspect has become less and less important in most modern productions. Like every great part, Shylock’s costume proclaims his social class, his background, and his relationship with other people.
In the play, Shylock only refers to his clothes once, referring to the gown he wears as “My Jewish gaberdine.” A Gaberdine is a long cloak like the one in the painting above, but as you can see, Jews were not the only people wearing them.
Because of rampant antisemitism and fear of the growing influence of the Jewish community in the 16th century, the Senate and local magistrates segregated and kept constant watch on the Jews of Venice, and one way they did that was by forcing Jewish people to wear distinctive clothes.
According to the Online Jewish Museum:
Jews were forced to wear various markings on their clothing to identify themselves as Jews. In 1394 they had to wear a yellow badge, it was changed to a yellow hat in 1496 and to a red hat in 1500.
As Shylock grew in popularity with actors and audiences, actors played him with more nuance. Contrast the foreign looking gown in the previous picture, with Charles Keen in the 19th century.
That is not to say that all productions played Shylock as a fully formed human: in 1934, the Nazi Party sponsored a German production of Merchant with horror actor Werner Krauss, (famous for films like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) as Shylock. You’ll notice that the costume again emphasizes otherness, and exaggerates Jewish stereotypes.
Patrick Stewart when he played Shylock in the 1970s, emphasized how Shylock is essentially an immigrant in his own country and played him with tattered clothes, a dirty bushy beard, and with an air of a stray dog. His clothes emphasise both his race’s oppression, while also telegraphing Shylock’s miserly attitude. Sir Patrick emphasized that his Shylock had lost so much in his life that he clings to Earthly wealth to feel in control of his life.
By contrast, David Suchet. (famous for his portrayal of detective Hercule Poirot), chose a near polar opposite interpretation of Shylock at about the same time. The main difference between Suchet and Stewart could basically be summed up by this fact, Suchet is actually Jewish, Stewart is not.
Because Stewart was portraying a member of a community to which he didn’t belong, his portrayal downplayed Shylock’s Jewish identity since he didn’t want to make assumptions about what being Jewish is like. This is why Stewart gave his Shylock an over-refined accent and made sure his costume didn’t emphasize any stereotypical Jewish elements.
Since Suchet actually is Jewish, he did not shy away from portraying Shylock’s jewishness. His Shylock is proud of being Jewish but is well aware of how other people see him. He knows that he is othered by the other Venetians, and can use their fear and hatred of him as a weapon against them. Suchet also dressed his Shylock as well to do, but not gawdy to try and command respect from other people, but also carried around a walking stick to use as a weapon.
6. Case study: the 2009 movie
The Prince of Morrocco: In Act II, Scene 7, The Princes of Morrocco and Aaragon (A region of Spain), come to Portia’s home on the island of Belmont to try solve the riddle of the three caskets. In order to show the audience that these men are foreigners, their costumes have to be distinct from the Venetians. Take a look at this was accomplished in the 2004 movie:
Mr. Harewood’s costume was inspired by the real Morroccon ambassador to Queen Elizabeth, Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud, who many scholars believe, might have also inspired Shakespeare to write Othello 6 years later.
6. Works Cited
https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/a-jewish-reading-of-the-merchant-of-venice
Venetian Fashion in the 16th Century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1550%E2%80%931600_in_Western_European_fashion
1590-1599
I really loved the new “Black Widow,” movie. Like many people, I think it’s long overdue that Natasha Romanov got her own movie, especially since in many ways, she’s the most tragic and dramatic of the avengers.
First of all, the performances are great, the fights are excellent, and the plot hints on many contemporary issues such as abuse, human trafficking, trauma, and PTSD, while not forgetting it’s a Marvel action movie. If you hated the movie, I won’t argue with you, but what I want to do is to point out that each character has inside them an archetype that Shakespeare used in his history plays about soldiers.
The four central characters Alexei Shostakov (David Harbour), Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz). Yelena Belova, and Black Widow herself, Natasha Romanov (Scarlett Johanssen), represent in a sense, the full spectrum of how Shakespeare’s soldier characters cope with the trauma of war, and it’s fascinating to see their journey through the film.
Henry V. Pray God you have not murdered some of them.
Falstaff. Nay, that's past praying for: I have peppered two
of them; two I am sure I have paid, two rogues
in buckram suits. I tell thee what, Hal, if I tell1180
thee a lie, spit in my face, call me horse. Thou
knowest my old ward; here I lay and thus I bore my
point. Four rogues in buckram let drive at me—
Henry V. What, four? thou saidst but two even now.
Falstaff. Four, Hal; I told thee four.1185
Edward Poins. Ay, ay, he said four.
Falstaff. These four came all a-front, and mainly thrust at
me. I made me no more ado but took all their seven
points in my target, thus.
Henry V. Seven? why, there were but four even now.1190
Falstaff. In buckram?
Edward Poins. Ay, four, in buckram suits.
Falstaff. Seven, by these hilts, or I am a villain else.
Henry V. Prithee, let him alone; we shall have more anon.
Falstaff. Dost thou hear me, Hal?1195
Henry V. Ay, and mark thee too, Jack.
Falstaff. Do so, for it is worth the listening to. These nine
in buckram that I told thee of—
Henry V. So, two more already.
Falstaff. Their points being broken,—1200
Edward Poins. Down fell their hose.
Falstaff. Began to give me ground: but I followed me close,
came in foot and hand; and with a thought seven of
the eleven I paid.
Henry V. O monstrous! eleven buckram men grown out of two!
Both Alexei and Falstaff fool themselves into thinking they’re still great heroes and manage to charm the other characters into giving them sympathy (to a point). Worst of all, even though he knows about the disgusting deeds of General Dreykov, the man responsible for the way Yelena and Natasha were recruited, brainwashed, forced to kill, and forced to be sterilized, he still defends the actions of Dreykov because Alexei benefited from the supersoldier program.
You both have killed so many people,” Alexei exults, embracing them both. “Your ledgers must be dripping, just gushing red. I couldn’t be more proud of you!”
Alexei
But in the climax of the movie, Alexei abandons his swagger in order to protect Natasha and Yelena; he goes from being a fake father to a real father. He also adopts a more Falstaffian view of ‘honor,’ as a thing not useful in itself:
Falstaff used this ‘catechism to become a thieving, conniving rascal, but the same words could be used to show how Alexei decided that his ‘family’ is more important than his persona as Red Guardian, how he values Natasha and Yelena more than his own glory.
2. Yelena Belova – Hotspur
Both Yelena and Hotspur are great warriors who work for the other side, but aren’t played as villains. Unlike the French in Henry V, the rebels in Henry IV Parts 1&2 are treated with respect by everyone, even the king they fight against! Likewise, even though she works for Dreykov, and was a willing assassin in his army of widows, she isn’t seen as a villain. She’s seen as a woman who had no other choice. She was raised to kill, so she did so, she just had the misfortune of being on the losing side.
Henry Percy is also a warrior fighting for the losing side This is why Hotspur has a lot of bitterness and envy towards Prince Hal- the man who gets to become a hero and king. Meanwhile Yelena is very jealous of Natasha, who not only became a valued assassin for Dreykov, she eventually became an Avenger and is seen as a hero by most people now:
“We’re both killers, but I’m not the one that’s on the cover of a magazine. I’m not the killer that little girls call their hero.”
Yelena- Black Widow.
Though in reality Natasha and Yelena are not sisters, they were raised together, trained together, and form a sister like bond, which makes the jealousy Yelena feels all the more poignant. Likewise, though Henry Plantagenet (Prince Hal) and Henry Percy aren’t brothers, everyone acts as if they were, even the Prince’s father:
O that it could be proved
That some night-tripping fairy had exchanged
In cradle-clothes our children where they lay,
And call'd mine Percy, his Plantagenet!
Then would I have his Harry, and he mine.
But let him from my thoughts.- Henry IV, Part I, Act I, Scene 1.
In Black Widow, the envy the sisters feel towards each other is the central conflict of the movie, just as it is in Shakespeare’s play. Tragically, both works (spoiler alert), end the same way- with one warrior dying and the other essentially taking his or her place. In Black Widow, Yelena takes up the mantle after her sister sacrifices her life in Avengers Engame, but in Shakespeare’s version, the two Henry’s have a duel to the death:
Yelena represents the trauma that can destroy some soldiers when they don’t have someone to confide in. Everything she was told to believe in wound up being a lie, and everyone she trusted betrayed her. This is why she and her sister cling to the idea of family- the only thing that helps her get through the pain of their past.
3. Melina Vostokoff- Lord Northumberland I’ll keep this brief because Melina’s character has some MAJOR SPOILERS attached to her, but let’s just say she is the mother of the family and like Alexei she put her devotion to the Communist Party and to General Dreykov above all else, and failed to support her family, much like how Northumberland failed to support his son Henry Percy and let him get killed in the battle of Shrewsbury. I love Rachel Weisz’s performance in this part where she seems to mourn her lack of courage; she seems to deeply hate herself and what she’s done to her ‘daughters,’ which is painful to watch but very human.
4. Natasha Romanaov/ Black Widow- King Henry V. Like Yelena, Natasha has to deal with the fact that she is a killer and has been trained to kill men, women, and sometimes even children. What’s fascinating to watch is how, even though she’s an Avenger and therefore one of the “good guys,” she knows that her actions have hurt people. It makes sense that in Age Of Ultron, she forms a close bond with The Hulk, since she probably sees herself as a monster.
For nearly 400 years, King Henry has been portrayed as a great hero on the stage, but ever since the Vietnam War, more recent productions have questioned whether his actions make him more of a hero, or a villain. He conquers France which he believes he legally owns but does that justify the bloodshed he’s committed?
One film that examines the ambiguous nature of Henry’s bloody conquest is Kenneth Branaugh’s 1989 movie, Henry V. Take a look at this clip at the end of the Battle of Agincourt. This was Henry’s greatest victory in the play and in real life, but after the battle, we see Kenneth Branaugh as King Henry slogging through the mud, looking at the bodies of French and English troops, with a look of pain and perhaps remorse on his face:
In Black Widow, Natasha is on a quest to make up for her past as an assassin and attempt to prevent more women from being recruited in such a dehumanizing way. Her kinship with the other widows, and her desire to help them, reinforces her humanity and makes her more than just a killer. Simillarly, her love for her sister and her love of the Avengers gives Natasha purpose and validation that she isn’t the monster she thinks she is. Finally, when her fake family joins her in the climax to defeat General Dreykov, she feels a strong sense of comraderie. Having her fellow soldiers, fight with her in a righteous cause makes her feel redeemed from her past.
Black Widow and Henry V are examples of how soldiers cannot survive a war alone. Even if they live through the war, the mental and physical scars of war are too much for one person to bear. This is why both films focus on how family is stronger than war, than causes, then pain, if one has the good fortune to have a group of people who love each other like a family, or as King Henry puts it:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
Henry V, Act IV, Scene iii.
Thanks for reading this post, let me know if you’d like me to analyze any other movies in the comments. I’ll leave you with one more clip where Scar-Jo talks about her career as Black Widow:
I played this character back in 2010 as a college production and not to brag, but I want award both for my performance and also my role as dramaturg for that particular production, so I did a lot of research in into the character and I tried to bring my own spin on the part. So unlike my other Crafting a Character posts, I am going approach explaining the character as a series of questions instead of talking about it https://youtu.be/-ocOfP16tdw
Who Is Friar Lawrence?
A friar is a monk who belongs to a local monestary. Francis belongs to the Franciscan orders created by Saint Francis of Assisi. It was known for its naturalist philosophy, and St Francis himself is often depicted in paintings as being friends with birds and rabbits and things like that. He was also a strict vegetarian and believed the spirit of God is in all creatures.
Francis’ work was a reaction to the other orders of Catholic monks who, the Franciscans believed, had gotten corrupt and lustful. So the Franciscans in reaction to that corruption, tried to embrace poverty, plain living, and duty to the poor.
The Franciscans were also famous for not wearing shoes; Shakespeare calls one of them “[our] barefoot brother.” Again, the Franciscans value humility before God, and because of that, they shaved off part of their heads, (known as a tonsure hairstyle); it was way of stating that they were not concerned with their appearance, (so yes, it’s supposed to look stupid).
Why does Romeo hang around him? Friar Lawrence is supposed to be Romeo’s tutor, but really he is in the play because Shakespeare needed a convenient way to get Romeo married to Juliet without his parents finding out. He is also a neutral party who can be sympathetic to both Romeo and Juliet, without being tangled in the politics of the Capulet/ Montegue fued.
Friar Lawrence also acts as a character foil to Romeo. While Romeo is rash, passionate, and impulsive, Friar Lawrence is calm, slow, and contemplative, (appropriate qualities for a monk). During my production of Romeo and Juliet, the director beautifully explained their relationship by having Romeo trip and fall when he is excited about his impending marriage. I as Friar Laurence turned around and said calmly: “Wisely and slow, they stumble that run fast.”
My Interpretation Shakespeare makes references again and again to the character being old, yet the director and I made a conscious choice not to portray him as such. I portrayed him as just a few years older than Romeo, who is supposed to be a teenager. I played him as sort of about 25-26, the same age that I was when I played the part.
We did this because even though Friar Laurence acts as the voice of age and experience, he also seems very naive. He seriously believes that he can singlehandedly stop the feud between the Montegues and Capulets with one marriage. he never consults anybody else, and he leaves Friar John in charge of sending the all important letter to Romeo that Juliet is not dead, and never checks up with him on that.
Rather than being an old priest who is aged and experienced, I portrayed him as a young idealistic priest who doesn’t know better. In some ways, his love of God has blinded him as much as Romeo’s love for Juliet. The Friar thinks that being a peacemaker is something that God wants him to do. He thinks that bringing together souls is part of his heavenly mandate and he doesn’t think about the practical consequences of his religious fervour.
What is his role in the play?
Friar Laurence engineers the plots to get Romeo married to Juliet and hopefully settle the feud. When we first meet him, Romeo convinces Friar Lawrence to perform a secret wedding between Romeo and Juliet (Act II, Scene iii).
In Act II, Scene vi, Friar Lawrence secretly marries Romeo and Juliet, but first warns them to “Love moderately,” because he believes that an over abundance of passion can have disastrous consequences. He even compares Romeo and Juliet’s love to gunpowder.
In Act IV, Friar Lawrence has two scenes where he stops Romeo and then Juliet from killing themselves. First he stops Romeo, filled, with grief and remorse after murdering Tybalt, and being banished.
In Act IV, Scene iii, Friar Lawrence concocts his plan to give Juliet a secret potion with which to fake her death. Juliet demands that he find a way to prevent her marriage to Paris or she will kill herself.
Is Friar Lawrence To Blame For Romeo and Juliet’s Death?
A lot of scholars, teachers, and classrooms have pondered this question. In addition, even the Supreme Court of the United States put Friar Lawrence on trial in 2016 as part of a mock trial sponsored by the Shakespeare Theater in Washington DC. https://www.c-span.org/video/?419930-1/federal-judges-discuss-romeo-juliet
I am actually working on my own mock trial activity which I will share by the end of this month, but for right now I will summarize the major arguments:
The Defendant (Friar Lawrence) tried repeatedly to prevent Juliet and Romeo from committing suicide. In Act III, when Romeo tries to stab himself, Friar Lawrence stops him and convinces him to go to Mantua:
Romeo. O, tell me, friar, tell me,
In what vile part of this anatomy1985
Doth my name lodge? tell me, that I may sack
The hateful mansion.
[Drawing his sword]
Friar Laurence. Hold thy desperate hand:
Art thou a man? thy form cries out thou art:1990
Thy tears are womanish; thy wild acts denote
The unreasonable fury of a beast:
Thou hast amazed me: by my holy order,1995
I thought thy disposition better temper'd.
Hast thou slain Tybalt? wilt thou slay thyself?
And stay thy lady too that lives in thee,
By doing damned hate upon thyself?
Likewise in Act IV, Friar Lawrence stops Juliet from killing herself and gives her the vial of sleeping potion.
Throughout the play, Friar Lawrence attempted to keep Romeo and Juliet alive and together, but was thwarted by what could legally be interpreted as and ‘Act of God’:
What the prosecutor might say-
Friar Lawrence performed a marriage illegally, without consulting the parents of two minors. He also harbored a fugitive (Romeo), right after he was found guilty of murder. Finally, he tried to deceive Juliet’s parents by giving her a dangerous drug. On paper, though Friar Lawrence was certainly acting out of compassion for Romeo and Juliet, his actions were highly suspicious and could be considered criminal.
An English class can learn a lot putting Friar Lawrence on trial for his role in Romeo and Juliet’s deaths, as long as they are responsible in the way they portray teenage suicide.
Who Originally Played Friar Laurence?
I don’t have any substantial evidence to prove this but I do of have a theory: some of Shakespeare’s parts require a great amount of stage business; singing, dancing, swordfighting, improvising that kind of thing. Hamlet for example has to sing, dance, sword fight, and remember copious amounts of speeches and dialogue. Will Kempe had to dance and dance and sing. Robert Armin had to improvise and dance with the audience.
My theory is Shakespeare didn’t have time to learn extravagant stage business, since he was also writing the plays and helping with the company’s business dealings. With this in mind, he probably gave himself the parts that had long speeches. That’s why I think that Shakespeare himself might have played friar Laurence.
Plus Shakespeare had an edge playing the role over other actors. Since friars are supposed to shave their heads, and since we know that Shakespeare had thinning hair, he could have easily played the part himself.
So those of you who get cast as Friar Laurence and wish that you were cast is somebody young like Romeo or Tybalt, at least your consolation prize is that you might be playing the part that Shakespeare himself once played.
I hope you found this insightful and maybe helpful if you find yourself cast in Romeo and Juliet. I’ll be sure to post about the Friar Lawrence mock trial I’m currently working on. At the very least, I hope this information helps you see Friar Lawrence as more than an old guy who hangs around teenagers.
https://youtu.be/AMLRwqPm_gk snl
For Shakespeare’s Birthday, I thought I would discuss his most famous speech what is arguably his greatest play. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark was written in 1600, the pinnacle/ middle of Shakespeare’s career, after Julius Caesar but before Macbeth.
To Be Or Not To Be has intrigued and mystified people for centuries. It is full of ambiguous imagery, haunting images, and solemn contemplative ideas. I’m going to try and break the speech down first like an intellectual argument, but I will also give you some of my interpretation of Hamlet’s thoughts and feelings. Shakespeare’s genius is creating a speech that gives plenty for the reader to interpret,, but it’s up to the reader to decide what’s happening in the speech.
Just a refresher of the plot:
1. The king has died and been seen as a ghost
2. He tells his son Hamlet that he was murdered by his brother Claudius, who killed him to become king and marry Hamlets mother, Gertrude.
Hamlet is trying to determine if the ghost is telling the truth and if so, how can Hamlet revenge the death of his father?
The speech occurs right in the middle of the play. Hamlet has been acting strange and the king is worried. He hides behind a tapestry right before Hamlet enters. He then delivers this famous and highly cryptic speech:
Ham. To be, or not to be, that is the Question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the minde to suffer
The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,
Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to dye, to sleepe
No more; and by a sleepe, to say we end
The Heart-ake, and the thousand Naturall shockes
That Flesh is heyre too? 'Tis a consummation
Deuoutly to be wish'd. To dye to sleepe,
To sleepe, perchance to Dreame; I, there's the rub,
For in that sleepe of death, what dreames may come,
When we haue shufflel'd off this mortall coile,
Must giue vs pawse. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would beare the Whips and Scornes of time,
The Oppressors wrong, the poore mans Contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd Loue, the Lawes delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurnes
That patient merit of the vnworthy takes,
When he himselfe might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardles beare
To grunt and sweat vnder a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The vndiscouered Countrey, from whose Borne
No Traueller returnes, Puzels the will,
And makes vs rather beare those illes we haue,
Then flye to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of vs all,
And thus the Natiue hew of Resolution
Is sicklied o're, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprizes of great pith and moment,
With this regard their Currants turne away,
And loose the name of Action. Soft you now,
Now before I talk about the context of the speech, I want to deconstruct it as an intellectual argument. Hamlet is grappling with something huge, and he is weighing the consequences of his potential actions. Remember, Hamlet is a prince, but he is also a college student, so he turns his choice into an intellectual argument.
Contrary to popular belief, I believe that this speech is not just about suicide. It’s about the choice between suicide and murder, (in this case killing Claudius).
Three Speeches- Macbeth, and Hamlet
Lets discuss the two central images at the start of this speech. One is active- fighting (“taking arms”), and one is passive (“to suffer…”). Both choices have a similar outcome- death. No one can fight the sea, and arrows are just as lethal.
Let’s look at the speech again, and turn it into a series of beats using the conjunctions “and, but, and or,” The speech has 6 beats. What he’s thinking about or feeling is open to interpretation, but the argument definitely changes at these points. First the thesis:
It’s worth noting that about the same time, Shakespeare wrote three great soliloquis; Hamlet’s “To Be Or Not To Be,” Macbeth’s “If It Were Done,” and Brutus’ “It must be by his death.” All three speeches have some notable commonalities:
When I noticed the commonalities between the speeches, I came to realize that all of them are about murder, not just suicide. I think Hamlet alone contemplates suicide as well as murder, possibly because unlike Brutus and Macbeth, Hamlet is not at all sure he’s doing the right thing.
Beat 1 The Nerve: Hamlet is working himself up for something; either murder or suicide. It’s ambiguous which one he starts with, and largely depends upon the actor’s interpretation.
Beat 2 The Consequences
Whether Hamlet kills the king or himself, either way he could die and when he does, his soul will have to answer for his actions. This is similar to Macbeth, who worries that his foul murder will be exposed and judged by “Heaven’s cherubim, horses upon the sightless couriers of the air.”
“There’s the rub”- there’s the catch.
“Coil” refers to a snake skin. The line characterizes death as shedding an earthly body, something that seems all too easy to do. It’s an uncomfortable image because it makes death look all too easy. It also calls to mind the story of Gilgamesh, who had a flower that would grant him immortality, but a snake stole it, which is why snakes cam shed their skin, seemingly growing young again forever.
Beat 3: Smothering In Surmise: https://youtu.be/gFG91lXgNcs
This beat is where Hamlet seems smothered in his frustrations with life.. Rather than making a decision, he’s sidetracked with a laundry list of universal problems. His energy seems up, but it’s unclear why.
When I performed this portion of the speech, I realized that everything Hamlet refers to, Claudius has done: he has oppressed and wronged the kingdom, he has delayed the law, and he has hindered Hamlet’s love for Ophelia by letting Polonius deny Hamlet’s access to her. Perhaps the laundry list is designed to psych him up- listing all the reasons Claudius deserves to die, (without tipping him off).
Beat 4: The Downward Spiral
Once again Hamlet is thwarted by the concept of Death and divine judgment. He seems to imply that everyone is scared into compliance with the threat of death.
The Conclusion:
Hamlet’s conclusion is that he has no conclusion. He can’t kill himself because his conscience tells him that God is against it, and he cannot kill Claudius because of fear of death or damnation.
When he says “The native hue of resolution,” he means red, (as in blood), is curtailed, cut off by the very thought of Deaths pale scythe.
Interpretations:
Mel Gibson plays Hamlet as a sort of man in mourning. He is as close to the action movie hero as Hamlet gets with his large, imposing physique and brutal looking medieval sword:
Speaking of action heroes, the whole movie Last Action Hero has a reoccurring motif of nodding to Hamlet. The avenging hero archetype is the prototype for every action movie, every superhero, (and most kung fu), and it began with Shakespeare’s Hamlet. This is why it’s hilarious that Schwarzeneger portrays him in Last Action Hero- the movie is a loving parody of every single action star since the original- Hamlet.
Why Else might Hamlet be so cryptic?
Not all versions are about suicide or murder
Lawrence Olivier believed that Hamlet has an Oedipus complex, and therefore has an unconscious desire to murder his father and sleep with this mother, which is why he considered himself unworthy to avenge his father’s death. In Olivier’s To Be, you can almost see his Hamlet aroused by his own Oedipal fantasies and then recoiling with disgust right before he says the line: “Perchance to dream.”
Kenneth Branaugh’s Hamlet centers around court intrigue. In contrast with Oliver’s Gothic Elsinore, his is bright and baroque, but it’s full of two way mirrors. Half the film is either large shots with lots of people watching public performances or POV shots of people being watched.
Branaugh’s interpretation of “To Be,” focuses on the possibility that Hamlet knows that Claudius is watching him through the two way mirror- he frightens him, puzzles, him, but in the end, never gives Claudius a clue as to his true intentions.
Murder or suicide?
the speech is not only famous for its universality but its evocative imagery, clear (albeit cryptic) construction, and heightened circumstances.
Shakespeare is able to give us a complete character without giving everything away, which allows anyone to reinterpret the character their own way. That is why Shakespeare’s characters endure.
PBS is going to show (and hopefully stream), the National Theater’s production of Romeo and Juliet Friday, to help celebrate William Shakespeare’s birthday.
The production stars Jessie Buckley as Juliet, and Josh O’Connor as Romeo, who recently won a Golden Globe for his portrayal of the young Prince Charles
After playing another doomed lover whose family won’t allow him to be with the woman he wants, I look forward to seeing him bring his passion and skill to Shakespeare.
Jessie Buckley as Juliet, and Josh O’Connor as Romeo. National Theater, 2021
The Shakespearean Student 