Blog #22: Hamlet Act 3

To be or not to be...

Imagery:
"For who would bear the whips and scorns of time"
"The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks"
These lines of imagery in the soliloquy show the despair and pain that Hamlet is feeling as he lives life. It is apparent to the reader why he could be contemplating something so extreme and against his values as suicide.

Ethos:
"aye, there's the rub"
Hamlet never claims, or even desires to be in a place of power or knowledge. But he does show that he understands the complexities of life, and as a result, death. He knows not of the answers, but he is one who can ask the right questions.

Pathos:
"The pangs of despised love, the law's delay"
Hamlet references his now ruined relationship with with Ophelia as well as "the law's delay". Perhaps a bitterness that Claudius has not been brought to justice for the murder of Hamlet's father. These personal examples remind the reader of the heartbreak and sorrow Hamlet has had to deal with, which has led to his deteriorating mental state.

Logos:
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer.. Or to take arms against a sea of troubles"
Hamlet questions the reasoning behind the value that society places on physical strength and bravery. He, on the other hand, contests that the true battle is within one's own mind.

Metaphors:
Hamlet compares the relief of stress and tension that accompanies sleep with the same feeling in death. He also relates death to "The undiscover'd country," a potential sought after place of refuge and safety from the horrors of Denmark.

Infinitive:
The famous "To be or not to be" describes a state of being. People do not simply exist, but must decide how they exist. And further more, what actions to take to accomplish their state of existence.

Opposition:
Action vs. Inaction. Hamlet ponders what his next move should be. He understands the need for action, his promise to kill Claudius. But his own conscience and cowardice have frozen him into inaction. The Ethan Hawke performance of this scene shows the opposition between action and inaction.
Life vs. Death. "To be or not to be." The soliloquy itself is a conversation Hamlet is having with himself on what it means to truly be alive versus being dead. He sees death not as a finality, but as a dream, a place to escape the atrocities in life.

Conclusion:
Hamlet ultimately decides on action. Not the action to commit suicide, but rather the action to go forth with the murder of Claudius, revenge for his father's own murder. He rejects his own past cowardice and decides to proceed with his very dangerous future actions.

Surprising and non-traditional. Certainly there are many adjectives that could describe Ethan Hawke's performance of Hamlet's (and perhaps Shakespeare's) most famous soliloquy. When imagining a live action performance of this literary monolith, a man in a beanie hat walking around a Blockbuster video store is most likely not what anyone would imagine. Yet, Hawke's performance contains many, nearly undetectable details that, taken as a whole, shed a new light onto the story of Hamlet. Contained within this movie scene is a large theme of Hamlet's soliloquy and of the play as a whole. That theme being the battle between action and inaction. The soliloquy itself is comprised of Hamlet contemplating between action (committing suicide) or inaction (continue living in his nightmarish world). In the movie scene, action is implied in many ways: through the action movie being played on the televisions in the background as well as Ethan Hawke's character simply walking through the action aisle of Blockbuster. But, of course, inaction pervades the scene as well. This is shown through Hawke as throughout the entire soliloquy, he does not interact with anything or anyone. In fact, there is nobody else in Blockbuster for him to interact with. So, despite the ambience of action imagery in the scene, the fact is that the environment is actually quite inactive. This opposition is the reason why Ethan Hawke's performance of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy is so well done, despite the unorthodox approach it takes.

Comparing the other two performances, I believe Kenneth Branagh's rendition clearly outshines that of Laurence Olivier. Like Hawke, Branagh's performance of the soliloquy demonstrates a clear and distinct message. This time, it is a message of self reflection and questioning. However, it seems to lack the depth and detail that Hawke's version is able to incorporate. Olivier's rendition, on the hand, is quite a bit more superficial and basic than either of the other two. Most of the time, the camera is focused simply on Hamlet's full body, with him speaking into the camera. Alas, much of this criticism can likely be tied to the technological limitations regarding cinematography in the 1940s. With that being said, it is clear Olivier's work does not stand the test of time, as both Hawke and Branagh transcend the oldest version with more in depth, insightful works.