Kristine+Westergaard

February 19, 2012
These final scenes of Hamlet completely upheld the reputation of Shakespeare for his tragic endings. Not unlike many of his other plays, the most important characters in Hamlet die at the end. Though an ending like this is highly predictable after recognizing this trend in his plays--such as Romeo and Juliet or Othello--Shakespeare someone prevents it from seeming repetitive. This is possibly because the circumstances of the final deaths are so twisted and unpredictable.
 * __ Response: __**

At the end of Hamlet, no one meant to kill himself. However, in the instance of Laertes, he gets stabbed by the sword whose tip he poisoned with the intention of killing Hamlet. His own scheme stabbed himself in the back.

What I also thought was interesting about the end of Hamlet was that no one knew they were going to die, or knew they even had the possibility of dieing. Gertrude was completely oblivious to the fact that the wine cup from which she drank was poisoned. Hamlet had no idea that the blade which grazed him was poisoned. Claudius had no intention of his plan spinning so far out of control, and could not have foreseen that it would actually be Hamlet who would kill him after Laertes confessed that the king was to blame for the poison.



I was actually rather fascinated by the ending. I think it created a very appropriate and clever parallel to the theme of insanity. None of the characters got the ending that they were wanting, or even the one they expected. Though the play's emphasis on insanity seems to revolve around Hamlet and Gertrude when they go through states of madness, I think it can be enlarged to represent the play as a whole. The ending is an example of this. Each character is nearly disillusioned in believing so strongly that he will be the one to win and come out on top. I think that part of the insanity that Shakespeare is trying to portray is that though we may deem ourselves "sane," misconceptions and false presumptions are always in effect and are forever present in our lives. To me, Shakespeare is saying that insanity is and will always be a part of life, whether we recognize it as insanity or not.
 * __Essential Question:__ **




 * __ Passage: __**

Act 5, Scene 2:

LAERTES: It is here, Hamlet: Hamlet, thou art slain; No medicine in the world can do thee good; In thee there is not half an hour of life; The treacherous instrument is in thy hand, Unbated and envenom'd: the foul practice Hath turn'd itself on me ; lo, here I lie, Never to rise again: thy mother's poison'd: I can no more: — the king, the king's to blame.

The highlighted lines represent how Laertes accidentally caused his own death. He, like many of the other characters, was caught off guard and by his own disillusion was not prepared to face the chance of death. I think is it interesting that he admits that his "foul practice" has caused himself poisoned. This is the first time Laertes appears to be sincerely sorry for the plan he has construed with the king. He may have initiated this confession because he wants to be forgiven before he draws his last breath, or because he truly wants Claudius to be brought to justice. Either way, Laertes turns things around and gives Hamlet one last chance to take his revenge on the King.

__** Response: **__ This week, we hit many impactful passages from the play. We studied Hamlet's "to be or not to be" speech, Claudius' sililoquy, and one of Gerturdes few lengthy lines regarding the death of Ophelia. These scenes greatly dramatized and thickened the plot of the play, as well as it's complexity. This also brought forward many new questions. To what extent is Hamlet isane, if at all? Is Hamlet trying to prolong his revenge of Claudius because there's a part of himself that doesn't want to kill him? Is Ophelia's death an accident of suicide? These scenes made for many thought provoking questions, and also forced me to make my own inferences of the true motivation of the characters in the play and of the extent of their sanity.

I think that the character whose insanity is questioned the most in this section of the play is Ophelia's. The circumstances of her death are very vague. We really do not know if she chose to die or not. It is interesting that up until the point where she is apparently driven mad by Hamlet rejecting her, she was deemed perfectly sane. This makes the definition of insanity rise to another level. How is it that people can traverse to madness so quickly? There is a trend in the play of people becoming insane upon a realization that the don't want to believe is true. For Hamlet, it is him learning about the death of his father. For Ophelia, it is when Hamlet says he does not love her. It makes me wonder about the actual depth of Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship. Was there a time when they both had true feelings for each other? Or was Hamlet just using her the entire time?
 * __ Essential Questio __****__ n: __**

media type="youtube" key="74YTzl7vFEs" height="315" width="420"

__** Passage: **__ A segment of Gertrude's monologue about Ophelia's death //Which time she chanted snatches of old tunes;// //As one incapable of her own distress,// //Or like a creature native and indued// //Unto that element: but long it could not be// //Till that her garments, heavy with their drink,// //Pull'd the poor wretch from her melodious lay// // To muddy death. //

The high-lighted line implies that Ophelia was unaware of the dire cirumstances she was in. Whether this is because she was insane, or because she wanted to die, this leaves Gertrude in a state of dispair and disbelief. This is another example of how the reader of the scene must draw his own inferences in order to make conclusions of the character's sanity. The conclusion I have drawn from the event of Ophelia's death is that she may have accidently fallen into the water, but once death was an option she decided to take it because she found no use in living with a broken heart. I think that she was aware that she was drowning, but because she was so sticken with grief from Hamlet rejecting her, she simply didn't care anymore.

I thought is was interesting to see different artists' interpretations of Ophelia's death:





__Act 1, Scenes 4-5__
**Response:** I thought that these scenes enacted the most entertaining events in the play so far. They really solidified the previous scenes, which appeared to be the introduction to the plot of the play. In these scenes, Hamlet sees and speaks to the ghost of his father and learns of the true circumstances of his father's death. Scenes 4 and 5 nearly act like an introductory climax that gives Hamlet motive to uncover Claudius as the murderer of his father. The short correspondence Hamlet has had with his father's ghost gives the play its complex conflict, which becomes the basis of all of Hamlet's actions for the remainder of the play.

Since I have a tendency to get quite lost in Shakespeare's plays, I look forward to scenes like this that make the plot more evident and exciting. They give me a much needed motivation to seek to understand the entirety of the themes and symbolism in each individual scene.

//This is Act 1, Scenes 4-5 of the David Tennant version of Hamlet. I really liked how this version portrayed the ghost of Hamlet's father as well as how it displayed the avid anger that enveloped Hamlet upon learning that Claudius killed his father.// media type="youtube" key="dBznOZu7FQo" height="315" width="560"

In these scenes, Horatio tells Hamlet that he has seen a ghost. Hamlet comes to investigate, and he sees that is it the ghost of his deceased father. It is interesting that the ghost beckons Hamlet only, and wants him to speak with him alone. This means that the guards did not see the full encounter that Hamlet had with the ghost. Though Horatio believes Hamlet when he repeats his conversation, many of the other characters in the play would call him mad. Disreguarding the guards that saw the ghost as well, other characters in the play have no proof that Hamlet saw the ghost of his father. ---This raises a peculiar question: does insanity fall under the category of things that cannot be realistically proven? For many people, they need concrete proof in order to be convinced that something exists. What they have not seen through their own eyes can be easily questioned, even if they have a good reason for believing it is real.
 * Essential Question: **




 * Passage: scene 4, lines 75-84**

HORATIO:

What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord, Or to the dreadful summit of the cliff That beetles o'er his base into the sea, And there assume some other horrible form Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason, And draw you into madness? think of it: The very place puts toys of desperation, Without more motive, into every brain That looks so many fadoms to the sea And hears it roar beneath.

--In these lines, Horatio is beggin Hamlet not to go with ghost for fear it will want to cause Hamlet to die or cause him to turn mad. I think that this is actually a very important set of lines, because they are the first to blunty state the potential for Hamlet to become insane."...which might deprive your sovereighty of reason, and draw you into madness..." Since Hamlet was the only person who conversed with the ghost, who is to say that it didn't actually drive Hamlet to insanity?

**General Overview:**
At the early stages of studying one of Shakespeare's works, It is always a bit challenging for me to completely understand and enjoy his plays. However, after diving into the symbolism of the characters, plot, and setting, I always find myself somewhat fascinated by how truly complex Shakespeare's plays are. There are more to his plays than meets the eye, and in Hamlet, that is no exception.



[|Hamlet- David Tennant version: Act 1, Scene 1]

This clip of the movie is Act 1, Scene 1, which includes the passage we studied in class. I liked this version of Hamlet because its background and elements of setting reflect the mood portrayed in the play, making it easier to understand. For example, almost the entire first Act is set in dimly lit chambers where the guards are stationed at their post. This setting sets the stage for the eerie scene when the ghost of Hamlet's father comes and pays Hamlet a visit.

I think it is interesting that the opening scene of Hamlet was not written with direction for what the setting should be or the placement of the characters. This gives Hamlet more flexibility to be interpreted in countless ways.

**What is insanity and how do we know if it's real? Who has the right to judge madness?**
In the play, Hamlet pretends to become insane so he is able to get away with his plan of finding out if his Uncle Claudius is guilty of killing his father or not. However, after a while, the question arises as to whether Hamlet is pretending to be insane, or if he actually is. Can people impose insanity upon themselves? It seems that the longer someone pretends to be something, the more they start to become it. Portraying a different life than what is real can mix fact with fiction.

I think that in order to define insanity, one has to define what reality is. The problem with this is that reality is relative to what one thinks it is. Hamlet's perception of reality seems to change throughout the coarse of the play as he appears to become insane.