#SURVEILLANCE HAMLET!!!

[withasideofshakespeare]

We all know I shouldn’t be allowed to make Tumblr posts after 1 AM, but here we go again… This has been in my brain for so long so now I am going to ramble about it (shoutout to the Hamlet Discord server for joining in the Thinking)

Surveillance Hamlet!!!

(Or, rather, the theme of surveillance in Hamlet and some fun and exciting ways I’d like to see it portrayed on stage assuming this mythical theater program has unlimited money)

(Warning- this thought is undercooked. This is going to get rambly…)

Surveillance is a major theme in Hamlet. Nearly everyone in the play engages in some kind of spying or scheming or is the victim thereof (or both). I love plays as a medium for the fact that each individual performance has the opportunity to completely change which themes get the most emphasis and surveillance is a theme I’d love to see take center stage with Hamlet specifically!

Hamlet is a pretty meta play. It ends with a message on the act of storytelling within the specific context of the story the audience has just watched just after it calls out the “mutes and audience” to the ultimate tragedy for their inaction during the runtime of the play. It’s also been performed and adapted plenty of times with a modern lens. Grief, depression, existential anxiety, and gay people are, apparently, universal pieces of the human experience, but if anything looms larger than ever over today’s society, it’s surveillance. Hell, I’m typing this on a device that is for sure selling my data to the government and probably also scam artists! So give me a performance where extreme surveillance heightens all the other aspects of the play, where Hamlet’s paranoia is exceedingly justified.

First, choose a good venue. Outdoor theater is almost always my favorite, but in this case, choose a massive indoor theater with a movie theater style sound system. Hang massive screens above the stage like you’d see at a big concert.

Now, these actors are going to be doing some major method acting. Put cameras above the stage at all angles. Put cameras in the wings. Put cameras on the crew. Put cameras in the audience- maybe some employee plants instructed to stream the show to the screens from their view or even to obnoxiously take photos and video throughout the show. No matter where these actors go, so long as they’re in character, there’s a camera on them. Put mics everywhere too, so even low whispers are heard from the backrow.

I want this play to start with an attempt at secrecy. The ghost appears, Hamlet begs his friends not to speak of it, but he can hear his whispers echoing right back to him and he knows it’s useless. The curiously missing line where Marcellus, Horatio, and Barnardo do finally swear upon Hamlet’s sword isn’t implied to be there as usual. It doesn’t exist. The ghost is only “satiated” by the coming of dawn, even this first, simple wish remains unfulfilled.

Hamlet spends the end of act 1 wavering between a genuine breakdown and an acted portrayal of madness. Pretending shields him from showing legitimate emotion on those screens.

To be or not to be is performed offstage, but on camera. Hamlet seems to think for a moment that he’s truly alone or perhaps it’s all part of the facade. Either way, emotion gets the best of him eventually and he realizes he can’t escape the cameras (or mortality). He comes on stage for get thee to a nunnery, frantically trying to get away from his ever-echoing voice, only to find a spotlight on him. The lines come across as cruel as they are pathetic. Ophelia is also being watched. Ophelia didn’t decide alone to speak to him. In some ways, she has far less privacy than he does, but Hamlet isn’t looking for solidarity in the watched. He wants to be alone. He wants to not be seen.

When he stabs Polonius, Ros & Guil track him down on the cameras. There’s no need to run, but he tries.

The only time Hamlet is truly outside of surveillance is on the ship to England (and then with the sailors who return him to Denmark). Maybe Claudius doesn’t want the world to know he has sent the prince to be executed, but it is clear that he too has lost any real control of this surveillance system. You saw him praying. Or was it a publicity stunt? Hamlet returns and simply tells Horatio (and by proxy, you) what happened on the ship, maybe resentfully. The only time he gets privacy, he doesn’t need it.

By the final scene, he no longer wants not to be seen. He isn’t sure you see him at all. No, you mutes and audience look right through him as if you know infinitely more than him, as if he hasn’t proven that he knows he is a sparrow that will fall. But you know the lines and he doesn’t.

He asks Horatio to tell his story. Maybe there’s something personal about being told a story rather than watching one play out. Maybe you can’t look through a storyteller.

Hamlet canonically knows he’s being watched. He uncovers Ros & Guil’s spy mission in the span of minutes, kills Polonius in the act of spying on him, and comes to mistrust the people around him because almost no one seems to be genuine with him (besides horatio). But it’s not just the characters, it’s the audience. In his darkest moments, he looks out for just a second, almost begging for help, only to discover that no one is coming to his aid. When he tries to exit, the spotlight follows him and so do the cameras. It’s inescapable. When he delivers the “mutes and audience” line, it should be as accusatory as it is pleading. You, the audience, have seen his life projected on massive screens, you’ve heard his every word and whisper, you know him, don’t you? Yes, you know him better than his closest friends. He’s spilled his soul to you because he knows you can’t be escaped, that you, rows upon rows of darkness to this actor blinded by spotlights, are always watching. Will you help? he asks, one final time. The answer is an obvious no, not because you’re heartless but because that’s not why you’re here. You’re here to see a play.

[aq2003]

the most personally vindicating thing about the hamlet (2009) commentary is doran pointing out the curtains behind hamlet during act 1 scene 5 and how it alludes to the story being a stage production and hints to a sense of theatricality about it all like YESSSSSS that's exactly why i became actively crazy about hamlet (particularly this adpatation) again

[thereweresunflowers]

you can't catch me now ophelia song of all time

[saulgoodmanfatnaturals]

saw robert icke’s hamlet with alex lawther and i am not the same person i was before

[hamletkin]

a playlist for a paranoid modern Hamlet who is under constant surveillance. i hope you enjoy it!

this playlist is the work of two years and i really hope you guys enjoy it! if you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. i did edit it (about 20 songs were removed) because i'm embarrassed enough to share this as is. this is for a hamlet who comes from a psychological thriller setting and while he isn't mad he does suffer from paranoia. he's scared and angry and consumed by grief and feels he hasn't been treated well by those who profess to love him with the exception of horatio! some of these songs will not fit him 100% (some mention drinking or smoking) but the vibe is there. others fit him like a glove. there's a cynical air in there, i feel! anyway, i really hope you guys like my playlist. it's very special to me and i've always wanted to share but i've been scared to do so. hamlet is just...ugh. he's so near and dear to my heart that this feels like i'm putting a part of myself out here by sharing this so i hope it stirs something in you too.

[pommedepersephone]

I fell into the rabbit hole of Hamlet.

See, I am actually taking a course on performance theory and YOU KNOW they use Hamlet for examples repeatedly. So I dusted off my copy from high school which was... a long ass time ago. And I started rereading it.

And hot damn, NO WONDER this is a favorite of Aziraphale.

Conflicted over your role in a corrupt system?

Filled with fear from living in a surveillance state?

Feeling trapped in a play within a play?

Torn between love and duty?

Yeah, of course Aziraphale saw Hamlet and was like "Relatable."

[veil-of-exordia]

'Hamlet was friends with Ophelia' this. 'Hamlet was friends with Laertes' that. Consider:

Hamlet was friends with Polonius.

Hear me out:

1: Both theatre kids. Enough said.

2: Apart from Horatio, Polonius is the character most capable of sustaining conversations with Hamlet. He takes Hamlet's insults in stride. He has not just one, but multiple extended conversations with Hamlet. Hamlet displays aggravation towards Gertrude and Claudius, while Polonius displays aggravation towards Laertes and Ophelia...but the two seem strangely calm, almost exasperated, around each other. Granted, the origins of Polonius's attitude is probably because he is socially inferior to Hamlet and because he wants to appeal to Hamlet to reveal 'secrets'...but Hamlet definitely appreciates a conversation partner that can endure him, if not keep up with him, and why wouldn't Polonius return that sentiment?

3: They also both speak numerous asides. It shows that they have a shared tendency to comment on people behind their backs (which is corroborated by other aspects of the play, of course), and this indicates that there is a nonzero chance that they have gossiped together.

4: Ophelia approached Polonius about Hamlet's madness. Consider:

-Ophelia seems to be distressed and concerned about Hamlet when she approaches Polonius.

-Ophelia knows that Polonius is overprotective, yet still approached Polonius about Hamlet, expressing her concern (as in Hamlet looking 'piteous', 'as if he had been loosed out of Hell') specifically.

The implication here is that Ophelia appears to believe that Polonius won't try to actively harm Hamlet, but might rather help him, or at least prevent Hamlet from getting worse. And why would Polonius want to help Hamlet? You know the drill.

5: We get a lot of ambiguity about Hamlet's madness throughout the play. However, we mostly agree that sending R&G, unwitting coconspirators in a murder plot, to die in his place, was a move no sane person would do. We can also agree that at least some of Hamlet's 'madness' early on was feigned.

Consider that the death of Polonius was what drove Hamlet truly mad. It matches up with the timeline that Hamlet started being truly mad just before the R&G death-sentence while being at least somewhat sane earlier.

And why would killing Polonius drive Hamlet over the edge? Apart from the general shock of murder, finding out you accidentally killed a long-time friend would definitely be enough to drive anyone over the edge.

6. They both like surveillance. One more shared hobby.

7. As I've outlined in my Polonius and Gertrude are foils post, Polonius appears to be too concerned as a parent while Gertrude appears to be too unconcerned, and Hamlet is greatly dissatisfied with Gertrude's attitude. By extension, then, Hamlet would probably respect Polonius's "engagement" better compared to Gertrude's "detachment", and this might draw them together.

8. Speaking about Gertrude! Hamlet and Polonius are the only two characters in the play who have expressed explicit, strong dissent in-person against Gertrude specifically. Combining with point 3, ranting about Gertrude could have been an excellent bonding activity for them.

Of course, I like this headcanon because it makes the story more tragic. But I have an additional reason:

-Were Hamlet once friends with Polonius, Hamlet's killing of Polonius would be a betrayal of that friendship. This adds an additional layer of meaning when Laertes talks about 'honour' in the final scene.

And finally, all this also indicates that Hamlet and Polonius are foils (differences despite similarity). I am too tired to analyse this further but. Yeah I think we get the gist.

[theheybarrel]

So I’m at the beginnings of finals week in college and I have an essay I just finished, before getting sent off the the front lines of differential equations numerical analysis, and the topic is about how betrayal further isolates Hamlet in Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

And limited life finished like what? 2 weeks ago?

So Martyn inthelittlewood lore is on the mind (to some extent it always is.

And in a part of my essay(my favorite part in fact) I make the argument that the audience arguably also betrays Hamlet. See his mother Gertrude, his old friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, and his former lover Ophelia all betray Hamlet in human ways. Gertrude remarries Claudius (her brother in law) way too fast after the death of her husband (whom Claudius killed by the way). Guildenstern and Rosencrantz agree to spy on Hamlet for promises from Claudius, and Ophelia agrees with her father and brother to break up with Hamlet while he is still grieving his dead father. And my argument is that the audience betrays the character of Hamlet by watching him.

See there is a big theme in the play of hamlet about surveillance (there’s even an adaptation of the play that will film a perspective in surveillance cameras) and we as the audience and surveying the play in its entirety. Hamlet is always being watched, the the characters and us as the audience. He is never alone, he is always with the audience. Even in his soliloquies, a form of theater where the character is alone on stage physically, or metaphorically in the sense that it’s thoughts in the mind spoken aloud for the audience to hear. And that’s just it

The audience is the only one to hear the soliloquies in play.

To steal lines from myself. Hamlet is left alone with the EVER WATCHING audience.

I didn’t mean to put watchers in my English essay about Hamlet. But it just sort of happened

UPDATE:

I GOT 100% HOLY SHIT

[butchhamlet]

Hi hi you always have such excellent Shakespeare hot takes and I’m dying to hear your thoughts on the Oedipal reading of Hamlet. No interpretation makes me quite so angry and I’d love to hear your thoughts on it 👀

oh i hate it. i hate it. and i will admit that that is mostly personal preference*; i disagree with the reading but i regrettably understand WHY it exists, and i'm not trying to say that anyone who has analyzed an oedipal hamlet is evil or brainless or whatever. that said, i just... think it is such a bizarre and needless take when there is already so much happening in hamlet. i do not understand why people look at a play about mental illness + corrupt governments and surveillance + theatrics overtaking the genuine but maybe also expressing the genuine + suicide + misogyny + obsession + terror of death + questioning your reality + questioning retributive justice + deconstructing the genre norms of revenge tragedy. and go. "yeah but what if it was about incest." bro leave gertrude alone

*i have always seen hamlet's fixation on his mother's sexuality as far more a product of 1) misogyny and 2) his own tendency to obsess over uncomfortable things. re: the hamlet ocd post: a hamlet who has upsetting sexual intrusive thoughts is something that can be so personal. what i said in that post:

i also think this is a much more interesting standpoint from which to characterize hamlet’s preoccupation with incest / his mother’s sex life than “hamlet really really wanted to fuck his mom.” sexual intrusive thoughts are common; among other things, ocd can give you unwanted vivid mental images of morally awful things, sexual acts among them. the first time he brings up his mother’s ambiguously-faithful ambiguously-incestuous remarriage, in 1.2, hamlet actually moans, “let me not think on’t,” and later asks, “must i remember?” forget the o*dipal complex, man. give me a hamlet who has uncomfortable and unwanted thoughts about his mother’s sex life that he hates and wishes he could be rid of because they must make him awful, but he can’t stop thinking and he can’t get away from it and every time he sees his mother with claudius the thoughts pour back in - does he have to remember? can’t he stop thinking about it?

also, i fucking hate sigmund freud. hope this helps <3

[transxfiles]

horatio and hamlet were queer enough that while i was reading hamlet in class me and my friends made a game of identifying the moments they were gay for each other in the text and i had a specific highlighter color dedicated to them and everything. ros and guil were such relatively insignificant secondary characters that we had a class discussion on the significance of their minimal screentime (literally a class convo on the significance of their insignificance) and what it meant in relation to the overarching themes of hamlet's isolation and surveillance in the play. im.

[benicebefunny]

Faulty Parallels and Parables

There's some fannish consensus that "Big Week" is meant as a lesson for the show's audience. Richmond's overblown and inappropriate response to Nathan tearing down the sign is a parallel of real-life fans reacting so violently to S2 Nathan. (ETA: Here are examples of the kind of violent fan reactions I'm talking about.) I can definitely see that. Particularly in the very meta scene where actor-writer-producers Brett Goldstein and Brendan Hunt acknowledge their role in creating this reaction and beg their boss for the punishment that will relieve them of their white guilt.

However intended, "Big Week" doesn't work as a lesson. The attempted parallel between fans and the players doesn't do what it's meant to. Because once again the writing resists acknowledging racism as a structuring logic of society and the show.

Racism is at the core of both sides of the parallel (the fans' and the players' reactions), but it's not openly addressed in the writing.

"Big Week" fails as a condemnation of fan reactions to Nathan, because it

Does not address the actual motivation for fannish vitriol: racism.

Perpetuates the myth that fans were angry at something Nathan had done rather than who Nathan is.

Misattributes fan hate to Black men.

Panders to the people it should be educating.

To be clear: at a fundamental level, the fan backlash (ETA: referring again to shit like this) wasn't about Nathan ripping a sign. People were angry, suspicious, and hateful toward Nathan long before the finale aired. He'd already been determined guilty based on theories and suppositions of what he might do. Concerningly, people were reveling in his forecasted crimes; they wanted him to be bad.

Dramatic Irony is for White People

Brendan Hunt has spoken about leaving breadcrumbs about Nathan's schism with Ted. And Nick Mohammed notably explained Nathan's S2 journey on Twitter, laying out the moments that led to and hinted at his final destination. However, on Tumblr, the issue wasn't that fans weren't picking up on foreshadowing. The problem--the racism--lies in how fans reacted emotionally to the foreshadowing.

Contrast fan's eagerness for Nathan to do spectacularly wrong with how I re-watched Titanic as a child. From the start of the film, I knew the ship was doomed to sink. After watching the film once, I knew that Jack died. Yet, every time I watched, I still hoped that ship wouldn't sink and no one would die.

Watching through your fingers, hoping that a character will avoid their fate is a familiar mode of viewership for tragedies heavy on the dramatic irony. Either through outside knowledge or foreshadowing, we know something the characters don't know. No matter how much we yell at the screen (or in Jamie's case, the actors on stage), how many times we cry, "Don't go in there!" the characters cannot hear us.

The characters are doomed by the narrative, but we remain on their side. We hope and pray and beg for them to avoid the path only we can see.

This is not how Tumblr generally responded to Nathan's S2 arc. Perhaps contrary to the writers' assumptions, Nathan didn't inspire the same reaction as the tragic white heroes from English class. Despite the writers' attempts to create a race-blind narrative (which @blackstaring has explained is impossible), audiences treated Nathan less like Hamlet and more like, well, a South Asian man living in a security state.

We Do Not Watch in a Vacuum

The fannish rhetoric around Nathan's villainy matched the rhetoric used by the US and UK to justify the War on Terror, surveillance, and persecution of Muslims and anyone who "looked Muslim." In the early 2000s, entire communities and whole countries were reframed as potential terrorists.

As a result, if the US and UK governments can frame you as having the potential to cause them harm, they can treat you as though you already have. They can spy on you, lock you up, take away your rights, entrap you. Having the potential to do harm has been collapsed with doing actual harm. Another tool for persecuting racialized communities.

Through the Patriot Act, the US government obtained unprecedented access to private records and warrantless searches. If the government decided someone was a terrorist, it could pull their library records and deduce guilt from what books they borrowed. In the detective fiction of yore, gathering evidence was a way to determine guilt. In the security state, presuming guilt became the pretext for gathering evidence. And that evidence could be massaged to fit the existing conclusion of guilt.

And it's not just the government. People in the US and UK are encouraged--and, in some cases, required by law--to inform on other people. "If you see something, say something." State-sanctioned suspicion fosters Islamophobia, racism, and xenophobia. Civilians are empowered to act as law enforcement.

And that's how many fans treated Nathan in S2. People were digging through Nathan's past actions, combing through S1 like the NSA reading your browser history. People identified "red flags" to justify hating Nathan for something he hadn't yet done. Moments previously considered benign, endearing, or hilarious became warning signs.

This is a very long way of saying: Racism is why fans are so angry at Nathan. Racism is why he was assumed guilty before the end of S2. Racism is why an alarming number of fans saw a brown character and thought, "I better investigate."

It's not the fucking sign. It's racism.

And the script for "Big Week" was all about the fucking sign. Racism didn't get a word in edgewise. But it was there. It was so fucking there.

Ignoring All the Racist Shit the White Characters Do

There were so many opportunities where characters could have talked about race, but didn't.

Trent, like fans in S2, felt empowered to investigate Nathan. He took it upon himself to retrieve security footage based on a hunch. He thought a brown man did something bad--and he accessed existing surveillance to confirm his suspicions. Trent chalks this up to his past in journalism. Which checks out, because journalists were frighteningly complicit in the War on Terror and the rise of the security state.

That aspect of journalism Trent likes. The ethical commitment to not reveal one's sources? He's not so keen on that. At least, not when Nathan is the source. Not when Trent has the opportunity to deflect blame from himself. Not when he can report a brown man to a white authority figure. (If you see something, say something. Right, Trent?) In that case, Trent's just "someone who respects [Ted]."

Trent smirking at Nathan falling in the security footage underscored that Trent does not respect Nathan. He doesn't care if Nathan hurts himself in pursuit of an ideal Ted placed out of his reach. Trent thinks it's kinda funny.

I am waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to ask Trent, "Would you have revealed Nathan as a source if he were white? Out of all the anonymous sources you've had in your career, why was Nathan the one you chose to betray? What was so different about him? No, no, I don't want to hear about Ted and how good he is. This is about Nathan. You harmed them both, but this is about Nathan. Why Nathan? Why did you abandon your ethics the moment they applied to him? What is it about Nathan that makes him so unworthy of your protection? And now with the video. Why were you so happy to see him fall? There are vanishingly few managers of color in the Premier League. Why were you so happy to see him fall?"

I am waiting for Ted to ask Beard, "How'd you decide that Nathan was the one who leaked my story? I mean, you didn't have any evidence, right? And there are other people who know about my panic attacks. Why did you immediately assume it was Nathan? ... Beard, if he's been acting off, getting worse and worse, and you could see all that--why didn't you help him? If it was so obvious he was hurting, why didn't you do anything for him? You didn't have to fix everything but... It feels like, I don't know, his pain didn't matter until it hurt me. Why does my pain--my pasty, freckly white pain--matter more than Nathan's?"

I am waiting for Roy, Ted, Jamie, Rebecca, Keeley--any of the white heroes--to reckon with their canonical racist actions.

But that didn't happen in "Big Week." I am not optimistic it will ever happen. Because to acknowledge racism in this respect would tear at the threads of this racist ass fucking tapestry.

Which brings us to the sign.

Ted Leads a White Supremacist Cult on Company Time

The in-universe reverence for the sign is built on racism. The team treats the sign like a holy relic bestowed upon them by their White Savior Ted. Without the White Savior trope, the sign has no value. It's just a piece of paper with paint on it. But because Ted is this Messiah-like figure, it is imbued with supernatural value.

As @kutputli touches on in a reaction post to this episode, Ted intentionally crafts a "Christlike" persona. Ted casts himself as a martyr. Ted deciding which loads to share and which to bear alone is both an expression and a source of power. Ted's conspicuous acts of self-sacrifice are not altruistic. They are means to an end and identity: the White Savior. That cross Ted keeps nailing himself to is a seat of colonial power.

Ted has created a cult-like atmosphere at the club. He uses catchphrases, meaningless aphorisms, ceremonies, and the fucking sign to bind people together and BELIEVE. He made the team burn their most prized possession in a ritual sacrifice he invented. He lies about the natural world to support his message (goldfish memories are much longer than that!). He renamed one of his disciples. That's cult leader behavior.

Ted's cult trades on the White Savior ideology. This is a belief that white people are so superior that we can--and are destined to--save all people of color from themselves. What's more, white people don't need training or knowledge or experience or fluency in the lingua franca to do all this saving. No, no, no, we possess a special white people magic that lets us just do it.

This is why rich white people have pet charities. This is why white youths think they can save the world by volunteering over spring break. This is why Ted has the confidence to coach football. He's white; many of the players aren't: ergo, Ted has magical powers.

If Ted wasn't going around like, "I am the Lasso way," no one would care about the fucking sign.

Ted is the root of the anger and violence at the sign's destruction. The buck started with him. Ted's responsibility for creating a holy relic is not acknowledged in the episode.

Ted remains the innocent, but magical, martyr. Meanwhile, Moe, Isaac Richard, and Thierry get red cards. They are officially recognized for their inappropriate violence. (ETA: I am now learning that Richard, not Isaac got red carded. My apologies. And congrats to the writers room for not singling out three Black players for punishment. Your "I'm slightly more competent than one viewer assumed I was" award is in the mail.)

This is another spot where the fan-player parallel unravels.

Addressing the Audience

Black men are not responsible for the fannish vitriol aimed at Nathan. People subjugated by white supremacy (which is what Ted's White Savior cult does) are not the ringleaders of Nate Hate. This is very much a white led movement.

Such white fans have demonstrated a staunch refusal to empathize with, relate to, or recognize their shared humanity with Nathan. These are not the people who are gonna look at Moe, Isaac, and Thierry, and think, "Oh god, that's me." If the writers were trying to convince fans they were wrong, they could hardly have picked less effective audience surrogates.

(ETA: Richard as audience surrogate hasn't proven effective either. Fan reaction to Richard's violence has been particularly laudatory. It's telling that he is getting the "short Frenchman is an adorably insane feral kitten" treatment. If viewers are seeing themselves in Richard, it is not an image of accountability.)

And that raises the question: why use audience surrogates at all? Why not address the audience directly? The season premiere could have opened on Brett, Brendan, and Jason standing in front of a curtain, out of character. They could do a disclaimer like 90s teen shows did when they had a Very Special Episode. But instead of warning about drugs or alcohol, they could just say how wrong and racist the reaction to Nathan has been. They could take accountability for their role in writing Nathan so carelessly. They could make clear that the fan reaction was unacceptable. They could say that Nate Haters should just stop watching the show or at least shut the fuck up.

But they didn't. Because that wouldn't make good business sense, right? It might drive viewers away. Nate Haters are a core demo, after all.

So, instead, "Big Week" offers an indirect, incomplete, and inaccurate parable. Audiences can choose to interpret it however they wish. No one has to learn anything if they don't want to.

The episode doesn't just fail to rebuke viewers engaged in a racist fan movement. It fucking panders to them.

[withasideofshakespeare]

ooo sounds fun! trick or treat!!!

(one of my faves is Hamlet's "now i am alone." from 2.2--real short & sweet! saying "i am alone" in front of an entire audience of people?? the Layers!! the Potential!!!)

Excellent choice!!! Hamlet has such intense undertones of surveillance and being watched. I love it when they get reflected in the language of the play!

A favorite line of mine, also from Hamlet (my enjoyment of it is courtesy of Ocseions, of Hamlet Discord Server fame):

“Not a whit. We defy augury. There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow” (V.ii. 219-20).

It’s no secret that I love a line that feels haunted by the future and this is the perfect example. We know Hamlet cannot defy fate; Hamlet knows he cannot defy fate. Death will catch up to everyone and there is a special providence in that, divine or not.

[fakerobotrealblog]

"Hamlet" by William Shakespeare is one of the most iconic and frequently adapted plays in the literary canon. Its exploration of themes such as revenge, madness, and existentialism has inspired numerous adaptations across various mediums. Here's an in-depth analysis of "Hamlet" and some notable adaptations:

### "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare:

1. **Existentialism and Moral Ambiguity:**

- "Hamlet" is renowned for its exploration of existential themes. The protagonist, Prince Hamlet, grapples with moral ambiguity, contemplating life, death, and the consequences of revenge. The famous soliloquy "To be or not to be" encapsulates these existential reflections.

2. **Madness and Deception:**

- Hamlet's feigned madness and the broader theme of deception add layers to the narrative. The play explores the thin line between reality and illusion, raising questions about the authenticity of appearances.

3. **Complex Characters:**

- Characters like Claudius, Gertrude, Ophelia, and Polonius contribute to the complexity of the play. Each character has intricate motives and relationships, adding depth to the exploration of human nature.

4. **Dramatic Irony:**

- Shakespeare employs dramatic irony throughout the play, where the audience possesses knowledge that some characters lack. This creates tension and engages the audience in the unfolding tragedy.

5. **Ghost Motif:**

- The appearance of King Hamlet's ghost introduces the supernatural element and sets the revenge plot in motion. The ghost serves as a catalyst for Hamlet's internal conflict and moral dilemma.

### Notable Adaptations:

1. **"The Lion King" (1994):**

- This animated film draws clear parallels with "Hamlet," portraying Simba's journey mirroring Hamlet's quest for justice and self-discovery. The uncle Scar corresponds to Claudius, adding a familial and Shakespearean dimension to the Disney classic.

2. **"Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" (1990):**

- Tom Stoppard's play and subsequent film take a unique perspective, focusing on two minor characters from "Hamlet." It explores existential themes and the concept of fate, providing a meta-theatrical commentary on the original play.

3. **"Hamlet" (1996) - Directed by Kenneth Branagh:**

- Branagh's film adaptation offers a faithful rendition of the play, emphasizing its theatrical roots. The unabridged version allows for a comprehensive exploration of the characters and themes, staying true to the original text.

4. **"Hamlet" (2000) - Directed by Michael Almereyda:**

- Set in modern-day New York, this adaptation features Ethan Hawke as Hamlet. The contemporary setting introduces new layers to the play's exploration of power, corruption, and surveillance.

5. **"Hamlet" (1948) - Directed by Laurence Olivier:**

- Olivier's film, a more traditional adaptation, won several Academy Awards. It is praised for its visual aesthetics and Olivier's nuanced portrayal of Hamlet.

6. **"Hamlet" (2015) - Directed by Kenneth Branagh:**

- Branagh returned to "Hamlet" in 2015, this time focusing on the character's internal struggles. The film explores Hamlet's psychological state and emphasizes the emotional depth of the play.

### Common Themes Across Adaptations:

1. **Reinterpretation of Characters:**

- Different adaptations may reinterpret characters, offering new perspectives on their motivations and actions.

2. **Modernization and Contextual Shifts:**

- Many adaptations place "Hamlet" in different time periods or cultural contexts, highlighting its universality and adaptability.

3. **Focus on Specific Themes:**

- Some adaptations emphasize particular themes such as political intrigue, mental health, or familial relationships, providing a fresh lens on the original material.

In conclusion, "Hamlet" continues to captivate audiences through its timeless exploration of human nature and existential dilemmas. Its adaptability to various mediums and reinterpretation across diverse contexts underscore its enduring relevance in the realm of literature and performance.

[im-teh-shadow-fang]

i never read hamlet so you get a pass but you are under shakespeare liker surveillance (/j)

I got to play it his death scene, and actually shocked my class by doing a death drop…

Also my sister named one of her cats Romeo, and we had a cat named Tybalt for about a year. Tybs was the best cat… though that actual play sucks…

We initially thought that they were girls.

Romeo evolved from Naomi by means of turning into Gnomeo (from the gnome movie)

Tybalt was originally Juliet or Jewels, and he really was the King of cats…

I don’t support Shakespeare… the man was more tragic then anything, but he did give us good names…

[power-chords]

Very close to the finish line with Heat 2. I’ll be done with it by this evening — I started it exactly one week ago. It’s 466 pages. I’m a fast reader, but it also goes down easy. It’s deeply satisfying on some fronts and frustrating on others. It is irresistible and totally fascinating and baroque and ridiculous. It is clumsy on one page and shockingly elegant the next. If Heat was a classical Shakespearean tragedy, Heat 2 leans more toward a working class American trauerspiel. Though it never abandons its totally Hamletized conceits — I laughed with delight at the name of one of the major dynastic criminal bosses. Claudio. Lustful, power-hungry, clever Claudio. Michael, you little shit! You 2x4-swinging college English major fuck! I love you.

Anyway, to me the accomplishment of Heat 2 is not within the nuts and bolts of the story itself, but its macro-level ambitions, its reimagining of classic genre. Expanding its romantic scope while at the same time bitterly challenging certain delusions.

What he is going for, I think, is a modern, multicultural transmutation of the American Western mythos, blowing it out into a capitalist parallel shadow realm, an international sub- and supra-economy whose gears are both carefully hidden and grinding away in plain sight. Its currency is information, encrypted information, computer code and coded language, sometimes even inscrutable codes of honor. Its territory is mapped and measured in surveillance range, the cold gaze of electric eyes, the microphone ears of recording devices, cameras and bugs and transponders. It is a global, borderless frontier, a deadly but limitless free-trade zone prowled by immigrant cowboys, state-raised ronin, and renegade lawmen. Discarded by the system or rejecting its empty principles, they choose to exploit it. They take it to its most brutally honest, brutally logical endpoints. They have seen through the bullshit. The military has chewed them up and spat them out. Prison has fired and hardened them inside its awful crucible. They understand there is no cause worth fighting or dying for that can be constituted within the political imaginary, the cheap and stunted fantasy of the state. The system cannot be reformed, only escaped or manipulated through grit and ingenuity.

It’s not nihilism, it's not even cynicism, but a defiant, fuck-you idealism: for MM’s protagonists, virtue is paramount nevertheless. Virtue is a personal, private, pressurized truth. When a craven, unscrupulous Waingro or Wardell makes off with your hard-earned score, when the cell door slams shut, when your wife leaves you and the bureaucrats turn you away, it is all you’ve got left. The only possession that transcends.

Johannes de Silentio would call it a persecuted truth, immune to all extrinsic attempts at containment or categorization, even apprehension. Who could understand him? You would not even know to recognize him, notice him in a crowd. He is anonymous, wearing a gray suit. “Good Lord, is this the man? Is it really he? Why, he looks like a tax-collector!” Or you would think him a murderous madman and not a daredevil of faith, gunning his engine, flooring the gas pedal of the Crown Vic toward the precipice of the absurd.

[hamletkin]

does anyone else have super niche playlists like "here's my playlist for a young adult hamlet living in the year 2022 but he's in a psychological thriller and has to deal with the constant surveillance of not only everyone around him but the media as well and he's scared and angry and hurt and also he's in love with horatio but has yet to admit that to himself" ?