On Paths Unknown discussion

Shakespeare does melodrama well.

In the final act of Hamlet, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Hamlet is a very finely written, very complex play, as is the character of Hamlet himself. I have not quite made my mind up yet whether Hamlet is sane or not.

As for Shakespeare being melodramatic, well, I think most drama is, because -DRAMA- right? ;) ... but seriously, I suppose they have to spice it up a bit to keep it interesting...

In spite of the dramatic style sometimes bordering on melodrama, Shakespeare yet manages to fit in a lot of social commentary and some philosophy as well.

Also worth noting that plays are meant to be performed and viewed, not read. And how they are performed can change everything about how the play is understood. I once saw a performance of Hamlet in which the actor played him as manic and it completely altered the entire production and tenor of the play.

^ True, dat, Name R. I love 'variations' like the one you mention, as long as they clearly state that it is a variation.

I don't believe he's mad. Have you heard of the Humoural Theory? It's the idea that a lack or an excess of one of the four bodily 'fluids'can cause mental and physical illness.

Hamlet is clearly suffering from Melancholia or an excess of black bile. Some of the symptoms are seeing ghosts, depression, sleeplessness etc. Hamlet, as an Elizabethan is well aware that he is suffering this, so questions the ghost's appearance and is unsure of his 'senses', but his self awareness shows that he's not mad, but perhaps suffering from Melancholy.

He also says "[I will] put an antic disposition on" as a subterfuge to hide his plan to find out the truth of the ghosts accusations and disguise Hamlet as the threat to the Claudius.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

Traveller wrote: "^ True, dat, Name R. I love 'variations' like the one you mention, as long as they clearly state that it is a variation."

Well, the performance I saw wasn't so much a "variation" on the play itself as it was a choice on the part of the actor (and, presumably, the director, etc.). He changed the way he read the lines, moved, held himself, etc. from the stereotype/status quo, but the lines themselves, the narrative, etc. all remained the same. And honestly that is what happens in every single performance of anything ever. So, for instance, the 1993 Kenneth Branagh "Much Ado About Nothing" isn't a "variation" anymore than a high school production or an 18th century production in the Globe Theater itself. We ain't talkin' "Clueless" as a variation on "Emma," just a demonstration that the same text can be changed simply by reading it in a different way.

Though reading it in a "Donald Duck" voice would probably constitute a "variation" worth clearly stating from the outset. XD

Well, the term "variation" in music (where I suppose I'm taking it from), has to do with the mode of delivery - the content of the melody stays the same; but the rythm, timing, and pitch changes.

I apologize if this is also a term meaning something else in literature, but I had meant it in that sense - and you are quite right, (and this is what makes drama/theater so "alive"), you are of course quite correct in pointing out that EVERY performance of a play will per se in this sense be a variation.

...and yes, I had meant variation from the traditional way of interpreting well-known plays, because, of course, there tend to be "traditional" parameters with most plays, even controversial ones in which case there tend to be a few "traditional" interpretations, if you know what I mean.

As an aside, something to think about, is that the playwright him/herself tends to put in stage/acting directions in brackets; for example: (in a melancholy tone) or (with great force) etc. So I suppose one can't deviate too much from that or it will really become a "variation". :P

I was also thinking of the film plays done in modern settings, but with still exactly the same dialogue, like the film version of Romeo and Juliet sporting Leonardo Di Caprio and Clare Danes.

I have never watched Shakespeare in a theatre. This is perhaps my mistake, and I have declared him melodramatic merely on his dialogue.

Shakespeare was writing for Elizabethan theater. His audiences were probably less sophisticated than modern audiences. His forerunners and contemporaries wrote in even more lurid terms - Chaucer is extremely lurid.

..but in the case of Shakespeare it is usually just the outer form that comes across as "flowery" and colorful. The content packs a lot and despite the more "flowery" way in which people spoke at the time, his writing is eminently thought-provoking, often funny, and very quotable, even to this day.

Helen wrote: "I don't believe he's mad. Have you heard of the Humoural Theory? It's the idea that a lack or an excess of one of the four bodily 'fluids'can cause mental and physical illness.

Hamlet is clearly ..."

Interesting theory, Helen. Yeah, that is what Hippocrates taught of course, and you are right, I think the theory was still in fashion around Elizabethan times. In fact, as far as I know it had adherents until the nineteenth century, at least.
I hope you're going to be around for our Hamlet discussion in around March next year?

Traveller wrote: "Helen wrote: "I don't believe he's mad. Have you heard of the Humoural Theory? It's the idea that a lack or an excess of one of the four bodily 'fluids'can cause mental and physical illness.

Haml..."

Yes, definitely. :)

Oh good! I'll send reminders around a month before the time. I'm not sure if all our members have 100% agreed on the dates yet, but we'll hopefully know at least a month or two in advance. :) Oops, I lied - it's actually scheduled for February 10 at the moment. I hope that will suit you. The date is not set in stone yet.

For me, one of the reasons I love Shakespeare so much is the language that was used. I just love the beauty and artistry in his style written in this older English. But one can also produce very funny results from his plays, especially the dramas. For instance, 'Macbeth' is a play where a lot of deaths occur because of Macbeth. Someone at my university told me about a version of the play they put on that exaggerates this aspect of it; so what they did was create a play where anyone who looks at the person playing Macbeth in the eyes instantly drops dead. They performed the play until all the cast members all fell down. I wish I could have seen that, that must have been hilarious.

Yolande wrote: "Someone at my university told me about a version of the play they put on that exaggerates this aspect of it; so what they did was create a play where anyone who looks at the person playing Macbeth in the eyes instantly drops dead."

That sounds AWESOME. I really wish I could have seen it. I reread Macbeth last month. It is not my favorite Shakespeare, but I really noticed the humor in it this time, which I never really appreciated before. It is really funny in places.

I find that Shakespeare often imbues some of his characters with wit and charm, and they can really give one another some what-for.

Traveller wrote: "I find that Shakespeare often imbues some of his characters with wit and charm, and they can really give one another some what-for."

That is the joy of Shakespeare. (The back and forth between Hamlet and Polonius in the reading scene springs to mind.) I have never found Macbeth to be one of the charming ones, but I definitely liked the play overall better this time through. I'm hoping to watch a film version this weekend though, and now I'm going to have images of someone falling down dead every time he looks at someone. (Honestly, I expect this to improve the experience immensely.)

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: " I'm going to have images of someone falling down dead every time he looks at someone. (Honestly, I expect this to improve the experience immensely.) "

:D