Each From Its Own Perspective

In all the three links a pattern appeared which caught my interest. All of them dealt with how to interpret Hamlet. First, Freud gives his views according to h

is studies and experiences. Similarly, we have the documentary talking about the importance of each actor’s interpretation of Hamlet and the effect this has on the outcome of the play. Finally, T.S Elliot presents us with a critical metainterpretaion of Hamlet. These three texts/videos have a unique way of understanding the work and the character which makes them an essential complementary reading/viewing to my understanding of the text. Freud, on his piece, uses Hamlet as an example to proove various of its aspects. He uses the character to demonstrate what a person suffering from Oedipus complex could be like. Although I had not seen Hamlet in a relationship with his mother that had that unconscious sexual connotation, it is certainly plausible. Especially, after seeing this adaptation of the play, I understood where such an interpretation came from.

Still, Freud did not stop at simply analyzing the character but also, the writer. Although this is a risky thing to do (since such ideas can only be inferred from historical records), he attempted to analyze what the play shows about Shakespeare himself. This interesting approach to the play I found to be an invalid interpretation. Our inability to understand Shakespeare's emotions after his father’s death inhibits us from achieving this. The facts that presented to support these ideas are cold and impersonal. Although they might show the events surrounding the writer during that time period, they do not show his emotions towards them. The actors give the next interpretation. The video documentary has the acting portion of the play greatly highlighted. We are told in it that every generation of actors has its own interpretation of the play and its characters. Each one of them takes a unique approach to it based m

ainly on their experiences. Taking this into consideration then, the fact each generations Hamlet reflects its ideals and experiences should be expected. What matters then is not which interpretation the actor chooses, but that it is fulfilled to its whole potential.

T.S Elliot’s commentary is the most interesting one in

my opinion. In it he states that interpreting such an old play has its limits and eventually one has to begin criticizing it. By doing so, one creates one’s own version of the play and its characters. I strongly agree with this but I also think it misses the fact that in interpretation one also creates a new version of the play. When reading actively, one inevitably transforms those words and creates from them a mental picture of the scene. In this process an unconscious interpretation

of the play dominates the reader’s view on it. This interpretation draws from previous knowledge which makes the possible number of Hamlets be equal to the number of readers. What really matters though, (and I think T.S Elliot transmits successfully through his essay) is the fact the reader must also remember to acknowledge the interpretation is just that. The works he cites there are examples of this. The authors focused with such intensity on their own views of the play that they completely forgot they were just a single perspective on a play that gives a very broad array of possibilities. Although their perspective might be supported by the play it seems to stretch the meaning rather than flow with it.

For me, this means that in our class’s performance of Hamlet I need to try and make my interpretation of the character flow with the play. Although having a Freudian Hamlet might be acceptable under this new ideal for interpretations, an adolescent Hamlet would not. Nor, would a Polonius ashamed of its acting be appropriate. Especially in acting, a perspective that fits perfectly with the entire picture is better than one that barely fits the role.