Anyone seen Kill Bill yet? [merged]

[Desdichado]

Yes, but he's a whiner. I can see him referred to as a sissy-boy (although that's really more barsoomcore's opinion than mine, even if I did coin the phrase.) And he doesn't stand up and do the right thing; he let's his fiance, or whatever they're actual relationship is, die and doesn't care.

 

[Jeremy]

Just cause I haven't posted here in a while, I agree with JDavis on a lot of his points.

I enjoyed the movie because it catered to me. And I agree, I'm surprised he didn't put the dubbing out of sync as this would have lead even more people to get the joke of it.

 

[barsoomcore]

One of the few ways to think Hamlet is a jerk is to totally ignore the context of the play (historical, religious, and literary) and apply 20th-21st century perspectives to it.

Or to say, "Hey, anybody who smacks the woman he claims to love and calls her a whore (which is what the comment "get thee to a nunnery" would imply to Shakespeare's audience of the time) is kind of a loser. I don't care what century this is."

Or possibly to say, "You know, a guy who stabs an innocent man to death and then never expresses the slightest remorse over it -- that's not exactly the coolest thing in the world."

But I agree, if you apply 20th-21st century perspectives to it, that'll work, too.

As for him being a sissy-boy (to use Joshua Dyal's term), nobody who kicks the ass of the best swordsman in the kingdom (Laertes) and singlehandedly leaps alone onto the deck of a pirate ship to attack its crew should be described that way.

Okay, you haven't read the play very carefully. Hamlet's ship WASN'T attacked by pirates. He made that up to explain his return from what should have been certain death. What REALLY happened is that he snuck around, found the document his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were carrying (which, unknown to them, promised Hamlet immediate execution at the hands of the English king), altered the document so that his friends would be executed instead of him (hm, no mealy-mouthed cowardice there, no sir), then had a little holiday in England (presumably congratulating himself on his cleverness) before returning for Ophelia's funeral, so that he could pretend to be upset about a situation for which he himself was responsible.

And DID he kick the ass of the best swordsman? We don't know for sure that Laertes IS very dangerous -- he's claimed to be, but we never see him fight anyone else so who knows? And we don't get much information on the fight: Shakespeare's words on the subject are:

They fight. Both are struck by the poisoned sword

Not exactly a clear ass-kicking outcome, I'd say. Nothing like those poisoned swords to really level the playing field.

 

[drnuncheon]

Okay, you haven't read the play very carefully. Hamlet's ship WASN'T attacked by pirates. He made that up to explain his return from what should have been certain death.

Er. That's a very interesting interpretation - but if it's true, then why did he stick with the story when speaking alone, to his trusted friend Horatio - especially after he had just admitted to switching the documents? There's no reason for it, and I'm not sure what support there is for the idea that there weren't really any pirates.

What REALLY happened is that he snuck around, found the document his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were carrying (which, unknown to them, promised Hamlet immediate execution at the hands of the English king), altered the document so that his friends would be executed instead of him (hm, no mealy-mouthed cowardice there, no sir)

Considering that they were basically working for the king to spy on him (and Halmet had figured it out), I don't think they qualify as his "friends". Also, he had no way of knowing that they were ignorant of the letter's contents. Confronting them would have been foolish, on a ship full of men he did not know he coulfd trust. Cowardice or cunning? I'd say the latter.

And DID he kick the ass of the best swordsman? We don't know for sure that Laertes IS very dangerous -- he's claimed to be, but we never see him fight anyone else so who knows?

Well, if Shakespeare didn't mean us to think Laertes was a good fighter, then why even mention it in the play? There are plenty of other ways for Claudius to butter him up - I doubt that flattering his swordplay was chosen at random. Also, if Laertes didn't think he could beat Hamlet, he wouldn't have chosen the duel, he'd have sought another way. So unless the King is setting him up (no reason to believe that) or the King and Laertes are both deluded idiots (again unlikely), we need to take Claudius' assesment of Laertes' skill at face value.

J

 

[barsoomcore]

Er. That's a very interesting interpretation - but if it's true, then why did he stick with the story when speaking alone, to his trusted friend Horatio - especially after he had just admitted to switching the documents? There's no reason for it, and I'm not sure what support there is for the idea that there weren't really any pirates.

Okay, not much support, I'll go along with that. I don't trust the guy and can well imagine why he wouldn't tell Horatio -- his upright and stuffy friend would probably disapprove. But I'll agree there's not much support.

Considering that they were basically working for the king to spy on him (and Halmet had figured it out), I don't think they qualify as his "friends". Also, he had no way of knowing that they were ignorant of the letter's contents. Confronting them would have been foolish, on a ship full of men he did not know he coulfd trust. Cowardice or cunning? I'd say the latter.

I say both. I'm not saying he's dumb. I'm saying he's a sneaky, untrustworthy eel.

Well, if Shakespeare didn't mean us to think Laertes was a good fighter, then why even mention it in the play? There are plenty of other ways for Claudius to butter him up - I doubt that flattering his swordplay was chosen at random.

Of course not -- since what Claudius wants is for Laertes to agree to swordfight Hamlet. With a poisoned sword.

Also, if Laertes didn't think he could beat Hamlet, he wouldn't have chosen the duel, he'd have sought another way.

Or perhaps he would have coated his sword in poison...

And note that they aren't setting up a duel to the death. They're setting up a little gamble on who's the better swordsman -- Laertes or Hamlet. In theory, neither of them is in much danger since it's not meant to be a "real" duel. Laertes poisons the sword to make what ought to be a harmless contest into a deadly one.

So really, Laertes' skill with the sword is immaterial. It seems reasonable to think that they are of roughly equivalent skill, but you could easily stage the play with Laertes as a bumbling oaf who gets one hit on Hamlet and then loses control of his own sword.

So unless the King is setting him up (no reason to believe that) or the King and Laertes are both deluded idiots (again unlikely), we need to take Claudius' assesment of Laertes' skill at face value.

And we would do this because... Claudius has turned out to be such an upstanding fellow so far? We don't NEED to do anything.

Indeed with a play like Hamlet, it's dangerous to think ANYTHING is clearly spelled out, or that any assumptions are beyond consideration. This is a play that admits to a million interpretations, and always manages to exceed any person's grasp.

What I've been getting at is that a big part of Shakespeare's mastery is how he takes a largely unlikable character like Hamlet and makes him compelling -- so compelling that we come to even like or admire him. Much like what Milton achieves with Satan in Paradise Lost, Shakespeare creates a character whose identity has exceeded the work that contains him.

My original comment was (or at least was meant to be) that it takes more skill and talent to create a compelling story out of unlikeable characters than it does to create an equally compelling story out of likeable characters. The notion being that one of the ways to make a story compelling is to people it with likeable characters, so if you take that away from the story, you have to work even harder to make it compelling.

Not that we are incapable of liking and admiring Hamlet. I do, certainly. And while I definitely think that the most common readings of Hamlet tend to gloss over his undeniably fouler qualities, I DON'T think he's just an unredeemable loser.

Now Macbeth, HE'S a whole other story....



edit: just fixed up a typo in "not much"

 

[Pielorinho]

Here's my thinking: he's a teenage boy who is visited by the ghost of his father -- an unassailable witness -- and finds out that his uncle and king has committed possibly the two worst crimes, fratricide and regicide. Furthermore, his mother is betraying his father and his country in the most fundamental of ways, by wedding the murderer.

It drives him stark raving nutters.

He has proof either that he's insane (and hallucinating) or that he's sane (and has the highest moral duty to avenge his father and king). Such vengeance would probably involve killing his mother, since she's giving comfort to the traitor/murderer.

It drives him bonkers.

His uncle persuades his best friends to conspire against him, to lead Hamlet to his death. And Hamlet finds out.

He goes over the bend.

Given his situation -- he knows, without being able to prove it, that his mother is sleeping with the worst of all possible monstrous criminals, and he knows that that criminal is far more powerful and sophisticated than him -- yes, I say his situation is untenable. Yes, he does some horrible things, including cruelly rejecting his fiancee, not caring about killing a man (a man that he suspects is spying on him for his uncle), and ultimately killing a lot of people.

I still find him tragically sympathetic, a hero in his desire to do right by his country and his family, a hero brought down by his inability to find a noble solution to his terrible predicament.

Granted, I've not memorized the play -- I've seen three or four versions of it, on stage and on screen, however, and though the versions were all different from one another, I've always found him a basically sympathetic character, even as he committed atrocities.

Daniel

 

[Nightfall]

This is why I love this forum. If we go off topic, we go off in STYLE! Not to mention the fact it's intelligent jabber.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

This is why I love this forum. If we go off topic, we go off in STYLE! Not to mention the fact it's intelligent jabber.

What's worse is I haven't read Hamlet in at least three years...and I understand every word of this.

Ahh, the life of a Geek is filled with strange joy.

 

[shilsen]

Okay, you haven't read the play very carefully.

Well, I'll admit it's only been half a dozen times and I only teach it once a couple years, so maybe you're right

Facetiousness aside, I am with you on the fact that there's a whole lot of basis for different interpretations in the play. I was just commenting on Joshua's fairly simplistic reading of the character, just as I usually do when I encounter the wholly unvarnished "Hamlet is a great guy" readings.

What makes the character and Shakespeare's treatment of it so cool is that he upturns all the normal categories which his audience would have recognized, not just once but multiple times. For example, Hamlet is a revenger who does not revenge (until the very end), possibly the only such character in the huge Elizabethan/Jacobean genre of revenge plays. He is dilatory according to himself, but not according to anyone else, so we never know for sure if he is or isn't. He is a middle-aged man who simultaneously acts as the oldest philosopher and a young lover (Pielorinho isn't the only person to miss that he's far from a teenager). He's a protestant hero, facing an at-least potentially Catholic ghost, faced with the choice of a classically acceptable and in Christian terms unacceptable act (revenge). And he simultaneously is son, prince, subject, lover, nephew, warrior, scholar, etc. and most importantly perhaps, an actor. He's a melancholic (which has a whole new set of meanings in the English Renaissance) but not a madman ("put my antic disposition on", remember?). It's a tough gig.

 

[drnuncheon]

It drives him stark raving nutters.

ROSENCRANTZ: To sum up: Your father, whom you love, dies, you are his heir, you come back to find that hardly was the corpse cold before his young brother popped onto his throne and into his sheets, thereby offending both legal and natural practice. Now why exactly are you behaving in this extraordinary manner?

GUILDENSTERN: I can't imagine.

- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead