Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
William Shakespeare's influence on society
Critical analysis of hamlet
Analysis of play hamlet
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: William Shakespeare's influence on society
In the play Hamlet, Shakespeare tells the story of the tragedy of a kingdom in which their king has died (which leads to the depression of the main character) and the kingdom ends up in the hands of the King’s brother. The main character finds out the truth about his father’s death and takes the responsibility to avenge his father. Although Hamlet is one of the best plays during Shakespearean times, it would be really interesting if the play was written at a different time. For example, if the play were to be written in 21st century, in England, it would change the plot, roles of character (each one would consider their own acts), and the outcome of the play.
There would be a change in the plot in the sense that Hamlet might not have even believed
…show more content…
that his father’s ghost was roaming around the castle depending on religious belief. This would lead to Hamlet not knowing what happened to his father and he would end up getting worse on his depression while Claudius would continue to rule the kingdom. Another scene that would be changed if Hamlet never knew who killed his father would be Polonius’s death. This scene would change if Hamlet caught Polonius and Queen Gertrude talking to one another, although Hamlet wouldn't know what they are talking about, he would end up telling Claudius about this encounter and Claudius would take it as an act of cheating, but Claudius would blame Polonius and not Queen Gertrude due to his love for her and Polonius would have to suffer a severe punishment. Although the punishment would lead to death, it wouldn't be by the hands of Hamlet. The difference in the role of characters would be significant because it would change the way in which Hamlet would communicate with the others or the other way around.
For example, when Ophelia goes crazy due to her father’s death, her role or actions would change by her immediately going for Hamlet and could either blame him for her father’s death or find a way to get him killed or exiled. Another result would be that once Laertes finds out about his father’s death, he would go straight for both Claudius and Hamlet and kill them both without a second thought, which would later result in Laertes taking over the throne and change the whole kingdom to more violent ideas. This would end up changing the whole tone to the play by making it more gruesome or slightly more depressing depending on the way that Claudius and Hamlet are …show more content…
killed. The outcome or ending of the play would also change if Hamlet were to have done his actions as soon as he had decided to.
For example, in the “Mousetrap” scene, Hamlet should have been able to kill Claudius while that was going on because the fact that Hamlet had already gained evidence that Claudius killed Hamlet’s father due to Claudius’s face of guilt, it gave Hamlet the chance to strike and get revenge for his father. Although the people would consider Hamlet as a murderer, he would have to explain to everyone why he did his actions and from there he would have to be judged either negatively or positively. Another way how the play could have ended would be in the scene of the sword fight between Laertes and Hamlet, Hamlet confesses about what he knows about the poisoning of his father and everyone turns on Claudius and Laertes confesses of both the poisoned blade and drink (to fully prevent Queen Gertrude from drinking it). Once they have confessed, they would both kill Claudius and Hamlet would have avenged his father and Laertes would have felt some type of relief from killing the “source” of his father’s death as well. This would later on create a bond between Laertes and Hamlet in which they would try to maintain the kingdom stabilized from any conflicts after a while. Also, Hamlet would actually be able to receive the message that Fortinbras would send to him after the battle that he had went through and confront Fortinbras himself. Depending on how the conversation
goes, it would either create war or peace between both kingdoms. If Hamlet were to be done in the 21st century in England, it would recreate or bring back the importance of the genre of tragedy and many people would like to bring back the thoughts to the original creator of the play, William Shakespeare. Although as original as the play were to have been in Shakespeare’s time, a modernized version of the play with different plot and outcome would make it more relatable to certain people like play attendees, authors, and Literacy Majors. This would also encourage authors to create their own adaptations or versions based off of the ideas of the play to help get their career further.
...ly. This will be the final test in the war between good and evil, though Hamlet doesn't have the advantage this time of knowing the depth of the plot, despite his suspicions.
After Hamlet is put ashore in Denmark by pirates in act four, scene six of Hamlet, he is transformed from a man of contemplation into a man of action.
Hamlet questions what may or may not happen however Laertes just wants the revenge fast and effective. Although these characters have different standards when it comes to revenge, they both immediately blamed and directed their anger towards Claudius when they found out their father’s were dead. Hamlet’s reason to blame Claudius is simply because he is his father’s murderer. In 1.5 while Hamlet is talking to the ghost of his father he says, “Haste me to know ’t, that I, with wings as swift/As meditation or the thoughts of love/May sweep to my revenge” (Shakespeare 1.5.31-33). At first is seems as if Hamlet would seek revenge right away because he seems eager to find out who the killer is and when he does find out he says he knew it was Claudius all along. He is furious and after this part in the play, Hamlet’s anger is mainly focused on Claudius. On the other hand when Laertes found out Polonius is dead he went straight to Claudius assuming it was him. By doing this he shows that he is controlled by his impulses unlike Hamlet who waited until he got proof to act on his fury. Laertes also blamed Claudius for not giving his father a proper burial, which can relate to Hamlet’s anger too because Hamlet felt as if there was not enough mourning for his father death. Not only did they both lose their fathers, but they both lost Ophelia, a female figure in their lives that they both loved.
By killing the king, they put Denmark in better hands, and they saved both of their lives. Also, Ophelia and Hamlet could get married and take the throne. Just by changing Laertes decision, the ending of Hamlet completely changes. Everyone is alive and healthy, except for King Claudius, and Denmark is not taken over by Fortinbras, an officer of a foreign country. By using the decision-making process, creating alternatives, and choosing the best outcome, Laertes would have completely changed the play, Hamlet.
At this moment the main problem of "Hamlet" could be ended. Hamlet could kill his Uncle Claudius and avenge his father's death, and the case would (excepting the case of some unknown tragedy) be closed. He would not accidentally kill Polonius, and perhaps he, Ophelia, Gertrude, and Laertes would not end up dead. The play might not have such an entirely tragic ending after all.
First off I would like to start out with the main Character of the plays, starting with Hamlet. Named for the title of the play, Hamlet is stricken with sorrow after finding out that his father, the king of Denmark, has been murdered, by his own brother, and uncle of Hamlet, Claudius, (Though, Hamlet does not find this out until later on in the play by the ghost of his father). The Play focuses on Hamlet’s struggle on convincing himself to get revenge on Claudius, but also a battle of his own sanity. Hamlet has distanced himself from his mother, Who married Claudius, and has only one trusted friend, Horatio, and a beloved girl, Ophelia, who succumbs to madness as well after finding out that Hamlet has killed her father, and later dies by drowning herself (in which upon the death of both his father, and sister, Laertes holds it against Hamlet). The end of the play ends with Hamlet, Gertrude, Claudius, Laertes, and Ophelia dead, Horatio mourning over Hamlet’s death, and Fortinbras taking over the kingdom of Denmark.
In Hamlet, the protagonist Hamlet faced many dilemmas that led to his transformation throughout the play. The people around him and the ghost of his father dramatically affect him. Seeing his father’s ghost had changed his fate and the person he had become. The path he chose after his encounter with his father’s ghost led to his death.
Throughout his years as an author, William Shakespeare wrote approximately thirty-seven plays. “Hamlet”, a play written by Shakespeare, follows a young prince of Denmark named Hamlet and his quest to redress his father’s death that occurred by the Hand of his Uncle and now step father and King Claudius. While dealing with this inward conflict of his own, he must deal with the imminent attack by the bordering Norway. William Shakespeare wrote his play “Hamlet” to assert that inner conflict portrays a causal relationship with outward conflict.
As illustrated through his speeches and soliloquies Hamlet has the mind of a true thinker. Reinacting the death of his father in front of Claudius was in itself a wonderful idea. Although he may have conceived shcemes such as this, his mind was holding him back at the same time. His need to analyze and prove everythin certain drew his time of action farther and farther away. Hamlet continuously doubted himself and whether or not the action that he wanted to take was justifiable. The visit that Hamlet recieves from his dead father makes the reader think that it is Hamlet's time to go and seek revenge. This is notthe case. Hamlet does seem eager to try and take the life of Claudius in the name of his father, but before he can do so he has a notion, what if that was not my father, but an evil apparition sending me on the wrong path? This shows that even with substantial evidence of Claudius' deeds, Hamlet's mind is not content.
In the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Hamlet the king of Denmark is murdered by his brother, Claudius, and as a ghost tells his son, Hamlet the prince of Denmark, to avenge him by killing his brother. The price Hamlet does agree to his late father’s wishes, and undertakes the responsibility of killing his uncle, Claudius. However even after swearing to his late father, and former king that he would avenge him; Hamlet for the bulk of the play takes almost no action against Claudius. Prince Hamlet in nature is a man of thought throughout the entirety of the play; even while playing mad that is obvious, and although this does seem to keep him alive, it is that same trait that also keeps him from fulfilling his father’s wish for vengeance
...m to put his life in danger to find out more information about Hamlet, which ultimately leads to his death. Claudius also planted the idea of murdering Hamlet into Laertes’ mind, and this became the main goal of Laertes towards the end, which leads him to his death. Hamlet has hurt the women that he loves, both Ophelia and Gertrude die. Claudius and Hamlet also die, which is ultimately how the corruption of the nation of Denmark ends, through this it can once again be the great nation that it once was.
The murder of King Hamlet can be seen as where it all began. The selfish decision Claudius makes to murder Hamlet’s father makes him liable for all the other tragedies that occur. The death of King Hamlet causes Hamlet to act out of character, which makes him do things he would not normally do. This leads to the deaths of Polonius and Ophelia. “Thou wreched, rash, intruding fool farewell./I took thee for thy better: Take thy fortune:/ Thou find’st to be too busy is some danger (3.4, 32 - 35) When Polonius gets caught spying on Hamlet talking to his mother, Hamlet takes a sword and stabs through the curtain and kills Polonius in hopes that it was Claudius. Hamlet would never have knowingly killed Polonius. On account of the death of Polonius, this causes Ophelia to act crazy because she misses her father. “Well good dild you! They say the owl was a baker's/ daughter. Lord, we know what we are, but know not/ what we may be. God be at your table!” (4.5, 40 - 42). Ophelia talking crazy was just the beginning of it all. The absurdity of Ophelia’s actions and talking lead to the eventual demise of her character, leading to her death(suicide). “One we do...
It is later found that old Hamlet’s death happened as the ghost says “sleeping in my orchard, a serpent stung me.” (Act1, scn5 35-36) but is later found to be false as the ghost later explains that Claudius in trying to gain the throne killed old Hamlet. Though this act may not have caused chaos on a grand scale the effects of such an act can be seen in Hamlet as he becomes heart-stricken and throughout the play very morose and depressed. Next is another act that again affects Hamlet the most and this is through Claudius marrying Gertrude to further secure his seat of power. This again not only causes sadness but anger in Hamlet, with Hamlet latter killing of Polonius being attributed to his mindset which centers on his mother marrying Claudius. Lastly, Claudius leads to the eventual death of many other for his plan of trying to kill Hamlet. This is through Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and later through Laertes and the mistaken death of Gertrude. It is through trying to escort Hamlet to England that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are escaped from by Hamlet and head to England with letters leading to their deaths. Then through Laertes, Claudius prepares a plan with a sharpened blade that’s poisoned and Claudius prepares a cup for Hamlet, also poisoned. But the plan ended up having both Laertes and the
His father was killed by Hamlet and his sister was driven insane due to the series of events that took place because of Hamlet. Like Hamlet, Laertes wants to avenge his father by killing the man who killed Polonius. As described earlier, Hamlet is slow to act. Laertes, on the other hand, acts quickly and with precision, wasting no time in acquiring his target and formulating a plan. Robert Palfrey Utter, Jr., puts it best, Hamlet and Laertes both come to the same conclusion that murder must be carried out, but Hamlet reaches that conclusion only “after he has had a few minutes to think it over.” (140) Once Laertes finds out that the man who killed his father was Hamlet he is ready to charge in and kill him as soon as possible. He is only stopped by Claudius, who advises him on a more subtle approach. Straight off the bat it is clear how efficient Laertes is compared to Hamlet. Hamlet wastes a large amount of time scheming up complex ideas on how to get a confession out of Claudius and how to kill him. Laertes on the other hand wastes no time in getting a straight and to the point plan that he can execute immediately. After spending more than half the play watching Hamlet squirm around on the stage getting almost nothing accomplished, the audience would be acutely aware of the stark difference between Hamlet and Laertes even though they share the same motivations. Laertes has his speed but he shares in Hamlets lack of critical thinking when he gets hot headed. He is in such a blind rage that he doesn’t think on what he is agreeing to do with Claudius. Just like Hamlet, his brash actions cost those around him his life. In carrying out the plan, the King, the Queen, Hamlet, and he all die to the poison that was used in the duel. Hamlet was slow and reckless while Laertes was quick and reckless. Wilds sums up the relationship between Hamlet and Laertes perfectly, “Laertes and Hamlet have been foils to each other
The perfection of Hamlet’s character has been called in question - perhaps by those who do not understand it. The character of Hamlet stands by itself. It is not a character marked by strength of will or even of passion, but by refinement of thought and sentiment. Hamlet is as little of the hero as a man can be. He is a young and princely novice, full of high enthusiasm and quick sensibility - the sport of circumstances, questioning with fortune and refining on his own feelings, and forced from his natural disposition by the strangeness of his situation.