Polonius's Insanity In Hamlet

When it comes to Shakespeare's Hamlet, the debate about Hamlet’s sanity is constant. When only using the text, the argument is ceaseless. Nothing points directly to either side since the reader can see no emotion, no emphasis, no expressions. They have nothing but a monotone dialogue. Rather, the answer to Hamlet’s insanity varies with each performance.

The first scene to question Hamlet's sanity is in Act 2 Scene 2, when Polonius speaks to Hamlet and tries to discover the meaning of Hamlet's madness, if it is even that. In the 1996 adaptation of Hamlet, from director Kenneth Branagh, we see Hamlet glancing at the king speaking to Polonius just before Polonius approaches Hamlet.. As he comes up the stairs Hamlet jumps around the corner wearing

a skull mask on to scare him. This is clearly planned as we are shown that he knows what is happening. As he and Polonius begin talking he jumps the emotions around, trying to solidify the idea that he is crazy. This is seen particularly when he makes strange faces and noises on the third “word” and “life”. These actions are only kept up until Polonius leaves to go back to the castle. The second his back is turned his face emotions drop and he immediately seems irritated by having spoken to Polonius. This indicates that Hamlet is still entirely sane, for him to be able to be able to go from “crazy” to normal so fast, the crazy must have been an act. The 2000 adaptation from Director Campbell Scott shows Hamlet differently. He seems like his mind is off in another world, like he’s not really there. Throughout the conversation he seems mildly sporadic, flipping through a book rapidly then ripping it apart, seeming excited then unamused with the conversation. As he leaves, he sings “except my life” then spits “Tedious old fools!” kin to the way a toddler would shout “Meanie!”. The idea of Hamlet being crazy doesn’t drop just because he isn’t facing Polonius, giving the scene a context not received in the original text.
A second scene that will make people question his sanity is also in Act 2 Scene 2 when Hamlet welcomes the players. In Hamlet (1996) before he goes to greet the players he is walking with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern when Polonius comes around the corner and approaches them. At that Hamlet goes from not only talking loud and fast but dragging them away then putting on a big show of acting as though they had been talking about some great news. He rushed over, shouting “BUZZ BUZZ!” Then throwing an arm around Polonius, listening to what he said then dragging him along. After they went down to the players his antics shift. He goes from being “crazy” to a normal host, exuberantly welcoming them and talking to them. He asks for them to give one of the speeches from a play and even proceeds to do part of it for the players. In Hamlet (2000) its rather the opposite. He seems much calmer, but acts much jumpier, spinning around when Polonius approaches. As he talks to the players he loses his calmness and starts jumping around, patting their arms excitedly. As he tells of a speech for the players to give he trails off, seeming lost momentarily before jumping back to where he was. As the player begins his speech Hamlet drops to the floor, sitting down and starting to scoot around throughout the speech, something unscripted in the original play and only to be attributed to decisions from the actor and director . If Hamlet was sane he would have at least stood like 1996 Hamlet rather than stay in the floor like a child.
A third scene in which Hamlet’s sanity can be questioned is in Act 3 Scene 1.

When Hamlet has his famous monologue of “To be or not to be”. The actor can take this from a scene of a sane man’s musing to an insane man’s rambling. In Hamlet (1996) Hamlet approached a mirror, looking to himself as he speaks. He stays calm and level headed through the scene, the only abnormality is that he holds a rapier as he looks in the mirror. Beyond this, there is no suggestions to Hamlet having lost any of his sanity. However, Hamlet (2000), portrays Hamlet in an entirely different light. Hamlet is shown reading a book, then in a sudden fit ripping pages and throwing it. He throws his glasses at a table and the glass cracks. He stares at them for a minute before picking a shard up, tasting it, then proceeding to cut himself twice in his arm. After this he falls to the ground and starts his monologue. He gets random bursts of passion, twice seeming on the verge of tears, and eventually rises. This isn’t something of a sane person. Especially when he cut himself since this is rather a sign looked for to identify people who need mental help. Again, in both scenarios the actions produced by the actors we not dictated by Shakespeare, they were put in place by the actor and director to give a certain edge of sanity or insanity to Hamlet and make him a more dynamic

character.
Another scene that raises the question directly follows the monologue, also in Act 3 Scene 1. This is when Ophelia is arranged to meet Hamlet for the first time since her father, Polonius, forbade it as him and the King listen. In Hamlet (1996) Hamlet uses predominate emotion of anger, letting it drop long enough to bring up tears then returning right back to it. He grabs Ophelia and yanks her around the room, dragging her along and eventually shoving her against the two way mirror Polonius and the King are behind. The only clear indicator that he is sane in this scene is that he doesn’t hurt Ophelia. With the force he is using it is clear that, if he wanted to, he could easily hurt Ophelia. And, with as hurt as Hamlet seemed about it would have made sense for him to have done so. But, he restrained himself so she underwent no physical harm. This is something he couldn’t have done had he not been sane. In Hamlet (2000), Hamlet is a disheveled mess from the moment he enters. There's a play crown on his arm, he’s wearing no shoes, and his clothes are messed up. As he enters, he barely whispers an acknowledgment of Ophelia being there, it takes but a few minutes for him to go from uncaring talking about how he no longer loves her, then immediately to kissing. And even so, the kissing doesn’t last long till he throws her off, becoming angry. He makes a point of wiping her makeup off and mocking her of its falsehood before leaving. He changes his mood seamlessly, the jumping natural and giving a sense of Hamlet's insanity. Both scenes draw their contrast in their Hamlet portrayal by exploiting the unwritten directions in the scene. They take the empty words and put life into them, dictating the sanity through actions and tone.
A final scene that makes his sanity a question is in Act 3 Scene 4.

This is when Hamlet goes and talks to his mother in her bedroom. In Hamlet (1996) Hamlet enters the chambers and immediately an argument starts between him and his mother. During this he has no problems yelling at her and forcing her into a chair. As they talk he hears Polonius behind the curtains and stabs him without seeing him. He doesn’t know that it’s not the King till he falls dead and they see his face. Hamlet appears to have slight remorse, which only stays visible till he sees his mother is nervous. After this he throws her onto the bed and goes across the room, grabbing pictures of the current and old kind and coming up, throwing himself around her and forcing her to look at the pictures then throwing her back again. After this he yells at her until the ghost of his father shows up. When he does Hamlet stops, calming talking to the ghost and seeming slightly in awe. When the ghost leaves Hamlet finishes the conversation with his mother then leaves, taking Polonius’s body with him as he goes. Hamlet is clearly still sane in this scene. As in the scene with Ophelia, Hamlet makes it clear that he is in control. He throws her around and drags her as well, but never hurts her. Had he not been in control of himself he wouldn’t have had the ability to restrain enough to keep her safe. In this rendition we see the anger drawing a contrast from the lifeless words original written and from the idea of

insanity. In Hamlet (2000), Hamlet enters already looking like a sick mess. He keeps the conversation calm, only touching the queen to get her to sit and to keep her from smacking him. When he hears Polonius in the curtains he stabs him, but fails to kill him the first time. Polonius reaches out to grab Hamlet and shove him away. In this rendition the King is white, but Polonius is black, so when he saw the hand he should have known it was not the king and he shouldn’t kill him, but rather he continues to stab him afterwards until he is absolutely dead. After this he shows the Queen the pictures, seeming distraught the whole time. Midway through talking Polonius stands again, coated in blood. Hamlet isn’t concerned until the body drops and the ghost of his father is behind him. He scrambles back and smashes into the fireplace, knocking a table over with him. He seems like a cornered animal the whole time, frantic and on edge. After this he speaks to his mother once more then drags Polonius’s body away. This scene clearly indicated his lunacy. Not only did Hamlet have no regard for the fact that the person he was stabbing was innocent and not who he want to kill, but he was careless when the lifeless body was standing, only troubled by the ghost of his father. Any sane person would have stopped stabbing someone if they found they were innocent and would have been beyond bothered by a dead body standing. This helps to push the idea of his insanity in a way that, again, abuses the ability to add the actions of the characters however they want since the only stage directions tend to be “enter” and “exit”.
In Hamlet, there are many scenes that are incredibly flexible. Depending on the performers they can make Hamlet a lunatic that’s off his rocker, or a calm collected genius plotting revenge. This can be seen from the differences in each rendition, such as angrily dragging Ophelia to being a shaky, mood shifting lunatic wiping at her makeup; or the difference between accidentally killing a Polonius in place of the King to knowing that this is not the King and going through with the act anyways. These examples and the entirety of the play are dependant upon the actors and the directors making the decisions on the tone; the actions; the setting; and what is and isn’t revealed. The power is not in the play; rather, it is in the people performing it.