Hamlet on Trial, I know it may seem lazy for me to choose an
appropriation we were forced to familiarize ourselves with, but in realty I
truly did think this rendition of Shakespeare’s Hamlet was intriguing. The fact
that Justice Kennedy decided to rewrite the famous, bloody tragedy that,
whether the reader liked it or not, gave absolute closure since nobody was left
alive to leave any loose end not cut in order to keep Hamlet alive and stand
trial for the act of murdering Polonius who was spying on him behind a curtain.
It amazes me how people can think of these things! It’s truly shocking to know
that people can sit down and develop an entirely new and brilliant play by
using only small excerpts and details from an impervious and all powerful classic
known as a Shakespeare drama. It reminds me of this stream that’s starts off as
a tiny tributary to a mighty river that then begins to grow and flourish into a
large and powerful river itself. Now, let me actually talk about the play.
Supreme Justice Kennedy generates this idea almost two decades ago to create a
drama based around the idea of putting Hamlet on Trial in order to both test
his insanity, which his uncle claims is true, and-if proven sane- what his
punishment should be for the killing of his beloved Ophelia’s father Polonius.
Since this is set after the tragedy came to an end, Kennedy added his own
little artistic addition and- through a newspaper article- brought Hamlet back
to life by claiming the poison did not kill him. Obviously this is ludicrous,
but for the setting to be exactly like the one in Kennedy’s head, it must be
done and accepted by the audience of the house. The trial itself consists of
real judges and lawyers all basing their cases off of the words that Hamlet
speaks throughout the drama, tying in many elements of the original
Shakespearean masterpiece. For an added flair, the jury is tied at six to six,
which I personally think is comical. I don’t know why I just feel that with all
of this work and risk taking Kennedy took in making this corollary to the
tragedy that it ends in a stalemate. However, according to the play writer,
this is extremely crucial to the meaning. In my opinion, the whole trial can be
roughly compared to the literary world. The lawyers are the Shakespearean
“experts” attempting, and I mean attempting, to proclaim to the jury, or the
literate population, how Shakespeare really created Hamlet. The lawyers used
direct quotations from Hamlet’s speech in the play in order to reinforce their
own argument for or against his sanity, and this whole debacle between the two
sides is almost futile because in the end the literary world will never be able
to decide which side is correct. It may be a stretch, I don’t know, so I will
attempt to back my theory with some direct quotations! Relating to the jury
ending, Kennedy states that, “If the jury is divided, the enigma remains in us and with us.
And I hope what the audience will take away is that there's richness in our
literature, there's a richness in our heritage…” I believe that Kennedy is
trying to say that since there is no unanimous decision relating towards any of
Shakespeare’s true intentions, that the problem and adventures that come from
this eternal conundrum is what makes Shakespeare so eternal and so important to
our modern culture. I feel that it is crucial to say that a major reason
Kennedy created this play was to promote more Shakespeare into the lives of the
youth. When interviewed, one of the lawyers stated, “We are, in fact, using the
same words, which is both the genius of Shakespeare and the genius of the
dilemma of Hamlet. I mean, the same words that I am sure that the expert that
the prosecution is going to call is going to be the words that our expert
calls, and therein lies both the challenge and the adventure here.” Personally,
I believe that because the lawyers are using the same language because they are
just speaking the embodiment of their argument as though it was in academic
writing. Clearly, all academic writing relies on facts, and in most cases the
facts of literary academic writing is solely direct quotations.
Link to a website for a PBS report:
What do you think of Justice Kennedy's claim (echoed almost verbatim by ART director Diane Paulus speaking about her disco adaptation of Midsummer Night's Dream) that his project will make Shakespeare newly accessible to new audiences, folks who might not have been interested in Shakespeare before? 1) Will this work? 2) is it worth doing, and if so, why? (You don't have to answer, just something to think about.)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that his claim is probable and valid; however, I believe that he has this exaggerated glorification in regards to how effective this adaptation will be. I think it will work, just not to a great or even visible extent, which in my opinion should be considered a victory. I think it is worth trying because every little effort towards this goal is beneficial whether it is successful or not.
ReplyDelete