2. Performances
“Ophelia’s
Mad Scene.” YouTube, uploaded by @shakeoutloud, 4 Dec. 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uet1OaTal5Q.
In the Kenneth Branagh Hamlet,
Ophelia is portrayed grappling with a flabbergasted Claudius as she screams
seemingly nonsense phrases. Dressed in a dingy sack-like dress, she falls to
the floor, evades Gertrude’s ministrations, and then runs away before the King
can catch her.
Having been obedient to father,
King, brother, and lover for most of the play, this “mad” scene displays
Ophelia in open revolt, disdaining Claudius’ authority and undermining the seat
of his power in true carnival fashion. This scene—portraying the generally weak
Ophelia successfully escaping the King’s attempts to subdue her—shows how a certain
brand of carnivalesque lunacy incapacitates figures of authority in Shakespeare’s
Hamlet.
“Knock,
Knock! The Porter, from Macbeth (2010).” YouTube, uploaded by @Paul
Salahuddin Armstrong, 12 May 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb6HFQPcEes
In this scene from the 2010 Patrick
Stewart Macbeth, the porter muses sullenly on the incessant knocking that his
roused him from his drunken stupor. Besides throwing around the name of the
devil fairly lightly, the porter’s lack of haste in answering the summons of
whatever important person happens to be knocking (Macduff, in this case), is a
sort of rebellion. His mutterings seem to be nonsense, but despite his
crudeness, the porter feels far more in control than any of the other
characters.
In my paper, I would comment on how carnival
elements—such as whatever spirits the porter may have imbibed—are always shown
in conjunction with a revolt against authority, demonstrating how Shakespeare
uses the carnivalesque to create a shadowland in which social hierarchy no
longer applies.
4. Social Sources
Peer/Enthusiast
@burdenedwithgloriousporpoise
This person moderates a forum on
fanfiction.com about Hamlet. According to her bio, she’s also on Twitter. In
one post, she argues that Hamlet is feigning madness initially, but gradually,
upon realizing the true insanity of human nature, becomes a shell of himself as
he descends into real lunacy. This, according to her, is why the viewer can
relate to the Hamlet from Acts 1-3, but the Hamlet from Acts 4 and 5 feels
completely different.
I have messaged her, asking whether
or not Hamlet’s madness, if feigned initially, could possibly be a way of
revolting against authority. Depending on how she replies, I may adjust my
interpretation of Hamlet’s lunacy as a carnivalesque element used to undermine
Claudius’ authority.
Expert
Professor David Wiles, Professor of
Drama at Exeter University
Dr. Wiles wrote “The Carnivalesque
in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” in which he argues that Bakhtin’s carnival
theories are best understood in a Utopian sense within the context of
Shakespeare, meaning that they were embraced by aristocracy and commoner alike
as a means of growing closer to the gods. He bases this argument on the timing
of the play in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” and the fact that’s it’s attended by
nobles and peasants.
I emailed him, asking whether it
could be possible that the aristocracy liked carnival because it supported
their hierarchy. Small rebellions, harmless carnival moments, really support
the system of oppression because they make said system into a fact of
existence. Where is the boundary between carnival elements that support the
hierarchy and elements that support open rebellion? And which one is
Shakespeare supporting in his works? He answered that carnival elements can do both, depending on the circumstance. I am going to argue that this in itself is an example of the lack of any one right answer that carnival elements introduce.
No comments:
Post a Comment