olivier's preface

In III.i Ophelia says it is "twice 2 months" since King Hamlet died, (4 months). After that, Hamlet leaves for England (-slash- his supposed death), returns, stays in Elsinore a while, and finally the duel happens.

Your third sentence is where we differ in opinion. You think he is trying to justify killing Claudius, while I think he is simply avoiding. At first he believes the ghost, and does nothing. Then the players come, and he is struck with the idea that the ghost could be the devil masquerading as his father, so he decides to test his uncle with the play-within-the-play. Once he is convinced Claudius did indeed murder King Hamlet, he again has the opportunity to kill him, but convinces himself not to. He then think he kills Claudius in his mother's bedroom (which, by the way, he can only do because he is behind a curtain, so he doesn't have to see the deed) and in fact he has only killed the meddling Polonius. He then does nothing to further his revenge until the end of the play.

I do agree with you that Hamlet thinks too much. Laertes, who does not think (and has no soliloquies or long speeches at all) has no qualms about revenge, while Hamlet takes the time to think about everything he does and scares himself out of doing anything.

I am not saying that you are WRONG, I am saying that we differ in opinion about who Hamlet is and why he does (or doesn't do) everything he does in the play. If we were to direct the play at theatres right next to each other, audiences could see yours, then mine, and have an interesting discussion about the two interpretations. There are countless analyses of Hamlet. Yours is yours, mine is mine. Neither is right, neither is wrong. That's whats so great about literature.

[deleted]

Speaking as a longtime admirer of both Laurence Olivier and his film version of "Hamlet", I think that Olivier's preface - whether or not anyone agrees with its thesis that 'this is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind' - was a mistake, because it's telling the audience what to think about Hamlet before they've even seen the play. And I doubt that Hamlet's character can be summarised in just fourteen words. In fact, I think that the film's entire prologue - with the speech 'So oft it chances' being read (not acted) on the soundtrack while the words appear on the screen, and with its travelling-shot of the dead body of Hamlet resting on the shoulders of four soldiers (which would alert any viewer unfamiliar with the play to the ultimate outcome for the protagonist) - was a serious mistake. It would be far more effective, after a few scene-setting shots of nighttime Elsinore, to go straight into the start of the play, to Barnardo and Francisco on the castle ramparts, and to the play's first words 'Who's there?', as Shakespeare himself does - he doesn't use a Chorus - and leave the audience to form their own opinions.

As for the reason/s why Hamlet takes so long to avenge himself on his father's murderer, we need to know that Shakespeare did not invent this story. Amleth (sic) was the hero of a legendary tale recorded by the 12th-13th Century Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus in his book "Deeds of the Danes". Amleth's uncle Feng openly kills his own brother Horwendil (Amleth's father), his co-ruler in Jutland, seizes the throne for himself alone, and marries his brother's widow Gerutha (Amleth's mother and Feng's sister-in-law), which was apparently regarded as incest even in pagan Jutland. Everyone knows about Feng's guilt. However, in pagan Nordic blood-feud custom the murder must be avenged not by society but by the victim's male relatives - or his sole male relative. And that's Amleth, since Feng is inevitably excluded as the murderer of his own brother. To avoid the same fate as his father, Amleth pretends to be mad so that his uncle will not consider him to be any real threat. It takes a long time - well over a year - before Amleth finally has the opportunity to kill his uncle.

An English play of "Hamlet" (possibly written by Thomas Kyd, but now apparently lost) already existed by 1589. In that work the ghost of Hamlet's father incited Hamlet to revenge. (There was no ghost in Saxo's account.) This device is also in Shakespeare's play of c1600. In contrast to the original story, no living person knows about the guilt of Hamlet's uncle except the murderer himself until the Ghost reveals it to Hamlet. Saxo's Amleth can kill his uncle and have the killing accepted by society as just retribution. But Shakespeare's Hamlet can't - he would appear to be murdering an innocent man. (That is what makes this Renaissance play so much more complex and subtle than the crude Dark Ages saga from which it is ultimately derived.)

In a Christian culture which incorporated elements of Roman law, like 16th and 17th Century Western Europe, what would happen to Hamlet if he did kill his apparently-innocent uncle? He would be seen as a murderer, not as a just avenger. Would he be executed? Locked up in a prison or a madhouse for the rest of his life? Compelled to watch someone else - perhaps the foreigner Fortinbras - elected as king by the Danish Council? The Ghost has placed a terrible burden on Hamlet, one that could shortly lead to the end of his own young life. No wonder he delays his revenge for as long as possible, even if he isn't fully conscious of his underlying motives for doing so. The longer Hamlet delays, the longer he may have to live. And so it proves to be. (Nobody was ever on the horns of a greater dilemma. Ask yourself what you would do if you were in his place.)

It is, in fact, much easier to understand why this Hamlet procrastinates than it is to understand why he pretends to be mad. Saxo's Amleth had to protect himself against his murderous uncle. Shakespeare's Hamlet has no such need. However, the pretended madness was an integral part of the original story, and Shakespeare, for that reason, retained it.

But there is an interesting precedent in one of Shakespeare's own early plays, "Titus Andronicus". Titus pretends to have been driven mad, largely as an outlet for the enormous emotional distress that he suffers as a result of the tragic and traumatic events in his life. Hamlet could have the same reason. He is deeply disturbed by the Ghost's revelations. Pretending to be mad may enable him to endure the otherwise unendurable.