Question Two: What is the difference between behavior and character?
We now move on to another case as ambiguous as Hamlet's.
LAERTES, son to Polonius
While he is away, his father is killed, and afterwards the death is hushed up, and not treated with the honor and attention Laertes feels his father deserved. He can plainly see that something is going very wrong in the kingdom, and vows vengeance at any cost, to find the person responsible and do whatever is necessary, up to and including sacrificing his own salvation, to see that what's right is done.
The twist here is that the man responsible is, of course, Hamlet, and the reason his father was killed was that the same thing happened already. Can you imagine if Laertes accidentally slew a third young man's dad, and required another vendetta on top of everything else?
 |
| "Just kill me." "I am killing you." image copyright Warner Home Entertainment |
Why, in short, with the same problem to solve as Hamlet, does Laertes not act the way that Hamlet acts?
Not once but twice in the play (both in the last scene, Act V, Scene ii), Hamlet points out their similarities and differences, and the unfortunate nature of the circumstances that compel them to be enemies, and ultimately one another's cause of death (unless you count Claudius, of course).
When I think of Laertes, I think of Billy Costigan from The Departed (2006). Here's a kid who's hell bent on doing the right thing, unaware of the encircling ironies of the plot towards which he's winding himself further and further towards the center. He winds up losing everything and accomplishing -- what? Everything or nothing, depending on how you look at it.
Going somewhat out of order, I'll next address
VOLTEMAND, a courtier,
CORNELIUS, a courtier,
OSRIC, a courtier, and
GENTLEMAN, a courtier
at the same time.
 |
"Your inside is out, and your outside is in
Your outside is in, and your inside is out"
image copyright Home Box Office (HBO)
|
They would do anything for the King, for the Crown, for Denmark. Anything at all, that is, that will tend to their greater advancement and advantage.
They're possibly the most straightforward example of two-facedness in the story, as they're a class we meet and deal with every day: those who pretend to be our friends so that they
They're also largely the men who advance the peripheral plot of the story: encouraging Claudius in his glory, carrying messages to and from their rival kingdom Norway, which are little heeded, and unwittingly helping choreograph their court's ultimate downfall.
How do we know they aren't really devoted to the crown, to the well being of the kingdom?
How quickly did they abandon the memory of the old king in favor of the new one, as soon as they saw who would be able to do the most for them?
But they're understandable enough. What's worse is when it's someone you thought you could trust,
ROSENCRANTZ & GUILDENSTERN, courtiers
Consider Horatio compared to these two. We first meet them in council with the King and Queen, who have summoned and are hiring them to spy on Hamlet, their friend, in order for the King and Queen (read: just the King) to figure out what's really going on, and whether Hamlet is a threat.
 |
"Is it possible, even conceivable, that you've confused me with that gang of backward children you play tricks on, that you have the same contempt for me as you have for them?" -Addison DeWitt, All About Eve (1950)
image copyright Twentieth Century Fox
|
The moment they see themselves on the fast track to the favor of the King and Queen, and all the good that can do for them personally, they plunge into the royal service until it's far, far over their heads.
Hamlet suspects them from the first, and is only barely able to pry the truth out of them, in their first interview, by a direct appeal to their love as his friends. They reluctantly confess that they were sent for, and from this point on Hamlet refuses to trust them. Their friendship does not improve.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are curious characters. More than the other courtiers they become the King's personal gofers, ultimately helping carry Hamlet off to attempted execution at the hands of the court of England. The tables are turned on them, and they are killed off stage almost as an afterthought.
They seem to exist solely to deepen the impression that everyone Hamlet knows is against him, and every social interaction is a two-sided affair.
Then come three worthy enough fellows,
MARCELLUS, an officer
BARNARDO, an officer
FRANCISCO, a soldier
Their time on stage is brief, and they could be considered offshoots of Horatio's trustworthiness; existing primarily to both ground and buoy the early scenes and the revelation of the Ghost.
 |
| You don't have to be big or important to do big important work in a story.image copyright Disney/Pixar |
Two points worth noting however: first, as noted in the previous post, the point these characters exist in order to bring to life, namely the existence and testimony of the Ghost, is by the end of the play no longer a settled matter, and like everything else has been turned inside out and questioned as thoroughly as it was originally made solid and understandable by their initial testimony
Second, as soon as the Ghost is heard and departs, and their job in the story is completed, Hamlet commands them to swear by his sword never to reveal what they have there seen and heard: in effect, he is ordering them to disobey their orders to the crown to be vigilant and to report what they see to the other guards and the crown. It has little enough to do with the rest of the story at first glance, but consider: if these guards had gone to Claudius and not Horatio, or Hamlet, with the news of the ghost of the king that is dead at the play's start, things would have worked out differently indeed...
To work through small parts with some brevity (sorry no pictures):
REYNALDO, servant to Polonius
He listens to the old counselor's instructions carefully, but seems to feel the old man is a little off. These instructions? To tell everyone he meets that Laertes is a lousy guy (drinks too much, hunts too much, loses money gambling, goes to brothels) in order to be contradicted or agreed with. Use lies to find the truth. How well do you think that goes for Laertes?
Then there's
FORTINBRAS, Prince of Norway
He claims to be leading his troops peacefully through Denmark in order to get somewhere else. Claudius buys it, and raises no objection (he's too busy to read the letter from the King of Norway in full, instead he promises the messengers that they'll feast together later that night), and Fortinbras promptly invades and takes the kingdom over.
Hamlet asks the
NORWEGIAN CAPTAIN
where all these soldiers are going: the captain tells him everything about their plans, fighting over a small patch of land that's not worth the struggle, without revealing the truth: Denmark, namely Elsinore castle. Hamlet is encouraged by the mental image of soldiers marching boldly to die for a patch of land not big enough to house them all were it their graveyard, and resolves to make his revenge no matter what (he then gets on a ship to sail to another country).
Then there's a
DOCTOR OF DIVINITY
He might be hard to remember, he argues with Laertes over his sister's grave, insisting that it would be immoral to do anything further to consecrate her grave. This essentially denies her Christian salvation, at least in part, because she was so grieved by her father's death that she went nuts, then died accidentally, maybe, by falling into water and not swimming out. I leave this to your interpretation; but aren't mercy or pity parts of the ethos of following Christ? Oh well.
Once again I'm out of time on this post!
To be concluded in part three of this point, I suppose. Series within series within series...
Thanks for reading as always.
No comments:
Post a Comment