Synaptic

The assignment asks students to consider Shakespeare’s plays as scripts meant for performance; therefore, an informed understanding of how scenes work is dependent on what is theatrically intelligible. K.E. Daft’s witty essay on the selective invisibility of the ghost in the closet scene considers the implications of the textual and stage direction problems for Hamlet’s ultimate tragedy. Her solution is informed by a capacious look into conteporary performances and first-hand responses of both professional reviewers and amateur theatergoers.

-Walter Cannon

---

Part I: A Haunting Problem

In Act III Scene iv of Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark,” there exists ambiguity regarding the proper way to portray the presence of the ghost. In much the same way as it is throughout the rest of the play, in this scene it is unclear whether or not the ghost is real and simply being ignored by Gertrude, or if it doesn’t exist outside of the mind of Hamlet. The stage directions for this scene (provided by editors Evans and Tobin) would seem to indicate that the ghost is present for the scene; however, Gertrude’s response is to the contrary of this notion and, indeed, many directors of both film and stage have chosen to cut the ghost from this scene of the production altogether.

Whether or not the ghost is visible to other parties – specifically to Hamlet’s mother – gives a lot of insight into Hamlet’s sanity in the show. If the ghost truly is invisible to Hamlet’s mother, he is not simply feigning madness, as he asserts; but, rather, is legitimately mad. This means, then, that Hamlet is not in control of his actions throughout the show, and thus cannot be manipulating the other characters into doing his bidding. If Gertrude is ignoring the ghost, however, it reveals Hamlet to be a sane character and instead presents the question of why Gertrude refuses to acknowledge the ghost’s existence. If this latter situation proves true, the assumption can be made that Gertrude’s refusal to admit to seeing the ghost stems from her guilty conscience regarding her hasty remarriage or – perhaps – complicity in her late husband’s murder.

Two important factors exist for developing Hamlet’s mental state within this scene: the existence (or lack thereof) of a physical presence to play the ghost and Gertrude’s reaction to Hamlet’s conversation with said ghost. On a stage, much of the interpretation of Hamlet’s mental state will depend upon whether an actor is cast to play the ghost, whether the ghost is onstage during its conversations with Hamlet, or whether the ghost is included in the production at all. Gertrude’s acting in this scene will also give a large indication as to how the audience is supposed to see Hamlet. If she appears to legitimately not see the ghost, it is safe for the audience to assume that he is in madness; however, if her body language and voice betray her and reveal to the audience that she does, indeed, see the ghost in her closet, this scene discloses just as much about Gertrude’s character and mental state as it does Hamlet’s.

Part II: Hamlet in Madness and Onstage

In Pendleton’s Hamlet (presented by the Classic Stage company in April of 2015 and played by Peter Saarsgard), the character of the ghost and all of its lines were completely removed from the storyline. The effect of this omission is stated rather pithily by Charles Isherwood in his review of the production, in which he asserts, “The decision to excise the ghost of Hamlet’s father from the production… points to the possibility that Hamlet’s pursuit of vengeance may stem from his own psychological problems. Perhaps Hamlet conjured the ghost himself as a pretext for working out his mommy and stepdaddy issues?” (1). The choice to expurgate the ghost and its lines from the play clearly indicates that Saarsgard’s Hamlet is not merely “mad in craft” as he avows; but, rather, that he is experiencing severe and uncontrollable mental health issues and that his erratic actions are not simply an act for the benefit of his uncle (3.4.188).

Ian Rickson developed a more straightforward approach to Hamlet’s sanity (or, in this case, lack thereof) in his 2011 production of Hamlet with his decision to set the play in an insane asylum. Posing Claudius as the institution’s senior consultant and establishing that all the other individuals within the asylum – including the other characters that saw the supposed ghost – are mad explains the reasoning behind Gertrude’s inability to perceive the ghost in this scene: it simply doesn’t exist. The character of Hamlet’s father was not cut from the production, however, though the way in which it was portrayed was very unusual. Michael Sheen, the actor portraying Hamlet in Rickson’s production, also played the role of Hamlet’s deceased father (and Fortinbras, at the end of the production) – very visibly depicting Hamlet as having split personalities and thus as being very mentally unstable. As stated by reviewer Andrew Billen, “[Hamlet] is…stark raving bonkers. We know this not only because he is in the bin but because he haunts himself. His father’s first apparition is announced by a total blackout. When the ghost returns, it turns out to be Hamlet in his father’s overcoat and stentorian voice,” going on to say that, “The boy has multiple personality disorder” (2). The effect of this is a complete revamping and simplification of the character of Hamlet. By establishing his insanity in this manner, it removes the ability of the audience to draw their own conclusions, and makes for a very black and white reading of Hamlet’s character and his motivation in the production.

While these two stage productions centered very much upon Hamlet and his mental instability in the infamous closet scene, Nicholas Hytner’s Hamlet (wherein Hamlet is portrayed by Rory Kinnear) takes this scene in an entirely different and compelling direction. In Hytner’s production, originally staged in January of 2011 at the National Theatre in London (and later broadcast at a movie theatre in New York as a component of the National Theatre Live series), the acting is such that the audience can infer “that Gertrude has (contrary to the usual interpretation) seen the same ghost that Hamlet sees, though she may deny it” (Brantley 2). Staging the production in this manner not only confirms Hamlet’s sanity, but also brings into question the reason for Gertrude’s denial. By confirming Hamlet’s sanity, though, this production also establishes for the viewer that all of Hamlet’s interactions with Polonius in which Hamlet tries his best to appear insane are just pretenses, as Ben Brantley of the New York Times alludes to when he says that Kinnear’s delivery of the “Words, words, words” line “sounded just how someone would sound were he trying to convince somebody else that he was out of his mind” (Shakespeare 2.2.192, Brantley 1). Staging the play in this manner gives Hamlet much more control over the proceedings in the body of the play, giving his lines intentionality and, thus, greater power and resonance.

Part III: The Apparition of a Solution

Since the stage directions clearly indicate the entrance of the ghost – “ENTER GHOST [in his night-gown]” – I couldn’t find justification in not casting an actor to play the deceased King Hamlet or in manufacturing the scene in an attempt to convince the audience of the young Hamlet’s faltering sanity, because I do not believe Hamlet to be mad (3.4.101- 102). In his dealings with Polonius, Hamlet certainly appears to be mad, but in his interactions with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, calculated statements such as “You were sent for, and there is a kind of confession in your looks, which your modesties have not craft enough to color. I know the good King and Queen have sent for you” and “I will tell you why, so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the King and Queen moult no feather” would seem to indicate to me that the Prince Hamlet is fully in charge of his faculties and is simply feigning madness to those in positions above him in order to buy himself time to plan Claudius’ murder free from suspicion (2.2.278-281, 2.2.293-295).

This conversation with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, in conjunction with the fact that the soldiers on watch duty at the inception of the play see the ghost – evident in lines such as “The apparition comes. I knew your father” – substantiates, in my mind, the idea that Hamlet is in possession of his sanity (1.2.211). Based upon the reactions of the guards to the ghost and their ability to consistently perceive its presence, the assumption can be made that the ghost is real and visible to all those on stage, but that Gertrude is intentionally ignoring its presence in the closet scene. Thus, a large part of ensuring the coherence of the scene relies upon the acting skill of Gertrude. Her reaction to the ghost in this scene needs to be visceral and unmistakable in order to relate to the audience that she has, in fact, seen the ghost, but is making the conscious decision to underplay its presence in an attempt to assuage and conceal her guilty conscience.

To accomplish this, I would place the ghost downstage and to the right of Hamlet and Gertrude with its back facing the audience on the diagonal. Furthermore, I would place the Queen and Hamlet kneeling on the floor, upstage left, somewhat heaped together from the physical scuffle that had just occurred between the two. Nothing in Shakespeare’s staging conditions or within the script would seem to indicate the existence of a bed in this scene, so I feel no need to unnecessarily play up the Freudian implications of this scene with its inclusion. By placing mother and son on the floor and the ghost in the opposite direction, it allows for a clear line of sight to be drawn between Gertrude and the late King. The effect of this, of course, is that the location of the ghost is so clearly out of what would be a natural line of sight for the Queen as to make her recognition of the ghost unmistakable. Having the ghost standing also gives it a touch of otherwise-nonexistent menace and authority in the scene. Putting the ghost in a position above Gertrude and establishing her ability to see it also means establishing its knowledge of her actions as well as her knowledge that her actions have been – and continue to be – seen and judged from beyond her late husband’s grave.

Part IV: The Spirit of the Matter

The interpretation of Hamlet’s mental state in this scene is absolutely essential for developing an understanding of Hamlet’s character and for informing the production of the play as a whole. As this interaction with Gertrude is the first time that someone has challenged the seeing of the ghost, the way in which Gertrude either reacts to or fails to react to the ghost reveals to the audience the degree to which Hamlet is insane (if at all) and her knowledge of the means behind her late husband’s death, if such knowledge exists. Either way, this scene’s establishment of Hamlet’s mental state has the responsibility to dictate the way in which all of Hamlet’s lines are performed up to this point, as well as to influence the way in which Hamlet takes action after this pivotal moment, and the way in which the audience will view Hamlet from this point forth. For these very reasons, it is important that the acting and directorial choices regarding this scene and the presence of the ghost be made carefully and thoughtfully in order to clearly communicate what the director sees as being Shakespeare’s authorial intent.

Works Cited

Billen, Andrew. “Into the Madness.” Rev. of Hamlet, dir. Ian Rickson. New Statesman 11 Nov. 2011.

Brantley, Ben. “On the Stage, Old Words are Reborn: [The Arts/Cultural Desk].” Rev. of Hamlet, dir. Nicholas Hytner. New York Times 1 Jan. 2011, pp. 1-4.

Isherwood, Charles. “That After-Party at Elsinore? It Got Completely Out of Hand: [Review].” Rev. of Hamlet, dir. Austin Pendleton. New York Times 17 Apr. 2015, pp. 7-9.

Shakespeare, William. “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.” The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. Herschel Baker, Anne Barton, Frank Kermode, Harry Levin, Hallett Smith, Marie Edel. 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, pp. 1189-1245.