www.slate.com:...what if our mental image of Hamlet is wrong? What if the grieving, vengeful prince is actually fat? Just because you’ve never considered the possibility doesn’t mean that Shakespeare scholars haven’t argued about it, just one front in a centuries-old debate about how you determine meaning in Shakespeare’s plays.
19 comments:
It is highly likely that if Hamlet were to be a real person and a prince, he would have been fat. Being plump showed to the world that you had enough money to eat well, and princes generally liked to show off their wealth. Just because for a modern eye it may seem ‘weird’ for a prince to be fat does not mean it would have been. From what I know about actors in the time the play was produced, they would not have been wealthy people, so they would have likely been thinner. Its possible its because I don’t have a concrete image of what a ‘Hamlet’ should look like, but I just don't see the big deal. I get a little confused when people who love shakespeare and other plays that portray a certain era in history get all up in arms when historical points are brought out that may offend their modern eye.
I definitely wouldn’t be surprised if Hamlet is fat considering his social status and wealth. An important point that this article brought up is “why we assume—or even need—Hamlet to be thin.” I think it is understandable to assume that Hamlet is thin since most protagonists in pretty much every story we read/watch/see is thin. However, I don’t see why audiences need Hamlet to be thin - it is important to distinguish theatre from other forms of entertainment such as pop artists. Actors of plays don't necessarily have to be good looking, slim, tall, or whatever standards there are today. This might be a bit of a stretch but imagine a young handsome man played King Lear - the play would’ve lost its point.
I thought this was an interesting analysis of the difference in word meanings between the way they were used in Shakespeare's time and the modern meanings. It was interesting to see the different possibilities for Hamlet being fat vs. not being fat, no matter how tenuous the reasoning. However, entomology aside, I don't really understand why it matters. Would Hamlet being a few more pounds heavier than we imagine him to be actually change any important themes of the play? After all, we're not even sure of his real age, which I think is much more integral to the plot than what he looks like. Beyond that, every actor playing Hamlet-- or any other role for that matter-- will bring a slightly different twist on the character.
I think the actual point of the article was just to discuss Shakespearean language vs. modern language and explore some possible alternate meanings for a word we automatically have a modern association with, but I think it's also worth mentioning that sometimes semantics can interfere with the actual goal of the play and the expression of important themes.
As mentioned in this analysis, Caesar calls Cassius "too skinny to be trusted" and he also has an entire speech praising the virtues of men with a little more weight. "Let me have about me men that are fat" he says and he most certainly keeps company with Brutus. So if the question of whether Hamlet was fat or not is looked at from the stance that the actor was also playing Brutus at the time, it is more than possible.
Although the idea of a fat Hamlet would be an interesting take on the character, especially since we have such an ingrained idea of what Hamlet "should" look like, I think the bigger point of this article is about how many different ways people can interpret Shakespeare. It's one of the things I love so much about Shakespearean plays. A friend of mine recently worked on a version of Hamlet with a black woman in the title role, and another was doing a staging in which Hamlet and Horatio were also lovers. The possibilities within Shakespeare are endless, and that's why I have to just shake my head and sigh whenever anyone says that Shakespeare is boring.
I was thinking back when I was in college taking art appreciation class. I remembered among the first classes we had was my professor showed us paintings of women from the oldest to the era of Twiggy the and basically revealed the fact that the definition of “beauty” and “ideal body figured” varies from time to time, from continent to continent, from culture to culture. Hundreds and thousands of years ago we found a sculpture of venus of the willendorf which marked as the ultimate beauty for women, which we people thousands years later saw her as nothing but a fat lady with too big boobs and maybe cellulite included all over her body if you look closely enough. Then the world got to deal with Anorexia and bulimia problem because people don’t want to be fat.
I may go a little off topic but this is my first response when I see the title and when I read the quote “Too skinny to be trusted”. I don’t see the point why people have to be so serious on others’ body figure and/or to judge them, as long as they are healthy and look good and happy. Media portrays how the main character should look based on what social prefers at that time. It is a mirror of what social values at the current moment. That’s what we should be aware of most.
So, I’m probably about to disappoint playwrights, dramaturgs, and Shakespearean scholars alike, but this is a great example of text over-analyzation. Clearly, the use of the word ‘fat’ in this scene can be taken in many different contexts. It doesn’t really matter what Shakespeare meant by the word fat, what matters is what the audience will take from the word fat. If the director wants to cast a fat person as Hamlet, then they have every right to do so, regardless of the line’s meaning. And if the actor best suited for the role is skinny, then the line can be taken in a different context. To be honest, if the actor best suited for the part is a woman, then the director has the right to do that too. The he/him pronouns now mean something completely different to the audience. But the exact meaning Shakespeare intended is more or less irrelevant. The only reason someone should care is if they are random Shakespeare fact junkies, or they’ve decided to put on the most true to Shakespearean production ever. In which case, I think they have bigger concerns than one word, like how they’re going to get an audience to sit through a five hour play in a room with no electricity or air conditioning. The only reason this particular word’s new meaning should be widely published is that it may change directors’ willingness to cast heavier actors, which a much needed change in this industry.
The biggest evidence they are looking at to fight for this claim is one line in the entirety of Hamlet that also could just be talking about the swear on his forehead. It just seems like ridiculous over analysis. It makes much more sense to just think about Hamlet’s rank and the society of the time that said you showed off your richness by eating well and being fat. It makes less sense to look at the weight of the lower-class actor who played Hamlet because of course he wouldn't be as fat as a noble. You would have to look at the costume choice of the time and see if they put him in a fat suit or something. Assuming of course that they would have something like a fat suit. The more interesting discussion is about the ideal body weight over the centuries and how back then to be rich and therefore popular was to be fat and now to be rich and popular is to be skinny. And now we are slowly switching into a world that, rightfully so, doesn't judge people based on their weight as an indicator of their character. So this article is relevant in that it is showing that we shouldn't be casting only the skinnies of actors that we can find; something the industry needs to be taking hold of.
I honestly think that this article doesn’t really matter. The interpretation of who Hamlet is should be decided by the director. If the director believes that Hamlet should be bigger, than that is the choice for that particular show. The evidence that Hamlet is fat is really weak. It is said only a few times throughout the very long show, and in many different terms. This article is just reading too much into a minor part of the show. I agree that bigger actors should be able to play Hamlet, but this article is making a big deal out of nothing. Over analyzing classic plays does nothing to help us understand or reveal anything about plot or characters. Hamlet can be played by anyone who can do a good job of portraying the incredible complex character.
I don't mean to sound ignorant, but why does it matter if Hamlet is fat? I mean, if Hamlet was supposed to be fat as a character trait to make him seem cowardly or lazy or something, I feel like Shakespeare would have made that explicitly clear. We have always interpreted Hamlet as a skinny, brooding, handsome man, because that's how we interpret every dramatic leading character unless VERY EXPLICITLY stated otherwise - because human beings love seeing other hot people doing things. We are innately more interested and synpathetic to attractive people because we have a subconscious notion of "attractive = good." Why are Dinsey villains always gross, and the one villain who is SUPPOSED to be beautiful (the wicked Queen in Snow White) can only commit crimes herself when she becomes ugly. We cannot handle attractive people doing wrong. In the end, Hamlet redeems himself, so he is essentially good. That's why we sympathize with him, and that's why he is portrayed as attractive.
Hamlet totally would have been fat, he’s rich, sulking, and a college student. I don’t really think how Shakespeare intended him is the discussion we should be having but instead why we never consider him to be anything other than thin, even when during his time being “fat” would have been a sign of stature. How’d we decide that hamlet was thin? If you want to dig incredibly deep into it then honestly more clues point to him being fat than skinny, but with a casual read nothing sets him out as either. His role calls for neither characteristics, so the actor’s weight shouldn’t matter, as no themes will be affected.
I just think it’s interesting how in theatre we have almost pre determined roles for “fat” actors vs. roles for “skinny” actors, even when the script or subject matter doesn’t claim to have preference. It is certainly a reflection of societal preferences, but then why do we project our societies preference on period pieces?
The simple answer is sex sells, and leads should be what the audience considers “attractive.” We have to start combatting this notion, especially when it is going against what should be known.
I don’t think I’ve delved this far into a Shakespeare play and tried to figure out if a character that has been portrayed as a skinnier person should be more robust. Generally however its cast is how Hamlet is portrayed. I guess taking a look back through the history and the times that the play was produced in, it has brought some intriguing arguments into the character developments. I could be wrong, but I feel as though it is safe to assume that the characters were written with who was working for the company, and that I’m sure with revisions; nothing stayed the same for long, as people tried to copy the work to be able to use it for their own benefit. To look at the different actors’ who have portrayed the role of Hamlet and see the various approaches. Sure they all have their likeness and similarities, but each have their own set of differences that sets that apart from the other.
I'm not going to argue with Shakespearian scholars for tow reasons. One is that they are a very passionate bunch, and the other is that they seem to be able to find text evidence to prove anything. One of the bonuses of having a large body of work is that there are unlimited combinations of text that can have unlimited and sometimes opposing meanings. Scholars have both proved that Shakespeare was straight, and that he was gay, that he was actually Marlowe and Bacon, and that he was actually Italian. It seems to me that if you want to believe something about the bard, you can.
On the other hand, brooding and sulking are not the domain of the gaunt and attractive. People who don't fit into the narrow confines of attractiveness have emotions too, crazily enough. I totally think Hamlet could be fat, but thats less to do with the Shakespearian text, and more to do with the fact that fat content does not affect a person's sanity, so I'm pretty sure that the play would run the same way regardless.
While reading this article, I imagined its author (Isaac Butler) laughing at his intended audience response, which was to be up in arms about someone suggesting that Hamlet be something other than lean, gaunt, and pretty. I reject that our culture is so heavy on skinny heroes that we couldn't come to terms with a fat Hamlet. I will believe that we live in society where this is possible, and not far away from being scorned by the bulk of us. I do want to respond to one of the last things that he said about the necessity for counter-tradition in order to change our perceptions. This is inherently wrong. You do not beat one tradition by forcing its opposite to begin to happen. This would create a duality of people who agree with a certain side, and will do nothing but argue its pointless reasons for needing to exist. Within the scope of Hamlet's body type, is mattes slightly less. However,when that logic is displaced into our society with other groups and mindsets that are oppressed, it becomes very dangerous. To force a new way of thinking into the images and media consumed by the masses of people simply sends them into retreat and makes the people making the traditional versions all the more powerful and successful. The alternative is to integrate. Invite them into the conversation by talking casually about something, without an intrusive attack into the way you think they see it. Then, once the door is opened, they will ask questions, and you will answer those questions well. This is the way of idealistic change. In the case of fat Hamlet, casting directors should be conscious of our pre-conceived notions and just start to do it (while casting for best acting first, such that there does not become a standard of body type being more important than talent in any case), which will lead people to start to accept Hamlet as a potentially fat character. In the case of other social movements, educated people need to be aware of the fight or flight mentality of less-educated people, and carefully choose the way they wish to engage them on issues that they want to educated them about.
Funny how Shakespeare's plays are upheld to be these gems of writing, storytelling and theater (and I mean, they are) even though we know that all the versions we have are a hodge-podge mix put together by people other than Shakespeare. Some will insist that these texts are set in stone as the highest achievement of theater, yet the plays themselves are a proof of the living nature of theater. And I had no idea that Shakespeare invented so many of the words still used in English today! I wonder if he popularized uses of words that already existed at the time by taking his plays from place to place, or if he just came up with words and decided to throw those in.
All in all, it doesn’t matter much to me whether Hamlet was fat or not. If that’s what the text says, it doesn’t mean that that’s the only way Hamlet should be, but it’s also cool that he is being portrayed that way. The article is right about how we like to picture our heroes, and anything done to change that up a little is good in my book.
I think that it would make sense for Hamlet to be fat, as he was a member of the upper class. During that time period being fat meant that you had the money to spend on food, and that you didn't have to work all day and burn it off. "Fatness" was a status symbol, and with this new textual examples I know that I'm convinced. However, I don't think that this new discovery will make a difference in how the role is cast. As the author writes about skinny people, "they can comfort themselves knowing that nearly every other leading role ever written was made for them." Our society has the expectation that leading men will be traditionally attractive, and when people deviate from this idea people tend to make a big deal about it. When movies are made about real-life people the actors that are cast are almost always more attractive than the real people are because that's what the audience expects. A major shift in perception would have to happen for people to accept a fat Hamlet, but I know that I'm definitely in favor of it.
I love how this example in particular truly illustrates the way a text - even a timeless classic like Shakespeare's Hamlet - can age. Our understanding of a word grows and develops and can completely change over generations. This underscores the importance of contextualizing a work. Though in a case like this, examining historical context only goes so far, leaving us with several rather different possibilities.
The article also briefly reflects on an interesting point regarding modern audiences and their perceptions of a character. Because we have by and large been provided with an image of Hamlet as portrayed by a litany of strapping young men, that attractiveness has possibly - even quite probably - changed the way we perceive or read the character. I am almost regretful of the fact that I read the play having already been exposed to the idea of a handsome, fit, Disney-prince kind of Hamlet. Undoubtedly it limited my ability to read the character of Hamlet as he was, fat or not.
This article was a roller coaster. While I initially chose it for its title, and the image of a chunky Benedict Cumberbatch lamenting the sorry state of his life on the stage of the Globe, I ended up having a good read about everything from Victorian fad diets to the "Bad Hamlet." (Sidenote: a quick trawl around the internet proves that the "Bad Hamlet" is not exaggeration, but a truly awful draft of Hamlet, possibly written by someone who had never actually seen the play, but instead relied on the tangents of his/her extremely drunk friends to inform the writing for what may as well be a comedy.) This article made me consider also what I use to define the picture in my mind I have of characters I get while reading plays. Do I rely on context clues alone, as I had previously thought, or a mix of contemporary societal norm and standards, dubiously reinforced by actual context, as I discovered upon reading? I consider this article well worth my time, and may reread it the next time I have an opinion about casting, just to give myself something to think about.
I have to agree with some of the above comments. Why does it matter if Hamlet was fat or not? But to go even farther, I would assert that Hamlet is nothing. He is neither fat nor thin, he is neither tall nor short, he is neither lean nor buff. Because he is a character in a script. And although a script attempts to tell a story just as other forms of literature do, a script is designed to be filled with characters who are not yet a person. They are merely shells, not necessarily two dimensional shells, but shells that are design to have a person in them. Hamlet is an unbelievable intriguing character because of his mental state, cunning and outright genius. His monologues are so beautiful and eloquent and some scholars believe he is the only character that Shakespeare has written who is smart enough to have written Shakespeare's plays. Hamlet's mind is why he's interesting, not his body. Shakespeare wrote his mind, not is body. The body of the character comes from the actor, the mind of the character comes from the playwright and his words. So Hamlet is not fat, because Hamlet is not a person. He is not a real person. Hamlet could be fat if the actor playing him is fat, he could be tall and lean if that's what the actor is. And honestly, that's one of the things I appreciate about Shakespeare, he writes a character's brain, not his body.
I thought this article totally summed itself up in its last paragraph, where it told everyone to start a new tradition of overweight Hamlets, to break up the cycle and open up the role to different people. It even tells the usually skinny actors to relax, because they will be plenty of roles for them. This is exactly how I feel about equal representation in theatre, sometimes we need to force the tradition to break because thats the only way we can change things. I think we should break the tradition even if it’s not completely justified, thats how desperately I think we need different sized actors to be represented. I also feel like many phrases and terms in Shakespeare’s text can be seen in a million different ways, his language is meant to bend and be played with, thats how we are going to be able to keep it fresh. Casting Hamlet to be maybe not thin shouldn’t be that big of a deal, people should understand how diversifying it is and move along.
Post a Comment