Do you think Ophelia killed herself or her death was an accident? Why?
I think that she got drunk and then because she didn't know what she was doing then she got in the river and her clothes pulled her to the bottom.
Ophelia killed herself, after her father dying and her taking so much hate and being used by everyone around her, she just could not take it anymore and her screw went loose and killed herself.
I think the mad Ophelia killed herself. Ophelia wasn't in a logical head space so she couldn't really think with her best intentions in mind. This made it so that she was willing to kill herself to gain peace.
I think that Ophelia's death was accidental because she was mentally unstable so I do not believe that she would have the capacity to commit suicide.
What is the significance of all of the death that takes place throughout the story? Do the deaths of all the main characters have a deeper meaning in the story?
The deaths in this story show that each life, the noble and the not, well end and there story will stop without revenge, happiness, love. Each person must die one way or another and after they die there story gets told as it was and everyone leaves a legacy that is perceived as the truth or the other way around.
I think that Mrs. Smith said it well when she said that it's all karma. Everyone that died had a reason to be killed, they either did something wrong or couldn't live with the life they were living anymore.
I think it shows that if you make mistakes, especially when their actions are to use others, karma will come back to get them. Hamlet killed Polionous, Claudius killed King Hamlet, Laertes used his sister, G&R used and betrayed their good friend Hamlet and the Queen hurt her son and married her late husbands brother. The only character that we didn't see use or hurt someone else was Fortinbras (who achieves his goal in getting Hamlets kingdom) and Horatio was does not die.
Each death really had a reason behind it. Each character who died was killed due to something negative they had done. It shows the cycle of karma and just deserts.
I think the significance of all the deaths is that its the only way to be balanced so everyone gets their vengeance and everyone is revenged.
When Hamlet and Horatio are in the grave site do you think that they wanted to keep in the dark so no one knew they were there or were they going to come out and show their face anyway?
I think they were just observing and then we Hamlet began pondering death and its meaning he showed himself. I don't think he was planning to talk to the gravedigger at the beginning though.
They hid in the first place because they saw someone coming not knowing it was the king and queen. From there I think curiosity kept Hamlet hiding. It was in the heat of the moment that Hamlet came out of hiding.
Initially, I think they were trying to keep hidden, as Hamlet was supposed to be dead, but when they realized it was Ophelia, it was hard to stay hidden. Eventually, I'm sure Hamlet would have let people know that he was alive.
At first, I believe that they were trying to stay hidden but when Hamlet realized that it was Ophelia's funeral he couldn't contain his feelings.
Is there a significance in the fact that Horatio lived while every other major character was killed by the end of the play?
I think that the reason Horatio is one of the only ones alive is because he was pretty much the only character that was loyal and didn't use anybody like everyone else.
I think this actually is extremely significant. This to me seems because of the reason that Horatio is the only one that stayed true and loyal throughout the entire book. Although he was loyal to Hamlet who was not a perfect person, Horatio never became a traitor or became disloyal.
Definitely, he was basically the only character that hadn't done anything wrong while everyone else that had paid for that with their lives.
Horatio could have lived while everyone else suffered and died because he was one of the only loyal and "good" character throughout the story. I think Shakespeare was making a point as to how doing good, staying loyal to friends, and not manipulating every other person you interact with can set you on a good path for the future.
Horatio was important because he needed to remain to tell the story of what happened. Hamlet also cared about him more than he cared about most other people, and I think Hamlet just honestly wanted Horatio to live.
Horatio has really only been a spectator through out the whole play. He can live to tell the story of Hamlet.
I feel that the reason Horatio lived was because he did not use anyone else and he also didn't commit any crimes against anyone. He stayed loyal to the royals the entire book.
Every story needs someone to tell it, Horatio was the one who was left behind to tell about the incidents which happened. The world needs to know what truly happened, not the lies that was there in the beginning,which death was attempted to be used to cover up the truth
He represented the only character who was not corrupted by anyone else around him. He stayed true to his own values, morals, and thoughts. He remained loyal to his friend throughout the play also
Horatio was the only character that kept with his mission the entire time. He knew what he wanted and he did not become distracted by other things or people. He did not "sin" and he kept to his morals. He remained constant and loyal. Horatio represents what might have happened to the characters ,such as Hamlet, if they had kept all of these qualities.
I'm almost positive that Ophelia killed herself. Once she heard the news about her father being dead she became insane. She decided to kill herself out of madness and spur of the moment, she was depressed and emotionally unstable at the time.
Who is most responsible for her death?
I don't think that anyone can ever be blamed for the suicide of someone else. If there was someone partially responsible, it would definitely be Hamlet. He caused her insanity by killing her father and the past relationship that they once shared.
Elle- but how can it not be her father's fault rather than Hamlet's. Her father is the one that started it all.
I do believe that Ophelia's father has something to do with it. Overall he did restrict him from seeing her which led to Hamlet's craziness, but that also does not give him a reason to go out and kill someone's father for revenge.
When Hamlet and Laertes are fighting do you think that Hamlet knows that the cup of wine is poisoned or is he just not trying to drink so he can win the fight?
I believe he thought something was wrong with the cup but also that he was so focused on winning that doing anything else didn't matter.
Nah son, he definitely knows that the cup has been poisoned.
I think that he doesn't know that the drink is poisoned,But i do think that he know that the king will try and kill him in some way shape or form
Hamlet new something was wrong before his duel with Laertes so it would make sense that he would not trust the king. If he did suspect Claudius why didn't he keep the queen from drinking the wine?
I don't think Hamlet knew is was poisoned. He just wanted to stay sober for the fight. If he did know it was poisoned i'm sure he would of stopped his mother from drinking it.
He might not have specifically known that the cup was poisoned but I think Hamlet knew that something was up, he is a very smart man and not only that Hamlet was very suspicious.
I think it's possible that Hamlet had a suspicion that the drink was poisoned, since the king had already tried to rid of him once before. On the other hand, it is a tragedy, and it could just be Gertrude's rotten luck.
Ignore that. Lolzzzz
In the back of his mind, Hamlet may have had his suspicions of the drink but I think his true motivation was to ensure that he won the fight. I do not believe that he would allow his mother to be poisoned so I do not think he truly knew that the drink was poisoned.
I'm not completely certain, however it seems as though Hamlet did not know about the poison in the cup, and he just wanted to beat Laertes as quick and possible. Also, I feel as though Hamlet will always have such a love for his mother, even though she married his uncle, that he would not just sit there and let her drink the poisoned cup.
What role does the phrase "the ends justify the means" play in Hamlet?
To me it means that whatever you do will be justified in the end. Like for Claudius and Hamlet, they murdered someone else and in turn their own life was taken from them. It means that karma is going to come back to you and either reward or hurt you for your past actions.
The entire play is based upon revenge. Is revenge worth giving up everything? Was it worth it for Hamlet to lose Ophelia, Gertrude, his friends, his reputation, his sanity, and his life in order for him to kill his uncle?
We really only meet Osric in this last act of the play. Do you think there is any significance in his death?
In the test written by Shakespeare, Osric does not die. In the film Osric's deaths shows how Fortinbras is taking over, getting rid of the only and bringing in the new.
Although we are not sure exactly how Ophelia died, Hamlet seems to feel guilty about it. Do you think Hamlet feels more remorseful about the death of Ophelia than the death of Polonius?
Of course, Ophelia meant more to Hamlet on a personal level, and therefore the fact that she died has a larger impact on an emotional level for Hamlet. Whereas Polonius was just another father who manipulates his children and those around him.
I think he may actually feel remorseful about it, because although Ophelia betrayed him, she was still an innocent woman that was just influenced by others. And, since Hamlet never planned for Polonius of Ophelia to die, he probably feels remorseful about this.
Ophelia for sure, because he was very angry when she died and said he loved her. And Polonius was the whole reason Ophelia's and Hamlets relationship didn't work out in the first place even though Hamlet used her after she denied him.
Yes I would say he is more remorseful about Ophelia's death than Polonius's because he had a good loving relationship with Ophelia and he feels a little bit I think that he was a cause for her death and is sad that she is gone. However, when Hamlet killed Polonius he was trying to kill the king and Polonius was just in the wrong spot at the wrong time so Hamlet didn't think it was really his fault and didn't like Polonius that much anyway.
I believe so. I think Hamlet is remorseful because he both used and insulted Ophelia right before her death, and never got a chance to apologize or make right. For Polonius, Hamlet doesn't seem to have much sympathy. He kind of just stabbed him and moved on.
Hamlet ends up killing Claudius. Do you think that the Ghost will come back into the play to thank him for getting his revenge? Did Hamlet actually succeed in his quest to kill the king or was it a crime of passion at that point after seeing that Claudius had also just killed his mother.
I think Hamlet finally succeeded in his goal, it took Claudius killing his mother to finally make him a man of action though.
unfortunately the play has ended, the world will never know
I don't think the ghost will come back because Hamlet dies too so he wouldn't talk to anyone and after the death of his mother too he because angry and killed Claudius and would make his dad proud but the ghost wouldn't need to come back.
I don't believe that the ghost would have come back even if Hamlet had lived. The ghost was asking Hamlet to do this so that he could move on, The ghost was in a sort of limbo because he never confessed to his sins before death. Hamlet killing Claudius was the only way for the king to move on, so as soon as Claudius was killed, he moved on.
Do you still think Hamlet is a man of inaction?
I think so. I think that the only reason he acted was because Laertes said that the king was the one to poison his mother and in his anger he went after him and killed him.
I don't, I wouldn't completely consider him a man of action however. I think it makes more passion in him to make him act than it does others but when Hamlet is extremely upset and fired up he can become a man of action for a few brief moments.
i think that Hamlet finally realized that his love has perished because of all of the events and he needed to finally take action to attempt the prevention of the death of any other love ones.
Hamlet is and always will be a man of inaction. Throughout the whole play it seems he can never make his mind up, he is always looking at the consequences before he does something. And was procrastinating killing Claudius throughout the whole play.
I think Hamlet likes to believe he is a man of action but in reality he doesn't do much to change his situation. He seems to be the type of person who gets stuck when something bad happens and he can't see a way in which he can do something to fix it
Why leave the throne to Fortinbras? Why not leave it to someone else?
Isn't it a matter of making everything right? Putting everyone back to their rightful place and atoning for sins committed?
Maybe he doesn't think that anyone else that he knows deserves the throne
I think that Hamlet saw Fortinbras as a man of action that would be able to handle the throne well and not stab anyone in the back to get what he wants.
Hamlet more than anyone understands revenge for a father. He understand why Fortinbras wants conquer Denmark. It is the logical choice.
Hamlet greatly respected Fortinbras. You could tell by the way he talked about him, especially when he was admiring Fortinbras desire to fight over a piece of worthless land. That characteristic Hamlet wanted for his own and admired greatly which is why I think Hamlet left the thrown to him.
I don't think that they really left the throne for Fortinbras rather than that they all died in such a quick amount of time that they didn't have time to tell someone they are leaving it for them and Fortinbras was already at the castle trying to take it over at this point when everyone dies.
I think this was to avoid having to find someone in the kingdom who was corrupt by this rotten court. I think Hamlet believed that an outsider would govern his people better then anyone at court would because everyone at court would be influenced by past rulings. Fortinbras didn't know about what was happening with the court, therefore he could not be influenced by the past.
I was wondering the same thing. Hamlet left the throne for the ones who were invading Denmark, as opposed to someone like Horatio who has been by Hamlet's side throughout the entire play. Hamlet may have thought that Fortinbras deserved it, because the people of Denmark were responsible for King Fortinbras' death.
Even without thinking of Fortinbras' qualifications for holding such a position, in all honesty, who else could take the throne? From what we can tell, the whole royal family is dead, which would make the country relatively weak, without leaders, so if Hamlet cared at all for his country and the people of his country, he would peacefully leave the throne to Fortinbras. I also believe that Shakespeare is making a statement about how if Hamlet had simply been a man of action form the beginning, his life would have been much more fruitful, like Fortinbras'.
Hamlet has a personal connection with Fortinbras because they have been threw similar circumstances so it was only natural that he left the throne to him. Also, Hamlet knew that Fortinbras desired the throne and would obtain it one way or another.
Do you guys think that the director of the movie we just watched in class did a bad or good job of portraying the fight scene?
I think the director (Kenneth Branagh, who also played Hamlet) did an excellent job. I think he captured the emotions and the volatility of the situation very well.
I liked the fighting scenes at the end of the movie so yes i do think that he did go a great job
I think that he did a great job showing the fight scene. He was able to portray the emotions that each of the characters were having.
How is it significant that while Fortinbras and his army are invading the castle, all of the important characters are secluded away and do not even care about what is going on around the castle?
I think it shows all the problems within Denmark which reflects on the rule of Claudius. He is not the best ruler unlike his brother. Claudius spent to much time worrying about eternal affairs and was ignorant to external ones.
It shows just how wrapped up they were in their own lives. None of them really cared about others or what was going in the world unless it directly affected their own lives.
It shows the corruption that has been caused in the infighting of the court. While they are self destructing their world around them is still moving on and progressing. This shows how life will go on even if horrible things happen.
It shows that those characters future is unaffected by Fortinbras's army and there was nothing they could do about it, also the outcome of the main characters might of been altered if the army was in the scene with them.
I believe that it is symbolic of how Claudius has been running the country. Claudius is so wrapped up in himself and his own problems that he has not been attending to the good of the nation. The same can be said for Hamlet and the royals.
There is a lot of killing that goes on in this act. Do you think every death is justified?
Yes I do, every character that was killed had committed terrible acts.
But do you think that killing is the way to solve their problems?
Normally I would say no, but in this play I think it has a way of fixing things. There was so much death, manipulation and betrayal there was no way for the sins to be atoned without death. Hamlet needed to die after he took Poloinous's life. Claduius had to die for murdering King Hamlet and marrying his wife. Laertes needed to die for using his sister which in turn led to her madness and ultimately death. The Queen needed to die to make up for her sins of marrying her late husbands brother and being unsupportative of her own son and his grief with his father's death. And lastly Ophelia needed to die for manipulating Hamlet and letting herself play the "victim" role without ever standing up for herself.
I would agree with you that in the play killing the person who has done wrong to you becomes the way that they were fixing their problems. The sins may have been atoned by asking for forgiveness from the people that you were doing the wrong acts toward wouldn't you say? Cladius ends up killing both of Hamlets parents and I do think that he deserves to die but I'm not sure that the Queen should because all she did was want to do right for her son and not hurt him any more than she already had. She may have married her husbands brother too soon but I don't think that thats a sin because she had no idea that he had killed her husband. And Laertes just wanted revenge for his sister but he never killed anyone or used anyone so why do you think that he had to die? He didn't come into the play as a villain until the end of the act when he doesn't accept Hamlets plea of forgiveness and then he tries to kill him, but he does not succeed.
Do you think that less 'innocent' people would have died if Hamlet took action earlier in the play?
I think less people would die if he took action earlier, as he took longer to take action, more and more people were dragged into the situation, and if he acted earlier i feel that less people would of perished
I think that if Hamlet would've acted earlier then Ophelia and Gertrude and Laertes would not have died. Hamlet should've listened to the ghost and kept his mom out of it and just killed Claudius right away and there would be so much death at the end.
I think they would have died anyone because their karma would end up getting them. The court became so corrupt that everyone had their just deserts. There is a feeling in the play when i just wanted to shake the characters and say "JUST THINK FOR YOURSELVES!" instead of using everyone to do your work for them
When Hamlet and Laertes switch swords during the fight seen does Laertes know that Hamlet now has the poisoned tip?
I think Laertes must have known because once Hamlet cuts Laertes, he immediately is telling Hamlet that they both are poisoned.
I think Laertes was aware that Hamlet had the poisoned sword, because when Hamlet threw the other sword to him, he noticed the tip was different from the one he had originally possessed.
In the last scene, Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, and Laertes all meet their death. Which of these deaths are fair or justified? Which ones are not?
Gertrude's death was justified because of her incestuous relationships. Claudius' death was justified because he killed his brother. Hamlet's death was justified because he murdered Polonius and caused Ophelia's suicide. Laertes however he only tried to avenge his sister's and father's death, so i don't think his was justified
I think Hamlets death is justified cause he used everyone including Ophelia so he should have died. Claudius should have died cause he killed King Hamlet. Gertrude should have died because she was taking Claudius's side over her own son. Laertes I don't know if he should have died because he was just trying to avenge the death of his dad and sister.
I think that they are all justified because all of the characters were corrupted and had fatal sins.
I think, to a great extent, all of them are. All of these people have committed some major wrong toward someone else. It's one big karmic thing. Laertes was probably the only person who arguably could have redeemed himself otherwise.
The inner circle was talking a while ago about the insanity of Hamlet. Do you think that Hamlet has ever gone insane throughout this play? Or is he sane throughout and truly just trying to avenge his father?
I actually think that he has always been a little crazy since the beginning. and quite frankly I would be too if my father was killed and my uncle married my mother to take over the thrown. His insanity definitely got worse with all the mishaps that occurred throughout the play. but overall Shakespeare made him to be a man with very interesting personality.
I think he did go insane more towards the end because if he would've listened to the ghost and just killed Claudius then he wouldn't be putting himself through this much agony and by waiting so long it was making him crazy trying to decide when to kill Claudius.
I don't think he ever went insane, I think there were points where he was so caught up in his plot for revenge that his actions weren't completely sane but at no point in the play would I argue he went mad.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Do you think Gertrude married Claudius because of Denmark law? Like there cannot be a queen ruling without a husband? Maybe she just married him because the law forced her to choose between remaining in the castle and living on the streets. I definitely agree that Claudius was hungry for the power, but maybe by killing his brother, he knew Gertrude wouldn't have a choice. She would have to remarry.
I think that Gertrude either had to marry him or get off the thrown, and like most people she wanted the power. She loved power so much that she didn't want to stay loyal to her husband and didn't care that she was marrying his brother.
This maybe could have played a small part in it, but I think that Gertrude just married Claudius due to her own selfishness and lust. She is shown as this weak character, as are all the women, and this just goes along with Shakespeare's view.
So does that serve as reason to believe that Gertrude isn't completely innocent in the play? That she wasn't blind to everything that was happening?
Well I mean, didn't Claudius and Gertrude plot the death of King Hamlet together?
What message is Shakespeare trying to tell us through the words of this play?
In the end, everyone turned on Claudius and realized that he was responsible for this mess. Do you think that less people would have died if Hamlet could have got everyone to realize this earlier in the play?