Really interesting question this week. I have seen five film versions (some multiple times) and one live version of Hamlet (seen twice with a week between). I not only compared all the versions, I compared one live show against the other. One version has never spoiled any of the others for me. As I noted in class, the changes in my interpretation/enjoyment of the play (especially reading the play) have more to do with the changes in me than with the performances, particularly with the time in my life when I saw the particular version, i.e., Hamlet hits different at 60 years old than it did at 20. That’s true for a number of plays and books I have read and reread. So, I’m less likely to be affected by a newer or different directorial interpretation than I am by a newer or different interpretation by me because of me, if you will.

That doesn’t mean I don’t notice and at times appreciate the differences in the next iteration of the play. I do and I appreciate the way productions build on previous ones. The queen’s closet scene in the Zeffirelli version (which I will admit shocked me in 1990) would not have been dreamt of without the Olivier 1940’s version. It makes one wonder what will be in the upcoming 2026 version.

As to Hamlet’s popularity-that could be accounted for by any number of things-wonderful language (some iconic soliloquies), great characters (good/evil/funny), well-meaning (even if not perfectly-executed) performances. However, I think the main reason is our appetite for revenge-poisoned as it is. Hamlet seeks revenge, Laertes seeks revenge, Fortinbras seeks revenge. We’re rooting for Hamlet, a good person, to do a bad thing to a bad person. Plain and simple-OK, it’s not that simple. The tension in the play increases our blood lust-dramatically, in every sense of the word. Where does that revenge lead us-is it, could it be-a noble pursuit? That leads Hamlet (and us) to ask the ultimate existential question: To be or not to be.

If you read Hamlet once and don’t hunger to read it again, wait for a couple of months and then read it, even if you have to force yourself. Then, you’re likely to want to read it again and again. Mel Gibson was asked immediately after completing the 1990 version if he would be interested in doing another Hamlet film-maybe a prequel. He said no, but he would be more than willing to do the whole thing over again. That’s staying power.

I actually watched a few different interpretations of the play, and honestly I don’t think those versions change the core of the character that much. Even if a performance makes Hamlet seem more emotional or more relatable, you could still interpret that as part of his manipulation. Hamlet spends a lot of the play pretending to be something he’s not, especially when he decides to act “mad,” so any moment where he feels more human could still be seen as him controlling how others perceive him. Because of that, I don’t think previous interpretations completely shape how we understand the play. At the end of the day, a lot of it comes back to what you personally take from the text itself.

I also think the story stays popular because it works really well as a morality story. People naturally gravitate toward vengeance narratives, especially ones where the main character is clearly struggling with what revenge is doing to them. Hamlet’s situation is tragic from the beginning since his father is murdered and his whole world basically falls apart. That alone gives the audience a reason to sympathize with him, even when his actions start getting extreme. Some people might look at the way Hamlet behaves and think it shows someone slowly losing their mind because of revenge. His plans become more complicated and sometimes unnecessarily cruel, which can make him seem unstable. At the same time though, you can still pity him because his motivation comes from something deeply emotional. His love and loyalty to his father are what push him down that path in the first place.

As an actor, I can say personally that other interpretations 100% color the way I read plays and act them out. When I see a really good interpretation, my first instinct is to nick some of their takes for my own when I play the character. Others just line up better with the vision of the character you have in your head, which as an actor influences how much of that interpretation makes its way into your own. I'm not really sure that you can read anything where you've seen another interpretation of it and not draw comparisons, and all the interpretations build on each other to a certain degree- the Oedipal complex in what I believe is Olivier's version of Hamlet, for example, which pulls so much weight for this interpretation of Hamlet and Gertrude's relationship.

All media is in some way influenced by another source of media; this implies that there is no filtered viewing of the original play/text. For example, when I was younger, I watched The Lion King but had little to no knowledge on Hamlet, despite the film being based on it. So, when I finally did read/watch the play, I was accustomed to the adaptations I had seen and viewed the play through that lens; for example, seeing the Scar/Claudius parallels and Mufasa's ghost speaking to Simba (my fav scene), etc. However, being aware of these influences allows us to question them and develop our own perspective in the end. 

The fact that Hamlet also hesitates to take his revenge at several instances in the play adds to his dimension as a character, and makes him more palatable for audiences. For example, to the general public, it is much more easily justifiable to identify with a character who has had their circumstances thrust upon them than it is to identify with a static character who is an easily characterized villain. The fact that Hamlet goes through the process of methodically establishing Claudius’ guilt by setting up the play, and the fact that he hesitates to kill Claudius while praying is not only good for dramatic effect, but it also shows the audiences how tormented Hamlet is by what he feels he has to do. I think this can be seen in a lot of modern media and makes the audience feel like they are supporting the “right” character. Furthermore, I believe that Hamlet killing Claudius in the last scene further supports this idea because Caludius’ death was a result of his own plan going awry and not due to Hamlet’s outright actions. I think there are a lot of things that make Hamlet a really alluring character and this internal struggle is definitely one of them.