The Mousetrap and Hamlet by William Skaespeare - Research Paper Example

?Full The Mousetrap Hamlet’s (Bate & Rasmussen 1960-1967) play within the play was an idea pulled by the main character tosee how the king, his murdered father’s brother who was enthroned as the next king and later married to the late king’s wife; would react. The play was about a murder of duke Gonzago of Vienna by his nephew, Lucianus who married Baptista, the king’s widow afterwards. This was reminiscent to the murder the ghost of the deceased king revealed to his son, Hamlet. Acting to be a lunatic, the young Hamlet orchestrated the play to confirm the truth behind his father’s death and the rather hasty marriage of his mother to his uncle. True enough, the infuriated king proved to have reacted to the play as a mere act one should enjoy and appreciate. The entire play of Shakespeare is believed to be a retelling of an earlier play based on historical fiction (Friedlander, Theatrehistory), with important changes made in some places. The play within the play would probably be one among these important revisions in the story that gives the playwright his unique view of the circumstances in between Hamlet’s knowledge of the king’s murder and the culmination of his revenge. Being unable to get his father’s ghost as a witness to his own murder, Hamlet acts to be insane and ingeniously devises the plan of the play while he waits and plans his revenge. The Roman historical novel also claimed that his protagonist, Brutus, also pretended to be a lunatic (Friedlander). Other versions of Hamlet before Shakespeare were written though not as popular as the renowned playwright’s adaptation, somehow affected the totality of the widely acclaimed play by Shakespeare. Probably, the playing of a historical drama was Shakespeare’s inspiration to come up with the play within his play. It could be that the playwright aimed to show the lessons learned when one sits down and watches his role in this world. As Shakespeare himself said, ‘All the World’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players’ (Shakespeare) and continues to say that all of us have many parts to play in our lifetime. An actor of a play playing his part as an actor could prove to have inspired the playwright, using the reality of which to portray a strong and effective employment of irony. In this respect, the plea of the author for the reader to sit aback and watch his roles he played in the past; is a plea to the conscience. Before the portrayal of the play in the written text, a short summary of what was to take place was narrated (Bate & Rasmussen) so that the reader would understand how it fits in the whole story. However, as the real players watch the ‘play’, the playing of their roles still continues with conversations done in between the portrayal of the ‘play’. I can say that this is a literary style of Shakespeare to hold his reader’s attention. Simply reading across the lines can leave the reader confused with which scene is being ‘acted out’ and which is being acted out. That would be, determining which scene is the real act and which is the play in the play. Concentration is needed from the reader in order for him to follow the trail of the story and not get lost. This would also be a style used to let the reader think as he continues with the story. Having read the summary of the play in the play, a reader can basically know how the act would go however, conversations of the ‘real’ players hold the reader’s attention to the text. It presents a seemingly mathematical problem to be solved by the reader as one devotes more attention to how the story goes. In proving the guilt of the king, Shakespeare’s use of the play within the play as a speaker to the former’s conscience elicited the response perceived by Hamlet as a proof of guilt. This method of the writer to move towards the climax of his story seems to be his unique version of the play as we have mentioned earlier that the whole legend was not the original concept of Shakespeare. However, coming up with a clever means of bringing the story to its climax, the author makes his Hamlet reveal the motive of his play. Being a supposed result of his lunacy, the king and queen attended the play without any suspicion to the objectives of the young man. Acting his planned insane character, Hamlet strikes conversations with his broken-hearted lover, Ophelia; while the players of ‘The Mousetrap’, the play within the play, continue. Hamlet also converses with the king and queen as the ‘play’ progresses. The protagonist even goes to the extent of explaining what the play was all about, which allows the writer to expound on what was not told in the summary of the ‘play’. This means used by Shakespeare efficiently brought about the filling in of important information to the act. For instance, title of the play is mentioned in the conversation between Hamlet and the king but not in the summary. The names of the characters are also referred to in the conversation. Looking at the motives of Hamlet in getting the king to converse with him would probably be, for him to be able to attend closely to how the king reacts to the play or to hasten the accomplishment of the objective of his plan. However, Hamlet does not engage conversation with the king outright but asks the queen first of her opinion about the play. This then allowed him to continue with his reckless words a lunatic which was but an excuse to escape suspicions from anyone about his knowledge. Aside from just simply conversing with the other players present during the watching of The Mousetrap, Hamlet also tries to be the narrator in case the other viewers did not understand the story. Or perhaps not, but that he aimed to ridicule the king for what he has done by emphasizing the important events in the play. As Lucianus, the antagonist in the play went to the garden to poison his uncle, the king, Hamlet explains that he did it for his estate. He also gets to the end of the story where the villain marries the murdered king’s wife, Baptista to which the king reacted, leaving when the play was not yet over. Another characteristic of the play inside the play is that it also consists of a dumb acting which allows the ‘viewers’ to converse and still be understood, not getting the roles mixed up. The muting of the characters in the play allows the two plays to be depicted simultaneously. The entry of the king and queen in an embrace talking about remarriage after considering the possibility of the king’s death opens the scene in a conversation-like manner allowing the actors to tell the story. When the king asked the queen to leave him in the meantime, the latter suggested him to sleep, then leaves. The silence that followed the scene was broken by the conversation between the ‘viewers’. The role-play of the king’s murder was also executed in silence which the main character took chance of narrating who he was. Such performances show that the circumstances have been greatly considered in the writing of the play to break the monotony of one play’s dialogues. Hamlet as a play is written in a way that could be monotonous to a reader because of its presentation in written form. Getting it performed on stage similarly gives a boring result because of the long lines recited, especially the monologues of Hamlet. Putting another play in the play, the characters are extended in number and variation that makes a twist in the play. The Mousetrap can also be said to be a filling in of the missing scene of the main play. Since the murder of Hamlet’s father was just narrated through the king’s ghost that appeared to his son and was not really portrayed in the play itself, the ‘play’ is viewed as the portrayal of it. Shakespeare efficiently painted the story with a twist that gave more color to the drama in such a manner. A reader would soon realize its importance in making the story viewed more clearly in a different angle. It allows the reader to think of the similarities of the ‘play’ and the play, which in turn helps him realize his ‘role’ in his role. As stories, drama, poems and other literary works aim to encourage, teach and guide, this objective can be achieved in such wonderfully planned course of retelling the story of the king’s murder through a play. The old English language used in ‘The Mousetrap’ presents a challenge to the reader in getting the idea about what is being said. While the entire story uses the same language, the ‘play’ uses a quite seemingly foreign use of the language especially to the contemporary reader so that more time and analysis are needed in the understanding of the conversations. This masterpiece of Shakespeare indeed presents a challenge which when accepted, makes the reading worthwhile. References Bate, Jonathan and Eric Rasmussen, eds. William Shakespeare: Complete Works. New York, NY: The Modern Library, 2007. Print. Friedlander, Ed. Enjoying “Hamlet” by William Skaespeare: The Background. Pathguy.com. n.d. Web. February 7, 2011. Shakespeare, William. Three Plays of the Absurd. Theatrehistory.com. 2002. Web. February 7, 2011. Shakespeare, William. Poems by William Shakespeare. Poemhunter.com. n.d. Web. February 7, 2011. Read More