Early Critical Voices

Samuel Taylor Coleridge revolutionised how we think about Hamlet by recognising it as more than just entertainment. He praised the play for having "the most perfect plot ever planned" and was fascinated by Hamlet's introspection and moral struggles. Coleridge saw the play tackling massive questions about existence and the human condition.

A.C. Bradley took this further by identifying Hamlet's tragic flaw as his overwhelming intellectualism. According to Bradley, Hamlet thinks too much - his constant analysis and need for moral certainty cause his famous delay in seeking revenge. This psychological approach to understanding characters was groundbreaking for its time.

Sigmund Freud brought psychoanalysis to Shakespeare, arguing that Hamlet's behaviour stems from the Oedipal complex. Freud suggested that Hamlet's delayed action comes from repressed sexual feelings for his mother, Gertrude. His "antic disposition" (pretending to be mad) allows him to express these forbidden thoughts safely.

Key insight: These early critics moved beyond surface-level analysis to explore the psychological depths of Shakespeare's characters, laying the groundwork for modern literary criticism.

Modern Critical Perspectives

T.S. Eliot shocked the literary world by calling Hamlet "an artistic failure" in his essay "Hamlet and His Problems". He argued that the play lacks unity and that Hamlet himself doesn't have proper motivation for a tragic hero. Eliot believed the various subplots don't connect coherently, making it difficult to find a clear central theme.

Marjorie Garber offers a more positive view, celebrating the play's ambiguity and multiple meanings. In "Shakespeare After All", she explores how the play deliberately blurs the lines between reality and performance. Garber also brings a feminist perspective, analysing how female characters like Gertrude and Ophelia function within the patriarchal world of Elsinore.

These contrasting views show how Hamlet continues to provoke debate. Whilst Eliot saw confusion and failure, Garber sees richness and complexity. This ongoing disagreement amongst critics actually proves the play's enduring power to generate new interpretations.

Key insight: Modern critics don't always agree - and that's perfectly fine! Different perspectives help us understand the play's complexity rather than finding one "correct" interpretation.

Evolution Through the Centuries

Understanding how interpretations change over time reveals as much about society as it does about the play itself. In the 17th century, audiences saw Hamlet primarily as a revenge tragedy - a popular genre focusing on vengeance for wrongdoing. The political themes resonated with Elizabethan and Jacobean audiences living through real political intrigue.

The 18th century brought Romantic interpretations that emphasised Hamlet's existential struggles and alienation. Romantic critics connected Hamlet's inner turmoil with nature and the supernatural, seeing his soliloquies as moments of unity with the natural world. This reflected the Romantic movement's fascination with individualism and the human psyche.

Freudian interpretations dominated the 20th century, focusing on unconscious desires and psychological conflict. The famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy became viewed as an expression of Hamlet's introspective crisis and unresolved feelings about his parents.

21st-century approaches include New Historicism (examining the play within Shakespeare's historical context), feminism (analysing gender power dynamics), and postcolonialism (exploring themes of resistance and oppression). These modern lenses help us understand how the play speaks to contemporary issues of power, gender, and social justice.

Key insight: Each era finds what it needs in Hamlet - whether political commentary, psychological insight, or social critique. The play's meaning evolves with its audience.

Olivier's Classical Hamlet (1948)

Laurence Olivier's 1948 film adaptation presents a classical, introspective Hamlet that emphasises intellectual and philosophical aspects. This version focuses heavily on Hamlet's melancholy and existential crisis, particularly in the famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy, which becomes a meditation on life's meaning.

Olivier's Hamlet is characterised by psychological complexity rather than physical action. The film places greater emphasis on political intrigue within the Danish court and incorporates more humour in Hamlet's interactions with other characters. This creates a more nuanced, contemplative protagonist.

The supporting characters receive sympathetic treatment in Olivier's version. Gertrude appears as a maternal, emotionally torn figure who seems relatively innocent, whilst Ophelia is presented as a fragile victim of circumstances. Claudius remains ambiguous - clearly guilty but without deep exploration of his motivations.

This adaptation reflects mid-20th century theatrical traditions and post-war audiences' interest in psychological depth and moral complexity. Olivier's classical approach treats the text with reverence whilst making it accessible to film audiences.

Key insight: Olivier's interpretation reflects 1940s values - emphasising intellectual struggle over physical action, and presenting a more sympathetic view of the female characters.

Zeffirelli's Contemporary Vision (1990)

Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 adaptation presents a dramatically different Hamlet - youthful, emotionally volatile, and physically active. This version emphasises impulsiveness over intellectualism, creating a more emotionally intense and less restrained protagonist than Olivier's contemplative prince.

The film focuses on physicality and action, aligning with contemporary cinema's preference for dynamic storytelling. Zeffirelli places stronger emphasis on family dynamics, particularly the romantic relationship between Claudius and Gertrude, exploring the tensions within the royal family more explicitly.

The supporting characters become more complex and morally ambiguous. Gertrude is presented with greater complicity in King Hamlet's murder, appearing less passive and more assertive in confrontations with her son. Ophelia transforms into a more passionate, rebellious character rather than a simple victim.

Claudius emerges as thoroughly ruthless and manipulative, becoming increasingly paranoid as his guilt overwhelms him. This darker interpretation reflects 1990s audiences' appetite for psychological complexity and moral ambiguity in their heroes and villains.

Key insight: Zeffirelli's adaptation shows how the same text can support radically different interpretations, reflecting changing cultural values and cinematic styles between 1948 and 1990.