I believe that Freud's interpretation of hamlet is indeed a novel idea, and if we subscribe to his theory about the "conscious" and "unconscious" of our mind, then it is indeed logical. Freud believed that Hamlet is an example of Oedipus complex: a child's desire to sexually possess his mother. With this underlying understanding, we can then explain his actions: Hamlet saw his mother as a symbol of perfection, of the utmost state of morality, so much so that he could not bear to see his mother betraying his father and fall for his traitorous uncle. Thus his resentment for his uncle was greater than ever; getting revenge may merely be a pretext for his raw desire in his "unconscious" to displace his uncle and become the king, therefore possessing his mother. Yet he was too confused and sophisticated to act purely on instinct. He needed to convince himself that he was doing it in the name of justice, to revenge the death of his father, and that he had even contemplated suicide as a method of escape from all these chaos. That explained the long wait before he eventually decided to confront his mother in an attempt to turn her against Claudius. Hamlet cared too much for his mother that he could not simply kill Claudius without convincing her about Claudius’ treachery, for fear that he would break her heart by doing so and she would no longer love him anymore. During the final scenes, when the queen was poisoned, Hamlet watched in horror as she died in front of him. At this point of time Hamlet could no longer hold in his anger, resentment and hatred for Claudius and killed him in front of everyone, something that the calculative Hamlet would normally not do, but who by then had been overcome by emotions and grief. Thus we can explain all of Hamlet’s thoughts and action if we assume that Freud’s interpretation is correct. Freud’s theories are all based on observable behaviours, thus we have no way to know for sure whether this interpretation is indeed true, nevertheless it is very interesting how psychology can be used to explain literature, and we can appreciate Shakespeare’s brilliance for creating a character that is so real and sophisticated that we can even analyse him as though he was a real person.
I believe that Freud's interpretation of hamlet is indeed a novel idea, and if we subscribe to his theory about the "conscious" and "unconscious" of our mind, then it is indeed logical. Freud believed that Hamlet is an example of Oedipus complex: a child's desire to sexually possess his mother. With this underlying understanding, we can then explain his actions: Hamlet saw his mother as a symbol of perfection, of the utmost state of morality, so much so that he could not bear to see his mother betraying his father and fall for his traitorous uncle. Thus his resentment for his uncle was greater than ever; getting revenge may merely be a pretext for his raw desire in his "unconscious" to displace his uncle and become the king, therefore possessing his mother. Yet he was too confused and sophisticated to act purely on instinct. He needed to convince himself that he was doing it in the name of justice, to revenge the death of his father, and that he had even contemplated suicide as a method of escape from all these chaos. That explained the long wait before he eventually decided to confront his mother in an attempt to turn her against Claudius. Hamlet cared too much for his mother that he could not simply kill Claudius without convincing her about Claudius’ treachery, for fear that he would break her heart by doing so and she would no longer love him anymore. During the final scenes, when the queen was poisoned, Hamlet watched in horror as she died in front of him. At this point of time Hamlet could no longer hold in his anger, resentment and hatred for Claudius and killed him in front of everyone, something that the calculative Hamlet would normally not do, but who by then had been overcome by emotions and grief.
回复删除Thus we can explain all of Hamlet’s thoughts and action if we assume that Freud’s interpretation is correct. Freud’s theories are all based on observable behaviours, thus we have no way to know for sure whether this interpretation is indeed true, nevertheless it is very interesting how psychology can be used to explain literature, and we can appreciate Shakespeare’s brilliance for creating a character that is so real and sophisticated that we can even analyse him as though he was a real person.
Freud的理論雖然聽起來和Hamlet的情況似乎都有些連結，但個人認為要從這起事件的起始點開始推論：
回复删除其實，起因就僅是自己父王被自己的親兄弟陷於不義，而趁機取代了Hamlet父王的王位，且Hamlet夜巡時聽聞那慘不忍睹的事實
就僅僅是這樣而已，就發展成接下來一連串的事情，要是說他有Oedipus complex，個人覺得真的是有點太牽強了，畢竟事情起因並不在母后身上，而是在父王身上，是為了保住父王的威名而做的事
B9908007侯建良
B9827122 林立勛
回复删除從原作來看其實還蠻不合理的
我覺得比較像是戀父情結阿...
一直強調他父親死得不得其所
母親似乎又淡忘父親淡忘的太快 再嫁的也太快了
然後一直想要替父親報仇
我想Freud推論戀母情結的時候本身也被性別給框住了
才會有這麼不合邏輯的推論發生
B9803169康家禎
回复删除我並不覺得哈姆雷特有戀母情結，而是他對於女性的感情是又愛又恐懼，他不能接受母親改嫁給自己的叔父，對於歐菲莉亞這位弄臣的女兒也是又愛又恨，他可能就本來就受一些精神疾病的影響，才會總是聽到父親要他報仇的聲音，在加上自己仍只是王子的不甘心，而造就了幾乎相關的人都死光了的結果。
我不覺得哈姆雷特有戀母情結。因為如果按照故事的發展去思考，其實哈姆雷特的種種想法、行為其實都是因為符合當下發生得每個情形所表現的。感覺"戀母情結"是之後的人將這個想法包裝在哈姆雷特身上為此增加更多故事性、話題性。由其電影中導演想要傳達"戀母情結"的想法滿明顯的....
回复删除b0044123郭依婷
回复删除我認為哈姆雷特並沒有戀母情結，他只是想為自己父親復仇而已。他認為叔父害死了他父親，還把他媽媽搶走了，所以非常恨他的叔父，也對自己母親改嫁的這麼快感到非常不諒解。所以這並不合理。
我覺得哈姆雷特沒有戀母情結，這是後人硬強加上去的，在原劇中完完全全感受不到有戀母情結的蛛絲馬跡，可是在電影中卻如此明顯，而哈姆雷特只是想為父親報仇，而對娶走母親的叔父感到怨恨，如此而已。
回复删除