Why Is Hamlet By William Shakespeare Still Taught Today?

On rainy evenings, when I reread 'Hamlet', I’m always surprised by how many different themes crowd into a single play. At its heart is revenge — the engine that propels nearly everyone into action. But Shakespeare doesn’t let revenge be simple; it collides with conscience, morality, and the paralysis of thought. Hamlet’s indecision feels painfully modern: he thinks, he philosophizes, he delays, and that delay unravels lives around him. Beyond revenge and indecision, the play is obsessed with appearance versus reality. Masks and performances crop up everywhere: the court’s polite smiles, Hamlet’s feigned madness, the players’ reenactment of murder. Add in mortality — with the graveyard scene and the relentless question of what happens after death — and you get a work that’s both intimate and cosmic. Every time I close the book I’m left thinking about how grief, corruption, love, and duty tangle together until no one can tell what’s true anymore; it’s a messy, beautiful, unnerving knot that still gets under my skin.

Catching a gritty production of 'Hamlet' in a small theatre once flipped my whole idea of what madness can do on stage. For me, madness in 'Hamlet' is a performance device and a moral prism at the same time — Shakespeare uses it to expose truths that polite conversation can't touch. Right away, the split between feigned and real madness is the easiest hook: Hamlet tells his friends he may put on an “antic disposition,” and from then on the play toys with what’s acted and what’s felt. That line lets Hamlet speak truth to power; pretending to be mad gives him a license to mock courtiers, interrogate Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and set traps for Claudius without being outright accused of treason. It’s a strategic insanity, but the strategy is slippery — as the play progresses, the boundary between role and reality becomes disturbingly porous. What I find so compelling is how Shakespeare stages different kinds of madness to comment on language, gender, and politics. Hamlet’s “madness” is relational and rhetorical: his odd behavior is often targeted and verbal, full of puns, dark jokes, and pointed silences. Polonius sees only a young man lovesick; Claudius sees a threat; the court sees entertainment. Ophelia’s breakdown, by contrast, is embodied and communal. Her songs, flowers, and disordered speech feel like social evidence of a court that’s gone rotten. Ophelia’s rupture shows how a woman’s mind is policed — and how grief becomes a spectacle in a patriarchal environment. Where Hamlet’s madness is a mask worn in daylight, Ophelia’s is an exposure of pain that society doesn’t know how to contain. There’s also a metaphysical or existential reading I keep circling back to. Hamlet’s soliloquies, especially the famous “To be or not to be,” aren’t just theatrical speeches; they’re ways he interrogates sanity itself. Is he rationally weighing action and inaction, or is the brooding a depressive spiral that justifies procrastination? The play-within-the-play is another moment where madness and theatre collide — Hamlet uses performance to test reality, and Claudius’s reaction proves guilt. Madness in 'Hamlet' becomes a mirror: characters project fears and desires onto Hamlet’s face, and the audience is forced to decide whether his lunacy is real, performative, or something in-between. It leaves me unsettled every time, but also exhilarated — like a character has found a loophole in social rules and might step right through it.

There are a handful of soliloquies in 'Hamlet' that every fan, student, or late-night reader ends up returning to, and each one feels like eavesdropping on a different corner of Hamlet's mind. I love how the play hands you sudden, private windows into someone who’s alternately furious, philosophical, desperate, and mockingly theatrical. If I had to map the high points for someone reading or staging 'Hamlet', I’d pick out the ones that really change the shape of the play: Act 1.2’s grieving confusion, Act 2.2’s self-reproach, Act 3.1’s metaphysical dread, Act 3.3’s moral paralysis, and Act 4.4’s hardening resolve. They’re the emotional spine of the play and each one sounds different on the page and on the stage. Act 1, Scene 2: 'O that this too too solid flesh would melt' is the private grief-speech where Hamlet despairs at his mother’s quick remarriage and the state of Denmark. I read it like someone who’s just been dislocated—angry at the world but exhausted by the motions of grief. The famous lines about how “frailty, thy name is woman” are harsh and revealing; they show Hamlet’s shock and his tendency to make sweeping judgments when hurt. When I first read it as a teenager I felt the rawness; reading it later, I catch more of the political disillusionment—Hamlet isn’t just broken; he’s seeing rot at the top of the state. Act 2, Scene 2: 'O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!' is almost a meta-theatrical moment where Hamlet scolds himself for inaction and praises the players’ ability to conjure passion on demand. I hear this soliloquy as a critique of performance and authenticity—Hamlet watches another actor weep for Hecuba and hits a breaking point of self-awareness. If you’ve ever procrastinated or compared yourself to someone who seems more capable, this speech lands hard. It’s also where he hatches the plan to use the play within the play to expose Claudius. Act 3, Scene 1: 'To be, or not to be' is the big philosophical one, the classic meditation on mortality, pain, and the unknown after death. I always picture a quieter Hamlet here, almost scholarly in tone, weighing the risks of action versus resignation. Different productions treat it as bleak, ironic, or deeply intimate; for me, it’s when the intellectual Hamlet becomes human—he’s thinking about what the fear of the afterlife does to human courage. Act 3, Scene 3 and Act 4, Scene 4: The snap moments matter, too. In 3.3, when Hamlet sees Claudius praying—'Now might I do it pat'—he’s halted by conscience and misses his chance. That soliloquy exposes how Hamlet’s ethical scruples complicate his revenge. Later, in 4.4, 'How all occasions do inform against me' is a different gear: after seeing Fortinbras’ army, Hamlet is furious with himself and arms himself mentally for decisive action. Those two short speeches show the tragic tug-of-war between thought and deed. If you like stagecraft, try reading these aloud in different moods—mocking, weary, hysterical, coldly logical—and you’ll hear how much Shakespeare packed into the rhythms. Different actors (Olivier, Branagh, Tennant, and many others) pull out different veins from the same lines, which always makes me want to re-read the play the next week. Personally, when I’m in a reflective mood I go straight to 3.1; when I need to remind myself to stop overthinking, 4.4 gives me that kick in the head. Give them a read out loud and see which Hamlet lives in you today.

Flipping through 'Hamlet' on a rainy afternoon felt like stepping into a conversation that’s been going on for four centuries — and that’s basically what critics have been doing: talking, arguing, and falling in love with Shakespeare’s messy masterpiece in wildly different ways. Early responses were largely practical and theatrical: Elizabethan and Jacobean observers cared about stagecraft and actors. People like Richard Burbage were celebrated for bringing Hamlet to life, and contemporary records show the play was popular, though not always praised for neat morality — it was dark, complicated, and full of things that made audiences squirm rather than comfort them. By the 18th century the tone changed into something more prescriptive. Critics like Alexander Pope and Samuel Johnson judged Shakespeare against classical rules, pointing out what they saw as structural faults or excesses in characterization, yet they also grew fond of his energetic language and psychological depth. That century also gave us heavy-handed stage alterations — remember Nahum Tate’s version that married Hamlet and Ophelia? Critics often debated whether such bowdlerizing improved moral clarity for audiences or robbed the play of its tragic power. Then Romantic critics arrived and flipped the script: Coleridge, Goethe, Hazlitt and others championed Hamlet as the quintessential introspective hero, someone whose indecision and melancholy were signs of a profound soul, not mere weakness. That Romantic praise elevated Shakespeare into an almost sacred status. The 20th century exploded the range of critical responses. Psychoanalytic readings — Freud’s shadowy hypotheses about Hamlet’s impulses and Ernest Jones’ elaboration of an Oedipal reading — became hugely influential, especially in theatre and film interpretations. Textual scholars argued over Q1, Q2, and the Folio texts, asking which version is truest to Shakespeare’s intent. New Criticism focused on close readings of language and paradox, while historicists and New Historicists (think Stephen Greenblatt) put the play into sociopolitical context. Feminist critics reclaimed Ophelia and Gertrude, asking why their voices were drowned out and how gender shaped the tragedy. Marxist, postcolonial, queer, and performance studies further diversified interpretations: critics now look at power structures, colonial resonances, and how each director’s staging choices spotlight different themes. What I love is that critics never settled on one definitive Hamlet; instead, the play keeps mirroring its readers’ anxieties. Films by Olivier, Polanski, Branagh, and more experimental stagings continued to feed criticism, proving interpretations are as performative as they are analytical. So when I read a new essay or watch a new production, I feel part of that centuries-long conversation — and usually wind up arguing with at least half of it over a cup of tea.

There are so many ways people have updated 'Hamlet' that it almost feels like a conversation across centuries — and I love hopping into that chat. As a grad student who lived on cheap coffee and late-night close readings, I got hooked on how adaptations treat Shakespeare like clay: some sculpt a faithful bust, others whack it into a modern sculpture that only keeps the eyes and mouth. One obvious pattern is time and place shifting. Transporting 'Hamlet' to modern New York, corporate skyscrapers, or dystopian futures reframes the political corruption and surveillance paranoia at the play’s core. Michael Almereyda’s film (set in contemporary Manhattan) turns Denmark’s court into a media-saturated world, making Hamlet’s indecision look like paralysis under constant cameras and deadlines — and that pivot says so much about 21st-century celebrity and anxiety. Another big move is changing point of view. Tom Stoppard's 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead' flips the script by elevating minor players into narrators; suddenly Shakespeare’s background noise becomes the whole show, and your sympathy migrates. Similarly, modern novels and films often give Ophelia, Gertrude, or another sidelined person the megaphone. Books like Lisa Klein’s 'Ophelia' or films like 'Ophelia' (2018) turn a traditionally passive figure into an active storyteller, which reframes issues of agency, patriarchy, and mental health. And then there are radical texts like Heiner Müller’s 'Hamletmachine' that shred linear narrative and inject postmodern political critique — it’s a version of 'Hamlet' that delights in collapsing the play’s psychology into spectacle and manifesto. Medium-specific choices also change how the story lands. Film adaptations often externalize Hamlet’s inner monologues through voiceovers, close-ups, or visual motifs, while stage directors might use soliloquies as direct audience addresses or even distribute them among actors. Video games like 'Elsinore' take this further by letting you loop time, replay choices, and try to prevent tragedy — it turns fatalism into strategy and makes you feel the weight of every missed cue. And then there’s the Disney spin: 'The Lion King' strips away the blood and swaps species but keeps the basic structure of royal betrayal, exile, and return, showing how themes of succession and revenge translate across genres and ages. All of this makes 'Hamlet' endlessly remixable: update the politics, shift the focal character, or change the medium, and you get a fresh conversation about grief, power, and identity. If you’re curious, try watching an Olivier or Branagh version back to back with Almereyda and finish by reading Stoppard — it’s a neat way to hear how the same core notes get arranged into different songs.

There's a delicious tangle of people pulling the strings in 'Hamlet', and honestly I love how messy Shakespeare lets them all be. The clearest plot engine is Hamlet himself: his indecision, his philosophical wrestling, and his need to avenge his father turn the play from court intrigue into a moral and psychological storm. Claudius is the other big motor—his murder of King Hamlet, his guilt, and his political maneuvering create the external conflict that propels events. Those two set the main thrust: one is reactionary and inward, the other active and outward, and the push-and-pull between them produces the tragedies that follow. Beyond the central duel of Hamlet vs. Claudius, a lot of supporting characters actually steer scenes into motion. The Ghost of King Hamlet is a catalyst—without it, Hamlet might have continued brooding forever; the ghost's accusation forces Hamlet into the role of avenger and frames the moral questions about revenge and truth. Gertrude is subtly crucial too: her marriage to Claudius changes the political landscape and adds emotional complication for Hamlet; her actions and speeches often defuse or inflame tensions at key moments. Polonius, with his officious spying and comic self-importance, accidentally creates the chain of events that kills him and drives both Ophelia's breakdown and Laertes' fury. Ophelia's descent and eventual death are turning points that shift public sympathies and escalate the final bloodletting. I like to look at the play from different angles depending on my mood—sometimes as a student in my twenties who stayed up late annotating a dorm-room copy, sometimes like a theater-goer decades older who sees fresh nuance in every revival. From a political perspective, Fortinbras functions as a neat, practical counterpoint to Hamlet: he moves, gathers a claim, and restores order by the end, showing what Hamlet's hesitations cost the kingdom. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern serve as plot instruments and moral contrasts—handpicked to manipulate Hamlet, they highlight themes of loyalty, surveillance, and the expendability of courtiers. Horatio, quietly loyal and rational, is the moral witness whose survival allows the story to be told and judged; his steadiness accentuates Hamlet's turbulence. If you read 'Hamlet' as I do—sometimes loudly in parks, sometimes watching a modern production where the minor characters are reimagined—you see how Shakespeare distributes agency around the court. Every conversation, eavesdrop, and misstep nudges the plot: Polonius' spying, Hamlet's staging of 'The Mousetrap', Claudius' plotting with Laertes, and even small orders sent to Reynaldo ripple outward. I always leave the play thinking about responsibility: who actively shapes fate and who is swept along? If you're exploring the play, try focusing on one secondary character per read-through—Ophelia's letters, Fortinbras' absence, or Gertrude's silences—and you'll watch the plot rearrange itself around them in surprising ways.

Whenever I dive into 'Hamlet', I get pulled into a swirl of late‑16th‑ and early‑17th‑century tensions that feel surprisingly modern. The play was written around 1600–1601, at the tail end of Elizabeth I's reign, when England was riding the high tide of the Renaissance but also jittery about succession, national security, and religious change. That background seeps into the play’s bones: Claudius’s uneasy seizure of the throne, the spying and political theater that run through court life, and the moral unease about regicide all reflect a society worried about who should rule and how power is kept or wrested. The shadow of the Spanish Armada (1588), the Protestant Reformation’s religious fractures, and a monarchy without a clear heir make the Danish court’s instability resonate for contemporary audiences. I love tracing the literary family tree behind 'Hamlet'. Shakespeare didn’t invent the story out of vacuum—he reshaped older sources like Saxo Grammaticus and François de Belleforest’s 'Histoires tragiques'—but he transformed a revenge skeleton into deep psychological drama. The revenge tragedy genre, influenced by Seneca and popular plays like 'The Spanish Tragedy', supplied expectations: blood, plots within plots, and an avenger driven by duty. Shakespeare upended that by layering in Renaissance humanism and skepticism, giving Hamlet sprawling soliloquies that wrestle with mortality, action versus thought, and the nature of truth. Humoral theory of medicine and the era’s obsession with melancholy also explain why audiences then were primed to read Hamlet’s indecision and grief in a medicalized, philosophical way. There’s also a material history that colors how we understand the play. Different quartos and the First Folio (1623) give us variant texts, and early performances—likely by the Lord Chamberlain’s Men at playhouses like the Globe—were noisy, communal events where minimal sets forced language and actors’ presence to do heavy lifting. That public, sometimes rowdy atmosphere, plus the censorship pressures of court performance, shaped how scenes of madness, public spectacle, and covert surveillance played to real people. When I watch or read 'Hamlet' with these contexts in mind, I don’t just see a tragic prince; I see a mirror of a nation unsettled by succession, religion, and the limits of law and conscience, which is why the play keeps bouncing back into fresh relevance for me.

I get a little giddy talking about this, because 'Hamlet' adaptations are such a playground for different ideas about fidelity. If you mean 'most faithful' in the literal, textual sense, the clear winner is Kenneth Branagh's 1996 film — it uses the full text (about four hours) and doesn’t chop the soliloquies or major speeches. Watching it feels like being handed the play in cinematic form: full speeches, full subplots, and a very theatrical sense of language, but with lush, filmic sets. I watched it one rainy weekend while following along with the text and felt like I was reading the play in a big, gorgeous book that moved on its own. If you're thinking more in terms of spirit and tone rather than every single line, Grigori Kozintsev's 1964 'Hamlet' (the Soviet production starring Innokenty Smoktunovsky) is one of my favorites. It trims and rearranges here and there, but the visual language and the music (Shostakovich’s score) make it feel profoundly Shakespearian — bleak, epic, and morally ambiguous. I first saw clips on a late-night film site and then hunted down a subtitled copy; it stuck with me because of how the camera makes the world feel like a living extension of the play. Laurence Olivier’s 1948 'Hamlet' is classic and historically important, but it’s not faithful in the complete-text sense — Olivier trims the play a lot and reframes Hamlet’s psychology through dreamlike visuals and voiceover. It’s brilliant as a film that interprets the play, less so as a literal reproduction. On the other end, Michael Almereyda’s 2000 'Hamlet' with Ethan Hawke is a modern New York update that rearranges setting and props (video cameras, corporate boards), yet it keeps much of the language and some scenes intact — so it’s faithful to themes even while reinventing the frame. If you want recommendations depending on what kind of fidelity matters to you: for pure textual faithfulness watch Branagh; for poetic cinema and atmosphere try Kozintsev; for a historically influential interpretive version watch Olivier; for a contemporary reimagining that preserves Shakespeare’s lines (often) go for Almereyda; and if you want a stage-to-screen theatrical energy, look for the RSC/David Tennant filmed production. Personally, I often pair the Branagh cut with a printed text and a pot of tea — nothing beats hearing every line and then pausing to read it aloud or argue with friends about who’s to blame.