‘There are two sides to Claudius- the cowardly, treacherous villain; and the tormented
sinner who longs for redemption, is benevolent and loves his queen.’
Critical interpretations of Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ have offered a variety of different
perspectives on the character of Claudius, with different performances portraying Claudius
as both a “treacherous villain” and a “benevolent” king. Productions sympathetic to the
character of Hamlet frequently emphasise Claudius’ ‘treacherous’ nature, while those who
question the morality of Hamlet or present his madness as legitimate often portray Claudius
as a more nuanced and “benevolent” character, emphasising his love for Gertrude and
diplomatic abilities.
In David Tennant’s 2009 portrayal of Hamlet, Claudius’ corruption is emphasised through the
use of surveillance cameras which highlight the distrust and suspicion present in the now
“rotten” state of Denmark. Furthermore, Claudius’ exit from the “mousetrap'' in Act 2 Scene 2
is portrayed not as a manifestation of his shame or guilt but anger towards Hamlet.
Tennant’s use of the camera in this scene demonstrates the presentation of events from
Hamlet’s perspective, reflecting the remorseless portrayal of Claudius in this scene. In the
play however Hamlet’s perspective is demonstrated through Shakespeare’s frequent use of
soliloquies, in which Hamlet’s disdain towards Claudius is displayed. Shakespeare’s use of
sinful imagery within his Act 1 Scene 2 soliloquy demonstrates Hamlet’s view of Claudius as
innately corrupt, describing Claudius as a “satyr”- a Greek mythological creature associated
with drunkenness and greed- contrasted by Old Hamlet who is compared to the “Hyperion”-
Titan God of light. Similarly the lexical field of rot throughout the soliloquy demonstrates the
way in which Claudius’ corruption has influenced the wider state of Denmark, with Hamlet
describing the world as “an unweeded garden that grows to seed things rank and gross in
nature”. The imagery of an “unweeded garden” can be linked to the Garden of Eden
connoting paradise which has been corrupted by human sin after Claudius’ murder of Old
Hamlet. Similar imagery is used within the Ghost’s monologue in Act 1 Scene 5, with the
murder of Old Hamlet mirroring the “serpent” in the Garden of Eden emphasising both
Claudius’ treachery and Old Hamlet’s innocence; “sleeping in [his] orchard”. Furthermore the
“poison poured” in Old Hamlet’s “ear” mirrors the rot, corruption and sin that has passed
through Denmark following Claudius’ acquisition of the crown, further highlighting his
villainous character.However in Brannagh’s portrayal of Hamlet the Ghost is presented in a
more sinister light, highlighting his unreliability. Hamlet’s suggestion that “the spirit…may be
the devil” is emphasised in the Brannagh production, with the use of fog and Hamlet's
positioning on the ground while the Ghost is standing highlighting the potential manipulation
of the Ghost, utilising Hamlet’s grief to enact his own revenge, rather than the righteous
portrayal of some productions which present the revenge plot as justified due to Claudius’
treachery. Critic Ernest Jones similarly highlights the ambiguity of Hamlet’s motivations,
arguing through a psychoanalytic lens that Claudius represents “the deepest and most
buried parts of [Hamlet’s] own personality”, with his disdain towards him highlighting
Hamlet’s own repressed conflict rather than Claudius’ treachery.
In Act 3 Scene 3 Claudius’ soliloquy directly addresses his guilt and internal conflict,
presenting both his “longing for redemption” and his desire to retain the “wicked prizes”
obtained through the murder. Critic Parker refers to Claudius as a “man of action” while
Hamlet is a “man of words”, suggesting that his guilt has brought him to active prayer and
redemption. This can be seen through Shakspeare’s use of exclamative and dramatic
sinner who longs for redemption, is benevolent and loves his queen.’
Critical interpretations of Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ have offered a variety of different
perspectives on the character of Claudius, with different performances portraying Claudius
as both a “treacherous villain” and a “benevolent” king. Productions sympathetic to the
character of Hamlet frequently emphasise Claudius’ ‘treacherous’ nature, while those who
question the morality of Hamlet or present his madness as legitimate often portray Claudius
as a more nuanced and “benevolent” character, emphasising his love for Gertrude and
diplomatic abilities.
In David Tennant’s 2009 portrayal of Hamlet, Claudius’ corruption is emphasised through the
use of surveillance cameras which highlight the distrust and suspicion present in the now
“rotten” state of Denmark. Furthermore, Claudius’ exit from the “mousetrap'' in Act 2 Scene 2
is portrayed not as a manifestation of his shame or guilt but anger towards Hamlet.
Tennant’s use of the camera in this scene demonstrates the presentation of events from
Hamlet’s perspective, reflecting the remorseless portrayal of Claudius in this scene. In the
play however Hamlet’s perspective is demonstrated through Shakespeare’s frequent use of
soliloquies, in which Hamlet’s disdain towards Claudius is displayed. Shakespeare’s use of
sinful imagery within his Act 1 Scene 2 soliloquy demonstrates Hamlet’s view of Claudius as
innately corrupt, describing Claudius as a “satyr”- a Greek mythological creature associated
with drunkenness and greed- contrasted by Old Hamlet who is compared to the “Hyperion”-
Titan God of light. Similarly the lexical field of rot throughout the soliloquy demonstrates the
way in which Claudius’ corruption has influenced the wider state of Denmark, with Hamlet
describing the world as “an unweeded garden that grows to seed things rank and gross in
nature”. The imagery of an “unweeded garden” can be linked to the Garden of Eden
connoting paradise which has been corrupted by human sin after Claudius’ murder of Old
Hamlet. Similar imagery is used within the Ghost’s monologue in Act 1 Scene 5, with the
murder of Old Hamlet mirroring the “serpent” in the Garden of Eden emphasising both
Claudius’ treachery and Old Hamlet’s innocence; “sleeping in [his] orchard”. Furthermore the
“poison poured” in Old Hamlet’s “ear” mirrors the rot, corruption and sin that has passed
through Denmark following Claudius’ acquisition of the crown, further highlighting his
villainous character.However in Brannagh’s portrayal of Hamlet the Ghost is presented in a
more sinister light, highlighting his unreliability. Hamlet’s suggestion that “the spirit…may be
the devil” is emphasised in the Brannagh production, with the use of fog and Hamlet's
positioning on the ground while the Ghost is standing highlighting the potential manipulation
of the Ghost, utilising Hamlet’s grief to enact his own revenge, rather than the righteous
portrayal of some productions which present the revenge plot as justified due to Claudius’
treachery. Critic Ernest Jones similarly highlights the ambiguity of Hamlet’s motivations,
arguing through a psychoanalytic lens that Claudius represents “the deepest and most
buried parts of [Hamlet’s] own personality”, with his disdain towards him highlighting
Hamlet’s own repressed conflict rather than Claudius’ treachery.
In Act 3 Scene 3 Claudius’ soliloquy directly addresses his guilt and internal conflict,
presenting both his “longing for redemption” and his desire to retain the “wicked prizes”
obtained through the murder. Critic Parker refers to Claudius as a “man of action” while
Hamlet is a “man of words”, suggesting that his guilt has brought him to active prayer and
redemption. This can be seen through Shakspeare’s use of exclamative and dramatic
