on tragedy, "Hamlet," and "angels in America"

ON TRAGEDY, "HAMLET," AND "ANGELS IN AMERICA"

(author's note: this was written in college around the time of "An Ode to Id." I make no claims about its quality.)

Despite the radical difference in the values espoused by the two plays, there are some striking similarities. Both Hamlet and Prior have supernatural visitations pushing missions on them that they must accept or decline. Both, as is the nature of the genre, deal heavily with death. But more importantly, both deal extensively with thought, action, and morality. Shakespeare ties these themes into the struggle of a single man, creating one of the most complete humans to be found anywhere in literature. Kushner disperses them more over a menagerie of characters. Joe is the one who must deal with questions of loyalty to a war-like father and struggle with the ethics that such a situation brings up. Unlike the elder Hamlet, Roy is not necessarily a good man. But he is an earthly and powerful figure who stands for the values of the old world; Just as the elder Hamlet spurred his son to action, so Roy urges Joe to take his seat in politics.

“Angels In America” takes tragedy to a uniquely fatalistic place. Unlike in Hamlet, there is never really the possibility of a positive outcome. All of the major characters, from fairly early in the play, share a room of death similar to the one where Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude all die. There is reason to think that every major character may be infected. Joe is the recipient of anal sex with Roy, who has actually developed AIDS. Hannah sleeps with Joe and the virus is passed from male to female fairly easily. And Louis has slept with two infected individuals, including with Prior repeatedly before either knew of the infection. The only hope we have for Louis is that in the rendevous at the end of Perestroika, there is no mention of his being infected. Seeing Louis stands for change and progress, he could be viewed to be somewhat like Fortinbras in “Hamlet” or Augustus in “Antony and Cleopatra,” the character that rules over the lesser world the tragic figure leaves behind.

Some comparison of the character Hamlet with Prior and some others of the modern play will prove fruitful in digging out the nature and meaning of these two works. We come to know Hamlet and his character in his speech of Act 1, Scene 2, 129:

Hamlet: “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! God!
How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. That it should come to this!
But two months dead: nay, not so much, not two:
So excellent a king; that was, to this,
Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother
That he might not beteem the winds of heaven
Visit her face too roughly. Heaven and earth!
Must I remember? why, she would hang on him,
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on: and yet, within a month--
Let me not think on't--Frailty, thy name is woman!--
A little month, or ere those shoes were old
With which she follow'd my poor father's body,
Like Niobe, all tears:--why she, even she--
O, God! a beast, that wants discourse of reason,
Would have mourn'd longer--married with my uncle,
My father's brother, but no more like my father
Than I to Hercules: within a month:
Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
She married. O, most wicked speed, to post
With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!
It is not nor it cannot come to good:
But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue.”

In this speech, we see many themes that the plays have in common: order, change, sexuality, the choice to live or die, and even incest(the angels refer to God as their “father-lover.) But the viewpoints taken on these issues differ dramatically. Hamlet’s speech begins with a rejection of the flesh and a desire for order. In the metaphor of the garden, we see Hamlet’s ideal: a world cultivated and orderly. He views chaos and sexuality as things “rank and gross in nature.” In his resentment of his mother’s hasty marriage to Claudius, we sense a distaste for rapid change. Hamlet harps so insistently on this rapid abandonment and forgetting of his father that it often seems that he is more bitter over this than over his own displacement. He sees in his father a symbol of order and patriarchy; “Hyperion” was a titan, a gigantic and warlike being from greek mythology.

Then Hamlet launches into a diatribe against not only his mother but “woman” in general, against her emotionality and “wicked speed” to “incestuous sheets.”

What exactly defines the genre of tragedy? Aristotle described it as “a catharsis of pity and fear,” a sort of moral warning driven into the core of our humanity. The Shakespearean A.C. Bradley emphasizes the characteristics of the tragic protagonist as he is actually written, particularly before modern times. This tragic protagonist is larger than life and the fate of the larger community often depends upon him. The more democratic Arthur Miller re-defined this tragic protagonist as an individual who challenged the established order of life, a sort of bloody engine of progress.

However one chooses to describe this essence of tragedy, and I will later try my hand at it, it is unquestionable that societies use it to express their deepest values. The Greeks used it to express the war-like sanctity of their moral order. The Elizabethans embraced Shakespeare for his thoughtful treatments of subjects such as individualism and politics. Miller’s success was largely due to the way that he captured the egalitarianism and economic struggle of his age.

After some contemplation, I have decided that the best way I can shed some light on tragedy and its connection to our society is to compare two works that capture the spirit of their respective ages: Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” and Tony Kushner’s “Angels In America.” In defense of my use of the latter work, which has many epic qualities, I will say that I think the true impact of tragedy comes from its demonstration of the human struggle even unto the point of death; I will discuss this more when I have analyzed these two plays.

First of all, let’s look at the playwrights’ respective choice of heroes. Hamlet is thoughtful and moralistic; there is a part of him that greatly admires the warlike valor of Fortinbras.

Hamlet’s “adieu” speech

We must pause for a moment to reflect on the nature of the society this speech came out of. It was a society in the very early stages of change; an organized church still very much reigned over England. The merchantile forces were slowly supplanting the long-preserved elite of landed aristocracy.

Hamlet, who this society could accept as a hero, stood for philosophy, order, conservative sexuality, and stoicism: “the readiness is all.”

Now, if we fast-forward to the America of the 1990s, the birth era of “Angels,” we see a drastically different picture. The forces of merchantilism have so far prevailed that they’ve become a sort of national religion. Relatively casual sex has become commonplace, whereas mere loss of virginity would have wrecked Ophelia. Patriarchy has become an institution very much under assault, though perhaps more in words than in reality.

Like Hamlet, Prior’s first major speech is about gardening.(pg. 36)

What does this monologue tell us about the character Prior? Hamlet’s ideal is a wise, warrior-king and Prior’s is a zebra orchid, a paragon of taste. Hamlet says, “I know not seems” and Prior gives his monologue while applying his make-up. A compelling aspect of the generic form of the tragic protagonist is that he or she must instantly grab the admiration, if not the sympathy, of the audience. Prior does so first by being cool, collected and witty in his conversation with Louis and now by being sophisticated and superficial in his monologue.

Hamlet, I suspect, would believe that an artichoke and not a zebra orchid would be the ideal for a human life; something classy but utilitarian. Hamlet, who is healthy, wishes for his body to decay and Prior, who is dying, wishes to be vital again.