Let him go, Gertrude.

As I write this, it is the day after the presidential election of 2016. It’s a dark dark day from my perspective. And I am horrified and flabbergasted to learn that over 50% of white women voted for Trump. I’m just…stunned. I’m a white woman myself and you could not have paid me enough money to vote for that horrifying racist misogynist sexist dumpster fire. And I’m trying to understand what was going on in those other white women’s minds.
I wonder if it isn’t some thing like this line. Here’s a dark, criminal of a king being righteously confronted by someone who has been justifiably wronged – and Gertrude leaps in to defend Claudius. Not just with words but with her whole body. Has she given over her sense of self to her husband somehow? Does she feel some protective instinct over the darkest king? Does she choose the most powerful man to back and defend? I don’t know. It baffles me. So so much.
What were you thinking my fellow white women?
Are you more afraid of people of color than the most terrifying tyrant we’ve ever seen in this country? I guess so.

And now, as I prepare to upload this to the site, it is almost two years later. And the women clinging to Brett Kavanagh during this hearing are demonstrating a similar impulse to lean into the horrors. I do not understand. At all.

What is the cause, Laertes, That thy rebellion looks so giant-like?

Giant-like? Huh? What a funny choice of words!
It’s like – the rebellion is big…but not…it’s LIKE a giant – but not gigantic. Is that what Claudius is attempting to express? That the rebellion isn’t as big as it might seem? Is it a way to manipulate Laertes right from the outset? I wouldn’t put it past him.

That drop of blood that’s calm proclaims me bastard, Cries cuckold to my father, brands the harlot Even here, between the chaste unsmirched brow Of my true mother.

That is a whole lot of sex talk for a revenge moment! I mean he’s really diving deep into this bastard idea. Was it necessary to call his mother a harlot to get his point across? I mean, I get it that he’s saying that if he were calm, he’d be a bastard, not doing his due revengeful diligence…but…he goes deep with this idea.

I’m curious too about where this HERE is…is he referring to an image of his mother? Or is he indicating his own brow, seemingly like the brow of his mother? Here….I mean – where is his mother? There’s no other mention of her…one assumes she is dead. But…what if she’s not? What is she’s so subdued, so chaste, so meek, that she hangs around all the scenes with her children, saying nothing? It would make Ophelia seem very bold and rebellious by comparison. Like – if Laertes dragged his mother into this room to show off her chaste brow? I mean – our Ophelia would have a lot of reasons to go crazy. I’m pretty sure that’s not what Laertes is ACTUALLY doing here. But that HERE is interesting. And in an experimental production, I might just try out what it would be like to have a silent Mrs. Polonius onstage.

Calmly, good Laertes.

Our Gertrude is quite a woman. I would like to have seen her as the actual ruler of Denmark, instead of just the spouse. I mean – she does not have to attempt to calm Laertes down. She could scream and panic. She could throw up her hands and call for help. But no. She steps in, right from the start…tries to defuse the situation. And given that Claudius has to ask her twice to let him go, she also physically gets in there.

Now – why she’s defending Claudius so resolutely when she presumably has worked out a little of what Hamlet’s been talking about is a little bit of a mystery.
I think it’s likely that Gertrude has a strong sense of self-preservation and realizes that Claudius is the best horse to back in her current predicament. I mean, to her knowledge, Hamlet is gone. He’s been sent to England. She’s left with a (possibly, as far as she’s concerned) king-murdering husband. How to survive in the circumstances is to stick with what she knows. And it would appear that Claudius is pretty good to her – if not good for the country. Sure, he’s murdered her first husband but that’s in the past. How would she fare with a King Laertes? Probably not well. He’d probably have her executed.

O thou vile king, Give me my father!

What is Laertes expecting? That Claudius has Polonius’ body right there with him? That he could just reach behind him and pull out the evidence? Presumably, Laertes already knows that his father is dead or he wouldn’t be there with a rabble of over-throwing rebels. And he presumably also knows that Claudius has had Polonius buried in a hurry. Because that’s why he finds him vile. He presumably knows that Hamlet killed Polonius – but he’s mad at Claudius, not Hamlet. It’s a funny choice. It’s a bit – like, Laertes isn’t wrong. Claudius is a vile king. He’s a murdering political monster. But Laertes doesn’t know that, presumably. Or has he been suspicious? Did he wonder, the second this all went down, if there might be some funny business? Is this what the hurry to get to France is all about? Because if he stayed, he’d start asking questions? Let his suspicions fester or go on back to Paris and stop worrying about it.
He’s a funny one that Laertes.

Keep the door.

I know he means guard the door – but it would be funny if he meant to keep the door as a tip. Like – they broke the doors open – and now presumably one of them is loose. One of the rabble could literally keep the door. He could carry it home to his family, “Look, what I got from our future King, Laertes!”
“Oooh – a door. Nice. What shall we do with it?”

I thank you:

Laertes, man of the people.
Laertes, the man with the power to get a horde of people to break down the king’s doors – a thing that very likely could get them killed or jailed.
Laertes, able to wrangle a whole royal support team in no time flat.
Laertes, a man with his father’s political savvy and his own charm and brute strength.
Laertes, thanks his rioters. It is a sign of his skill, I think. Not every noble would thank the plebs that got him through the door. Coriolanus wouldn’t, for example. Or Timon (once he’d been disillusioned.)
But Laertes has his supporters in the palm of his hand. He can have them both advance and retreat. Getting them to retreat is the harder skill, I’d warrant.

We will, we will.

The repetition here is interesting. Why twice? Is the angry mob trying to convince itself that they really will go back out and leave Laertes alone? I mean – they can’t entirely be sure this is a good idea, can they? Their adrenaline is up. They just broke through a door. Leave? Ohhhh. Uh.
We will. (I guess.) We will.

I pray you, give me leave.

My question is – what does Laertes do to convince the angry mob to stop rioting and calm down outside? These words aren’t particularly convincing. It’s no “Friends, Romans, Countrymen.” So he must do something that makes them change their minds. Or maybe there’s something in his tone?
What would stop a mob with just one sentence?

No, let’s come in.

The crowd is powerful. They’ve broken the doors. They have a taste of what might be possible. They could do any number of things that were normally outside their realm of possibility. They’ve just fought their way through the palace, probably past a lot of guards. Odds are good they’ve killed or wounded some people to get there. This is probably their first time in the place. They’re seeing things they’ve never seen before – and not just seeing the palace on a nice guarded tour but with their own authority. They are claiming each room they move to as theirs as they go. They take possession and keep pushing forward. And here they are in what may be a particularly intimate royal chamber or even a throne room. They are at the heart of the seat of power and they are vibrating with their own power. To leave now —well, it halts the progression, the build – what will they do with the adrenaline surge if they can’t come in and kill the entire royal family?