No, my lord, with choler.

This is curious. We see Claudius leave the play. He doesn’t SEEM particularly angry. He’s upset, certainly. He wants light and he leaves. The next time we see him, he’s in a state but it’s not choleric. Emotional. Anxious. Turning himself inside out. But choleric? Not so much. This indicates one of two things. Either Claudius has swung through a wide range of emotions, traveling a whole emotional spectrum from stunned to disturbed to choleric and back to disturbed. Or Guildenstern has no idea what he’s talking about. Or Gertrude is making things up and passing them through Guildenstern back to Hamlet.
OR! Maybe Claudius has gotten uncharacteristically mad at her. Has he suddenly shut her out, sent her way so he can wrestle with his conscience all by himself?
That actually makes a lot of sense to me.
I’ve seen many men lash out at women and seem angry when they’re really just troubled.

I’m interested in Claudius’ anger. He’s not much of a stormer. We don’t see him angry much, even though we know him to murder, we don’t see him full of fury for long. We just get flashes.

With drink, sir?

When I read Shakespeare as a teenager, I remembered being particularly taken with the lines about drinking. I didn’t do much drinking myself and watched a lot of people do a lot of stupid things and get themselves into a lot of hot water from the booze. There are a few real good lines for this in Othello – mostly due to Cassio’s relationship to the stuff. I wrote them down in my quote notebook. (I kept a quote notebook. A book in which I wrote down quotations I thought were meaningful and important.) I may have had a whole page of Cassio inspired alcohol quotes.
At the time, I think I thought the Shakespeare was trying to tell us something – that he had an opinion about drinking and he was expressing it through the plays. I see now how specifically character driven each reference to drinking is, Cassio talks about the evils of alcohol because it has gotten him into terrible trouble. Hamlet talks about drinking, mostly in reference to Claudius. That gives us some sense of a) how he sees Claudius or b) how he wants others he’s talking to to see Claudius. He returns to a theme here of a drunken king and again, it’s with a friend. (If we can still call Guildenstern a friend at this point in the play.)

Is in his retirement marvelous distempered.

Seriously. Whose phrasing is this? Is it Guildenstern’s? We don’t have a LOT of his phraseology to know if this is possibly characteristic. It doesn’t SEEM like the terse Guildenstern we know. It doesn’t sound like Gertrude either, really. It’s a little more Polonius sounding – truth be told. This is his kind of phrasing. I might think he’d been sent from him with something to say. But he goes on talking this way.
Maybe Guildenstern was/is ambitious to become a Polonius and is beginning to ape his style. It is so very different than how he was.

Ay, sir, what of him?

Kings are hard to dismiss like this.
Railing against them
Praising them
Sucking up to them
Challenging them
Those sorts of things, when,
Talking of kings, are all within
The norm.
But indifference?
You can never
Take or leave a king.
“How do you feel about the king?”
“O, I could take or leave him. Doesn’t matter to me.”
Kings just generally must be
Responded to.
Any indifference is likely to be feigned.

The king, sir –

Why does he start here?
Is this what Gertrude has told him to say? “Go tell my son the king is upset.”
What does she expect this to accomplish? Did this approach work when Hamlet’s Dad was the king?
Is this what she’s always done?

Apparently the queen is suffering under “great affliction of spirit”. Can she not say, “I’m upset and need to see my son?” I guess not. She’s got to deflect the difficulty. It’s not HER issue – it’s the King’s.
But while Hamlet MAY have been atuned to his father’s distemper, he doesn’t have much reason to care about his uncle’s distemper – murder and kingship aside.
I want to know what Gertrude and Hamlet’s routine was BEFORE the events of this play and how this exchange reflects either a continuation or deviation from it.

Sir, a whole history.

I’ve been reading Charles Dickens’ Our Mutual Friend in which one of the characters asks another to read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire to him. The character is illiterate but moneyed and his first attempt at enriching himself is this particular history. it takes a long time to read someone a whole history so quite a lot happens in the book before they finish and move on to another one.
But interestingly, the character, even when he moves on from this history, stays with histories. He clearly feels that they are the most edifying books of all.

Good my lord, vouchsafe me a word with you.

Now Guildenstern starts talking. Rosencrantz has taken the lead on chats with Hamlet up until this point and suddenly, here, Guildenstern steps up. What happened?
Is there something about the king’s choler or the Queen’s concern that has activated Guildenstern? Or have Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had a conversation and somehow shifted their dynamic?

If I were directing this play or playing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, I would want to work this out. Why the change in behavior between these two? Why has the less verbal, more taciturn of the two suddenly stepped up to take the lead? And does Hamlet notice the switch? What does he make of it?
Do they think that Guildenstern will have more luck? Are they thinking that he’s the more diplomatic of the two? That Rosencrantz has made no progress so maybe they should switch up their good cop/bad cop dynamic?
There’s a lot to be considered.

Come, some music!

I’m in Gotham Café – which is as New York an establishment as any I can think of. I cannot tell you why but it has a flavor of old New York while adapting to the new one. They have photos on the walls of jazz greats and landmarks.
And playing, quite loudly, too, is “Free Bird” which seems so out of context, I can hardly make sense of it. In some cafes in NYC, this jamming of “Free Bird” might be ironic. If I heard it at Café Grumpy, for example, or Birch, I’d understand that this was a guilty pleasure play or ironic enjoyment jam.
Here at Gotham, it feels like an earnest playing of “Free Bird” as if someone said, “Come, some music!” and when the opportunity for requests came, someone shouted for “Free Bird” and not as a joke.

I’d heard joke references to “Free Bird” for many years before I heard the song itself. It is the accepted joke to make at the request portion of an evening of music. I’d thought no one really wanted to hear “Free Bird” that they were just joining in the general shouting.
But people do want to hear “Free Bird” and not just in the South and not just ironically. Even at an old school café in NYC.

For if the king like not the comedy, Why then, belike he likes it not, perdy.

Is Hamlet just making this up? Is he riffing on an existing rhyme or song?
Or does he just start spouting lyrics, rhymes or raps when he gets excited?
I’ve known some rappers who do this – just turn the key and rhymes come out.
This rhyme’s not great. He wouldn’t win a rap battle with this one.
The rhythm is funny. And perdy?
Hmmm.
If this is some song or lyric or poem that Hamlet pulls out at this moment, it may be slightly more comprehensible, in that the comedy has another point of reference. That is, if this is referencing something else – it can be a joke about both THIS situation and the something else. Mostly it feels like this is here to get at a sense of giddiness in our Prince of Denmark, a little pause in the demand for music he’s making.

Come, the recorders!

I’d love if we still had roving bands of recorder musicians ready to play at the drop of a hat. Now – recorders have pretty much been reduced to children’s music classes and the occasional Ren Faire.
But what if there were several recorder players just hanging around in every establishment – in coffee shops and bars, theatre and clubs – and you could just summon them forth and have a little tune. I’d be calling for them all the time.