Shakespearean Convicts

The story of prison inmates performing Act V of Hamlet makes me wonder how prison transforms people. Seeing that the play was performed by criminals living out the consequences of crimes similar to Hamlet's, I am curious about these inmates' behavior and character changing as they undergo Hamlet. This reminds me of the film Das Experiment, the portrayal of a psycho-social experiment that explored violence and ultimately dehumanization. Any contact with prison transforms people, but then how does Hamlet transform inmates? 

While Das Experiment depicts the loss of humane behavior in an attempt to temporarily study volunteer guards and inmates, the production of Hamlet in jail civilized and humanized real criminals. After some of the inmates got "intimate" with Hamlet, they spoke with their own ghosts. They contemplated their past crimes like Hamlet contemplated his own, resulting in a deep and personal connection with themselves. Hamlet  allowed them to understand themselves better and their thinking at the time they did their wrongs. In Das Experiment the case is quite the opposite. Some "clean" civilians experiment with prison life and end up committing crimes similar to the crimes in Hamlet. 

The play served as a therapy for the criminals to relieve themselves from the regret and pain of their crimes. Danny Weller, one of the inmates performing Hamlet, chose to perform as the ghost because he felt that a man he killed talked to him through the ghost. "He wanted me to know what I put him through", said Waller as he explained the impact of Hamlet in him. The perpetrators of violence in Das Experiment go berserk and immerse themselves in a civil war. Playing to be convicts, they committed savage crimes whereas real convicts reincorporated into civil society enacting Hamlet's violence.

Madness?

In these two examples one sees different how different types of violence may lead to change in human behavior. Studying Shakespeare's violence helped inmates know themselves better and find tranquility after having committed their crimes. In Das Experiment some innocent men were mutated by a prison into savage criminals. In prison, Hamlet serves as an aid to men in need of forgiveness, company and revitalization. It will not change who they were or what they did, but it was a "rehearsal", said Jack Hitt in the podcast. This is a rehearsal of civil life and possibly to prepare some of the actor to reintegrate themselves into society. Something that prison alone never taught either in Das Experiment or at the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center. Seeing the coarse ferocity that prison is (not saying that people don't deserve it), Hamlet is a therapy that may cure or relief the stigmas of confinement. 

The Bliss of Failure

T.S Elliot's "The Love song of J. Alfred Prufrock" presents someone's inner struggle to take action, ultimately failing. This struggle echoes Hamlet's dilemma in Shakespeare's Hamlet since the indecision that Hamlet endures prevents him from avenging his father before everyone wanted him dead. Even though Prufrock rejects the idea that he is like Prince Hamlet, he suffers from a heavier burden. While Hamlet died relieved after avenging his father, Prufrock grows old as a fool that is unable to decide on the matters of his life. This indecisiveness is a constant theme in both works, but Hamlet was more successful than Prufrock.

Like Hamlet, J. Alfred Prufrock has plans, but his indecision and delay prolong the execution of these forever. Both of these characters question themselves, but Hamlet took a stand and eventually avenged his father. Unlike Hamlet, Prufrock remains unable to approach his beloved. When Hamlet saw Fortinbras's attitude towards his fathers death, he resoluted he would act. While Prufrock asks "Do I dare Disturb the universe?" (lines 46,47), Hamlet determined "O, from this time forth, My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!" (IV.IV.67). Hamlet was madly obsessed with the murder of his father and was unable to confront the culprit until he witnessed Fortinbras's bravery. There Hamlet decided he would avenge his father. Prufrock suffers from a similar obsession, but with a potential lover. While both are extremely pusillanimous, Hamlet moved on and died whereas Prufrock never expressed his feelings. 

Prufrock cannot approach this person and express himself so he concludes he cannot be like Hamlet. He accepts he is a fool and accepts he has been trying to be something he is not. Hamlet decided he would be a killer, something he was not. Prufrock says "I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; Am an attendant lord", suggesting he cannot force himself to go against his nature the way Hamlet tried. He is a better fool than lover so he accepts it. Hamlet denies his true nature and tried to be vengeful, resulting in the avenging of his father, but his death too. These two failures raise many questions, most prominently, was this a true failure? Indeed they both failed, but they both attained satisfaction and peace of mind. Prufrock by isolating himself of the world and Hamlet by passing on his legacy and his story.