Ophelia's Full Story

Almost three years ago now, I was completely taken with the movie adaptation of Ophelia (click here for that post). I called the movie, which is essentially Hamlet from Ophelia's perspective with some twists, an indulgence. When I stumbled across a used copy of the book by Lisa Klein on which the film was based, I nabbed it. But I couldn't bring myself to read it yet (I thought it might be too emotional at the time), so I let it sit on the shelf for a year or two. Finally, I chose it for my first read of 2022 because in 2022 I'm done pretending and I  just want to be who I am. 

One of the reasons I so enjoyed the film back in 2019 was that I had recently gone through a break-up in which I was very reluctant to be parted from the other person. So it was like part of the healing process to see this new take on Ophelia's story. I liked the fantasy of it, the sense of it being too good to be true and also the sense of Ophelia's ability to exist after it was all over. 

I had expected the book to be quite a sappy read. That's why I put it off. I thought it might be a few hairs away from a romance novel. That's why I thought maybe I shouldn't even read it--until eventually I admitted that I did want to read it. So imagine my surprise (and delight, I might add) to find that it is not a romance novel and it is not entirely sappy either. (Yes, there is some sappiness, but at a refined, minimum level.) Yes, there is a love story and there is indulgence in the sense that we are hearing Ophelia's side of the story--but it all ends there. This book is so much more.

This book contains all of Ophelia's wit and intelligence that made her a woman, as I mentioned in the other post, that Hamlet would love. We see her education and upbringing--or her sometime lack of upbringing. Ophelia has lacked steadiness in her life and she has lacked affection. So the gift of Hamlet's love was a welcome gift indeed. Yet she is intelligent and not flimsy, so she does not follow down Hamlet's path of madness and revenge. She is not willing to give herself up to chase after a love that is not returned. And here is where the book differs greatly from the movie.

While the movie was greatly fun in its portrayal of both Hamlet and Ophelia feigning madness, in the book Hamlet truly goes mad and Ophelia does not. She only feigns it for a time on her own and if perhaps there is some truth to it, it is because of her great grief and confusion. But she remains a strong character and makes a plan for her safety. This Ophelia is a woman who spent her teenage years contemplating the philosophy of love. After her tragic romance, she then turns to contemplating life and faith.

The movie completely skipped over Ophelia's time in the convent, which takes up about a third of the book. I wasn't expecting that. But they were fantastic passages. As a person of faith, I was able to read these and find a different kind of healing than I'd found in the movie three years ago. But simply as a historical fiction novel, this is appropriate content. These are questions that Ophelia would indeed have pondered if she'd passed through death and found herself grasping for healing and a new beginning in a convent. 

There is only so much space in a blog post (especially without directly talking about plot). So I suppose I've touched on the main points I wanted to bring up. This book was beautiful. The language, the pondering, the questions, the themes--they all amount to so much more than a mere indulgence in getting to hear Ophelia's words. Books like this are why I used to read so much historical fiction. 

Ophelia Speaks

In May, I wrote that post about the connections between Ophelia, Padme, and Jane (Eyre). I talked about the name Byronic hero and asked what we call the heroines that accompany such characters. Like I mentioned there, I don't think anyone refers to Hamlet as a Byronic hero, but he does have some of the traits that go along with such a figure.

Then I saw the trailer for Ophelia, which is Hamlet from Ophelia's perspective, and it was like someone else saw what I wanted and had made it. I absolutely couldn't wait for this random film that probably still no one else has even heard of. It came out with a limited release on Friday. It was only playing in one theatre in the greater Phoenix area and only at one time during the day. I was one of only five people in the theatre.

No matter, though: it was like someone had taken my soul and put it on the screen.

I was throughly enraptured by this film. That doesn't mean that it was flawless, but what film is? I didn't particularly like the narration that the movie begins with, but when I realized at the end that it's based on a book, that made more sense. This wasn't an original story; it was a book to movie adaptation. So there is a certain condensing that takes place in certain parts rather than everything being created for this medium (film) from the beginning. So that's why we'll start with narration of Ophelia telling rather than showing.

Because this story is Hamlet but not Hamlet, it does not cover the same length of time and it does not cover the same scenes. Some scenes are the same; some are not. Some scenes are missing; some are there. Some lines are there; some are not. Some are changed; some stay the same. The lines that are added, though, all give the same feeling, all fit the same fabric.

We see Ophelia, her intelligence and her wit and her imagination and her passion--the things that make her a woman that Hamlet would fall in love with.

This movie is an indulgence, and you must see it that way or you will miss the whole point of it.

I wasn't sure how I felt about the decision to make Hamlet and Ophelia's madness feigned. This is one of the things in the play that can be acted out in various ways. Either Hamlet is mad or a little mad or he's just pretending or he's doing both, etc. Here both he and Ophelia feign madness. It makes sense for the story and it fit and flowed well, but here's why I questioned the artistic choice. I realized that I don't think Hamlet and Ophelia were feigning madness. Maybe they weren't full out, put them in a psychotic hold out of control, but I like to think that they were a little . . . off. Because so many of us are. I don't want to explain away something that is part of who we are as people because I want to love us as we are.

(And here there will be some spoilers, if anyone cares about that.)

However. Remember what I said about this movie being an indulgence? It's a fantasy; it's what we want, not what's true. Everything is beautiful. So we watch Hamlet and Ophelia pretending they're mad even though we know that they are struggling and some of it is actually real. We watch Hamlet marry Ophelia even though we know that he really didn't. We watch Ophelia live even though we know that she didn't. We watch her with his child even though we know she didn't have his child. We listen to her story even though we know she never got to tell her story. We watch what we want to watch to see something beautiful.

Ophelia, the woman who loved and was loved by Hamlet. Ophelia, who drowned in her watery grave, lived and was happy simply to have once been loved. We see her dissolve her pain and her reality and we believe that we can dissolve ours, too.

There is more to talk about, especially the theme of identity. What they did with Gertrude and Claudius. The other ladies in waiting. Etc. Plenty to talk about. I wish I could hear what the literature professors are saying about this movie, not what the movie critics are saying. (And I don't usually take this angle, but might I point out that most movie critics are men, aren't they? So if this movie isn't getting stellar reviews, hey, I think that just goes to say that it's more a movie for women than men, if it's going to lean one way or the other.) But what resonated most with me was that theme of the voice that I want Ophelia to have.

I asked for focus on these heroines--and I got it. Ophelia spoke. Ophelia declared her identity and her love for Hamlet, her never-ending love for him. That quote keeps running through my head: "Doubt that the stars are fire; / Doubt that the sun doth move; / Doubt truth to be a liar; / But never doubt I love." It's like this chant of victory. Just because she lost Hamlet doesn't mean Ophelia was wrong to love him and doesn't mean she can't treasure her memories of him and doesn't mean she can't continue to live a happy life after he is gone from it.

Doubt that the sun doth move . . . but never doubt I love. Never doubt I love.

Ophelia & Padme & Jane

That connection I brought up a couple weeks ago between Ophelia and Padme has been brewing up some additional thoughts.

Ophelia, so in love with her Hamlet that she died a watery grave for him. Padme, so in love with her Anakin that she died at his very hand. Jane, so in love with her Rochester that . . . wait a second, Jane didn't die for Rochester, did she? Nope, Bertha did that for her.

Bertha is, of course, Jane: she is Jane if Jane had stayed. Yes, Jane and Rochester get the happy ending that both Ophelia/Hamlet and Padme/Anakin miss out on--but not right away. Sometimes things take time.

One of the things I loved about Southwest Shakespeare's production of Hamlet a couple years back was that it set Ophelia up as someone who also felt and thought deeply the way that Hamlet did--and that was why she was a good match for him, someone who loved him and was loved by him. So Ophelia shares in Hamlet's tragedy--because they're part of each other.

I also love that look Padme has at the end of Episode II when she's just married Anakin. It isn't that "I'm so happy" look; it's like she knows that this isn't going as she had pictured but she doesn't mind because she's chosen it, anyway. Sure, Padme was getting to that point in her life where she wanted a relationship and family--but she didn't picture that this would involve sneaking around with a secret, forbidden marriage. Yet she chooses the double life, anyway, because she decides that she wants it.

And Jane? Jane chose Rochester--and then she beheld Bertha and she high-tailed it out of Thornfield. Jane's story is a story about independence, so Jane could not, in terms of the story, value her relationship with Rochester over herself. She only returns to him when she can be with him on equal terms. So Jane does not have the tragic end of Ophelia and Padme. But does this mean that Ophelia and Padme failed where Jane did not? Well, maybe not quite so simple as that.

Okay, maybe Hamlet was ignoring Ophelia. But for how long? Not that long--and he was, well, quite distracted by the death of his father and deciding whether or not to kill his uncle for revenge or justice. So in theory, if Ophelia hadn't died and Hamlet hadn't died, then Hamlet probably would have been able to return to Ophelia after he was done killing his uncle. And Padme, well, Padme's an odd one. I mean, what if Padme hadn't died? What if she had gone into hiding? What if, years later, she heard about Anakin's redemption? I think that would have made her glad. And I don't think, if she had survived, she would have regretted being with him. You can't regret the choices that another person makes because you have no control over that. When she chose Anakin, he was a good person--and when he changed, she told him that she could no longer follow the path he had chosen. So Padme did choose, like Jane, to leave--except that it was already too late for Padme.

Is there a name for the heroines that accompany Byronic heroes? (No one describes Hamlet as a Byronic hero, right? But you can kind of put him in that light, at least in the context of what I'm here describing.) Nah, people are too concerned about Ophelia going mad and suicidal or Padme seeming weak or superficial (even though she isn't if you actually look at her character) or even with Jane's mistake being her going back to Rochester. But where is the focus on their positive characteristics in terms of these relationships? Just because something ends tragically, does that mean everything about it was tragic?

Ah, well, you know, I did write my thesis on Jane Eyre. Too bad I didn't have this character trio in mind at the time--I could write a paper on this concept, too. In fact, I'm partly tempted to: I just keep wanting to start all these different writing projects right now. And I miss Jane, my buddy I keep wanting to return to. Maybe if I'm not finding the time to reread Jane Eyre right now, I should at least find a spare four hours to watch the film version (2006 is the best).