This is what I have to say about it:
Well done man.
I like the approach of the authors as well as your approach to the review. The psychology of human action (or non-action) is an inexhaustible subject because we will never know precisely why we do things (or do not). This may be at the root of the brilliance of the play. It gives us a question to which there is no answer. Human beings are rational and irrational, and never the twain shall meet. While this is true, we are cursed at the same time with the need to know. We want certainty about why someone acts they way they do – and we are cursed again with a need to control how others act. Maybe that is at the root of some people’s need to create robots – and to make them appear more and more human.
I’ve always thought the question of whether Hamlet was crazy or not was as strange as the idea of temporary insanity. If one has little or no insight into choices one makes that hurt others and one kills and plots to kill, what is one? Sane? Is one sane if one has a good reason for committing condemnable acts? Is Obama sane for killing children with drones and bragging that he is, “good at killing people”? Insanity (or at least irrationality) and human actions often seem one and the same to me.
I enjoyed the Slings and Arrows clip – and that last brilliant clip as well. Erudite actors! Fun and edifying. And how fitting that Wells says, “…the first point about Hamlet is that he is a genius.” Well, of course that is what he would say! As your piece observed, Wells reading of the play revealed as much about Wells as it did Hamlet.