The critics reveal that many still think women are hysterical
The acclaimed new film Hamnet is the story of how William Shakespeare came to write Hamlet. But it is the story of his wife, Agnes Hathaway, that is at the heart of the film.
The film has been dubbed by some critics as “grief porn”.
Behind that criticism lies the implication that Jessie Buckley, who plays Agnes, is overacting.
At the root of these accusations is the idea that women’s emotions need to be controlled or deemed acceptable before they are allowed to express them.
The critics reveal that many still think women are hysterical.
Throughout the film Agnes is self-assured. She’s not afraid of subverting the expectations of the time. And most importantly, she’s not afraid to marry for love and pleasure over money.
The death of Agnes and William’s son Hamnet is the crux of the film.
When he dies, Agnes holds him to her chest and screams. She’s shattered. It’s a shocking scene. It’s uncomfortable to watch someone’s pain tear out of them.
The rest of the film examines how grief affects us.
Agnes’s and William’s grief is contrasted. She expresses her grief, and is angry and bitter that William was away when Hamnet died. William further isolates himself in London, pouring his grief into the play we know as Hamlet.
Throughout the film, characters try to control or shame Agnes for her emotions and opinions.
Her step-mother and father see her as too rebellious. The town speculates about her wildly—some say she is the child of a witch.
She is even chastised while giving birth for being too loud, told that should calm down or she’ll “wake up the whole town”.
But William, played by Paul Mescal, is not considered to be too emotional when he removes himself from his entire family’s life to go and write in a different city. He is not told to calm down when he throws his father against a wall in anger.
It is because they want Agnes to fit the mold of a meek woman, suffering in silence, that they feel the grief is over blown.
Agnes is far more than a hysterical woman in Hamnet. And she is far more than a wife in the wings for the playwright.
She is entirely her own person.
The pioneering actor, anti-racist and socialist Paul Robeson died fifty years ago last week.
Born in 1898, he devoted his life to fighting imperialism, fascism and capitalism.
Robeson felt it was his responsibility as a black actor to break new ground and defy Hollywood’s racism.
Robeson inspired millions with his singing and he appeared in concerts, films and plays, including Othello.
Later in his career he decided that the fight against fascism must come before his artistic endeavours. “The artist must take sides. He must elect to fight for freedom or for slavery. I have made my choice.”
He dedicated himself to the fight against fascism and for socialism.
He saw the Russian Revolution as a high point of humanity, where people were freed from the chains of capitalism and racism.
Despite being targeted by the witch-hunts of the McCarthy era, Robeson continued to fight for civil rights and workers’ power in the United States.
He rejected separatism and insisted on the need for the black and white working class to unite. For him, the rank and file of trade unions were “the most powerful and effective force”.
He proudly supported strikes of packing house workers, auto-workers, dockers, tobacco workers, miners and steelworkers across the US.
He also maintained close relationships with strikers internationally.
Robeson recognised that beating racism was in “the interests of the overwhelming majority” and was crucial to improving the lives and conditions of all.
He called racism “the main roadblock to social progress”.
He also pushed against gradualism, saying that “nothing is ever ‘given’ to us”.
Robeson believed in the power of the working class. He argued that for action “to be decisive, it must be mass action.”
At a time when the US is kidnapping people, sowing division and starting witch‑hunts, his message should be heard.
