Literature | High school » Hilary Ilkay - To Be or Not To Be An Existential Hero, Analyzing Hamlet and Antonius Block in Accordance with Existentialist Thought

Ilkay 1 Hilary Ilkay Mr. Ahumada ENG4U1-01 9 March 2009 To Be or Not To Be An Existential Hero: Analyzing Hamlet and Antonius Block in accordance with Existentialist Thought I stick my finger into existence – it smells of nothing. Where am I? What is this thing called the world? Who is it that has lured me into the thing, and now leaves me here? Who am I? How did I come into the world? Why was I not consulted? So said Søren Kierkegaard in 1896, earning him a reputation as one of the most celebrated existentialist philosophers. In fact, Paul Tillich asserts that Kierkegaard is typically considered the “instigator” of existentialism (123). Existential ideas, however, did not begin or end with Kierkegaard. As early as the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas was rejecting the notion of divine premeditation espoused by Augustine of Hippo in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Aquinas’ and Augustine’s systems of theology came into conflict during the Reformation, a time of religious uncertainty

and ideological upheaval. It makes sense, then, that Shakespeare’s Hamlet appeared in the midst of this turmoil. The character of Hamlet embodies the “intellectual struggle” (Levine 544) of Shakespeare’s age, addressing the epistemological and metaphysical mysteries of human existence. In Hamlet, an early prototype of Kierkegaardian existentialist thought is visible. Like Shakespeare, Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman was influenced by the philosophical revolution of his era. With his films, existentialism began to transcend the literary genre. Set during the bleakness and despair of the Middle Ages, The Seventh Seal has been deemed “the first genuinely existential film” (Sarris 81). Hamlet and The Seventh Seal came into being three and a half centuries apart, yet their protagonists contain striking similarities. Antonius Ilkay 2 Block – the film’s protagonist – asks, as Hamlet does, the “big questions” of human existence. Hamlet and Antonius Block embody three

main existentialist principles – alienation, the search for meaning in a meaningless world, and the universality and certainty of death – and, as a result, they ultimately succeed as existential heroes. Both Hamlet and Antonius experience a great deal of alienation. When Hamlet’s character is introduced in Act 1 scene 2, he has physically and mentally distanced himself from others: “We meet a Hamlet whose abrupt retreat from social intercourse is not only signaled by his mourning dress, but is also articulated through an intensely satiric relationship to language” (Berry 57). In contrast to the festive and lighthearted air of Claudius’ court, Hamlet’s black clothing and cryptic lines immediately stand out. He seems to be the only person mourning his father’s death, and this puzzles and disgusts him. As the play continues, Hamlet begins to ponder the “big questions” of human existence in an attempt to make sense of the corruption and absurdity of his world. Instead

of enlightening him, however, these questions breed more uncertainties about the world around him. Following his encounter with the ghost, which results in more confusion and skepticism, “Hamlet puts an antic disposition on and alienates his authentic self from the ‘mass’, not permitting anyone to cross the bridge between the ‘I’ and ‘they’” (Tekinay 120). Hamlet cannot make sense of the world around him, and, as a result, refuses to reveal his “authentic self” to others. This, in turn, alienates him from the other characters, except Horatio, who some consider Hamlet’s “alter-ego” (Tekinay 120). Antonius’ squire in The Seventh Seal, Jöns, fulfills a similar role to that of Horatio: he is the only character Antonius is not truly alienated from, and he is often seen as Antonius’ philosophical “alter-ego” (Gervais 52). Like Hamlet, Antonius is alienated from Ilkay 3 the world around him, manifested in the opening frame of film. The ragged knight is

depicted on a desolate, rocky beach, symbolic of the hostile and absurd world. Antonius is also plagued by the “big questions” of the universe, and his inexhaustible desire for knowledge results in further alienation. Unlike Hamlet, however, this isolation is not only personal, but divine as well. According to Birgitta Steene, Antonius’ search for ultimate knowledge is representative of the archetypal Biblical story of man’s “fall” from Paradise: Bergman has grasped the paradoxical implications of the old myth: man cannot seek full intellectual cognizance of God without disobeying him; the more he tries to understand the nature of God the further he removes himself from God. Bergman illustrates this gradual alienation of man from the divine by depicting in [Antonius] a human being at first engaged in a holy enterprise but in the end willing to sell his soul to the Devil – could he only find him (94). Antonius desires to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, but God has expressly

forbidden this: faith is supposed to replace sensory knowledge. This, however, is not enough for Antonius, and in his quest to “grasp God with the senses” (as cited in Steene 155), he is even willing to speak to the Devil. Thus, the more assiduously Antonius searches for knowledge, the more he alienates himself from God. Though Hamlet and Antonius experience slightly varying forms of alienation, they share a detrimental indifference to others. In the confession scene, Antonius proclaims, “Through my indifference to my fellow men, I have isolated myself from their company” (as cited in Steene 154). In his first meeting with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet ascribes god-like qualities to man, a “piece of work” (Shakespeare 2. 2. 303), but concludes his speech with a much different sentiment: “And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? / man delights not me: no, not woman neither” (Shakespeare 2. 2 308-309). As a result of their total indifference to others,

Hamlet and Antonius’ alienation seems to be self-imposed. They are both aware of the “infinite possibilities inherentin Ilkay 4 being human and conscious,” but they also recognize that “simply to be a finite human being is to be in some sense a prisoner” (Frye, “On Shakespeare” 98), isolated in the search for life’s unanswerable questions. Thus, Hamlet and Antonius clearly embrace the existentialist notion of alienation. Another main existentialist principle embodied by Hamlet and Antonius is the search for meaning in a meaningless, hostile, and absurd world. Both characters openly acknowledge the futility of human existence. The death of Hamlet’s father forced Hamlet to confront the inevitability of death and reflect on the meaning of life. In Act 1 scene 2, after witnessing the corruption of Claudius’ court, Hamlet exclaims, “How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world” (Shakespeare 133-134). His words reveal a blatant

“contemptus mundi” (Rieff and Woolfolk 26), a “melancholy sense of the unbearable loathsomeness of physical life” (Frye, “Fools” 39). Antonius articulates a similar worldview during his confession to Death: “My life has been a futile pursuit, a wandering, a great deal of talk without meaning. I feel no bitterness or self-reproach because the lives of most people are very much like this” (as cited in Steene 156). The knight, who has been visited by Death, is now physically faced with his mortality, and this causes him to reflect on existence. Antonius realizes that his life, as well as the lives of most humans, has been a meaningless search. Thus, Hamlet and Antonius experience the “existential angst” that accompanies knowledge of the meaninglessness of the world. Though Hamlet and Antonius recognize the meaninglessness of human existence, they endeavour to infuse purpose and meaning into their lives. They are thrust into a world of absurdity and corruption, in which

death is the only certainty, yet they do not succumb to the meaninglessness. In the play, Hamlet witnesses the destruction of the natural order: Ilkay 5 his father’s sudden death is barely mourned for, his mother quickly marries Claudius, his inferior uncle, and Claudius is blindly accepted as the new king. The state of Denmark has become, as Marcellus says, “rotten” (Shakespeare 1. 4 90) Despite having “seen through the fictions of the world to the bitter truth of its chaos and meaninglessness[Hamlet] does not succumb to nihilism” (Holbrook 185). This is demonstrated in Act 4 scene 4, when Hamlet sees that Fortinbras’ men are willing to die for a seemingly futile cause: What is a man, If his chief good and market of his time Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more. Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, Looking before and after, gave us not That capability and godlike reason To fust in us unused (Shakespeare 32-38). In this passage, Hamlet recognizes that

man, blessed with the ability to think and reason, must impose his own meaning onto life. At the end of the soliloquy, Hamlet applies this principle to his own life, asserting that, from now on, this thoughts will “be bloody, or be nothing worth” (Shakespeare 4. 4 65) In addition, Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy is “a clear manifestation of the existential mans concern with the arbitrariness involved in the human condition – that ‘thrownness’ in Kierkegaards terms.” Hamlet, like Kierkegaard, believes humans are thrust into the world with no inherent purpose. As a result, “there is no distinction between existence and non-existence – to be and not to be in Hamlets words – unless the individual imposes his own subjective meaning onto life” (Tekinay 120). To Hamlet, the transitory nature of life is absurd: “A man’s life’s no more than to say ‘One’” (Shakespeare 5. 2 74), he laments Though life is short, he believes humans can, and are

obligated to, search for meaning within it. Hamlet ultimately fulfills Ilkay 6 his quest to “set things right” (Tekinay 120), to reestablish the natural order, by killing Claudius. Antonius is also consumed by the search for meaning. Unlike Hamlet, however, Antonius searches primarily for objective meaning, manifested in his desire for concrete knowledge of God. Antonius’ worldview eradicates the possibility of subjective meaning, for he believes that, if God does not exist, “then life is an outrageous horror. No one can live in the face of death, knowing that all is nothingness” (as cited in Steene 155). Throughout the film, it seems as though Antonius begins to embrace a more subjective view of meaning. He tells Death he is going to use his reprieve to perform “one single meaningful deed” (as cited in Steene 156) to compensate for the meaninglessness of his life. Antonius believes he has the power to instill meaning into his life: “This is my hand I can move it,

feel the blood pulsing through it. The sun is still high in the sky and I, Antonius Block, am playing chess with death” (as cited in Steene 156). Like Hamlet, Antonius witnesses the absurdity and corruption of his world: the meaninglessness of his Crusade, priests resorting to thievery, flagellants punishing themselves for the destruction of the Black Plague. When he meets Jof, Mia, and their son, Mikael, their purity and goodness stand in contrast to the bleakness and skepticism of his time. They, unlike Antonius, do not require objective meaning. Antonius is given the opportunity to perform his one significant action, to combat the absurdity, when he learns the family is Death’s next target. By distracting Death and allowing the family to escape, however, he seals his own fate: Death checkmates him. In spite of his loss, Antonius tells Death his reprieve has been meaningful, “for he has found some good people and learned, partly through them, to value life and hope, and he has

helped a young family escape death” (Mast and Kawin Ilkay 7 299). Thus, it seems Antonius has abandoned his search for objective meaning, and, like Hamlet, has embraced a more subjective view. This worldview, however, does not last long. Antonius expects Death to “reveal [his] secrets” (as cited in Litch 178), but Death claims to be unknowing. As a result, the knight learns that “there is no ultimate harmony. There is no justification at all for the suffering present in the world” (Litch 178). This realization deeply affects Antonius; so much so that, at the end of the film, when he can no longer escape his death, he forgets his “one meaningful deed” and reverts to the “small and frightened and ignorant” man who could not fathom life without objective meaning (Litch 193). “God,” he prays, “You who are somewhere, who must be somewhere, have mercy on us” (as cited in Litch 193). With these words, Antonius does what he accuses all humanity of: “We make an

idol of [our] fear and call it God” (as cited in Hart 63). His longing for objective meaning despite his uncertainties about God seems a far cry from Hamlet’s subjectivism. This contrast extends even into their ideas of good and evil. While Hamlet believes “there is nothing / either good or bad but thinking makes it so” (Shakespeare 2. 2 249-250), Antonius “fails to accept the implication that transcendental truth dwells in man himself, as potentialities of good and evil” (Steene 95). It seems that Hamlet and Antonius are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Hamlet, however, also reveals a desire for objective meaning At end of the play, he prevents Horatio from committing suicide not for any moral reason, but so Horatio can clear Hamlet’s name and tell his story. Hamlet has restored the natural order by killing Claudius, but it is not enough: when faced with the finality of death, he needs someone to “give honor and meaning to his death” (Bloom 421). Despite the

characters’ inconsistencies in their views, both Hamlet and Antonius embody the struggle of Sisyphus, Ilkay 8 the classic existentialist struggle: the search for meaning in a meaningless world rife with absurdity and corruption. Hamlet and Antonius embody a third existentialist principle: the universality and certainty of death. The existentialist must, first of all, live with the knowledge of mortality and face it squarely. Throughout the play and the film, Hamlet and Antonius confront the inevitability of death. Hamlet, in fact, seems to possess a fascination with death It appears in almost all of his major soliloquies, most notably in the “To be or not to be” speech. He joking reveals his knowledge of the universality of death in Act 4 scene 3: “Your fat king and your lean beggar is but / variable service, two dishes, but to one table: that’s / the end” (Shakespeare 24-26). Hamlet recognizes that death spares no one, king or beggar alike It is the eventual end for

every human being. He truly reveals his understanding of the certainty and universality of death, however, in the graveyard scene. Even Alexander the Great, Hamlet realizes, returned to “base uses” (Shakespeare 5. 1 297): “Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander / returned into dust; the dust is earth; of earth we make / loam: and why of that loam, whereto he was converted, / might they not stop a beer-barrel” (Shakespeare 5. 1 203-206) This scene is a turning point in Hamlet’s view of death: “From death in the abstract[Hamlet] has moved to death in the concreteDeath has come down out of the high places of Hamlet’s soliloquizing imagination to take on a earthy, even a wormy corporeal reality” (Calderwood 271). Until physically confronted with death in the graveyard scene, Hamlet is tortured by the possibility of an afterlife. In two of his soliloquies, Hamlet discusses the possibility of suicide as a release from corruption and suffering of existence. The idea

of an afterlife, a “sacramental machine,” as Frye calls it, eliminates such a possibility of escape: by committing suicide, “you won’t get the release of Ilkay 9 death; you’ll simply lose what chance there is of ever being released” (Frye, “On Shakespeare” 87). In Act 5, Hamlet has abandoned the idea of an afterlife and is resigned to the finality of death: “If it be now, ‘tis / not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it / be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all: since / no man has aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave / betimes? Let be” (Shakespeare 211-215). Hamlet’s words reveal a Camusian indifference, a “disinterestedness” as Bloom calls it (422), strikingly akin to a passage in The Stranger: “Given that you’ve got to die,” rationalizes Meursault, the novel’s protagonist, “it obviously doesn’t matter exactly how or when” (Camus 109). When Hamlet decides to fight the duel with Laertes, he is embracing

this philosophy: there is no sense in escaping this death, for another will claim him eventually. Antonius’ confrontation with mortality is perhaps more terrifying than Hamlet’s, for Antonius faces “death in the concrete” from the beginning of the film. He is forced to confront not only the devastation of the Black Death along his travels, but the physical manifestation of Death itself. It is impossible for him to ignore the certainty of death “Nothing escapes you,” exclaims Antonius, after toppling the chess pieces in an attempt to distract Death. “Nothing escapes me,” affirms Death “No one escapes me” (Bergman) Antonius recognizes that, eventually, every human being “will have to stand at that last moment of life and look toward the darkness” (as cited in Steene 155). Antonius’ belief in the universality of death is manifested in the “dance of death,” which demonstrates that “no matter how attractive a person may be or how high his or her station in

life, the person will soon be a rotting corpse”. Thus, the “democracy of death” (Aiken 164) is revealed, a view also espoused by Hamlet. When Antonius cuts the chess game short by toppling the pieces and allowing the family to escape the clutches of Death, he is embracing Hamlet’s Ilkay 10 view of death in Act 5 of the play. He knows he will lose the game eventually, and what better time than now, when he can “[wrest] some meaning from the purposeless flux of experience” (Scott 31)? At the end of his quest, Antonius, like Hamlet, is resigned to his mortality. Death becomes, as Peter Cowie points out, a “minister of eternal rest” (103) rather than an adversary. Throughout the film, Antonius is tormented by the ambiguity of life after death, as Hamlet is; not, however, because of the threat of a “sacramental machine,” but because he feels that “death has to be a transition to something else – to an afterlife which will explain and justify the present” (Young

59). Frye makes an interesting statement about tragedies that applies to both Hamlet and Antonius: “The actions that lead most directly to death are the strongest ones” (“Fools” 33). Hamlet chooses to duel with Laertes, and it leads directly to his death; however, it is his most meaningful action, for, as a result of the duel, Hamlet exposes Claudius’ corruption and restores the natural order. Antonius topples the chess pieces, and it results in his death; however, it is his most meaningful action, as he “saves” an innocent family. Hamlet and Antonius not only confront death, they understand its certainty and universality, and, as a result, epitomize the third major principle of existentialism. Hamlet and Antonius’ validity as existential heroes will be discussed in accordance with three definitions: the first proposed by William Soderberg in his essay, “Shakespeare: The Artist as Existential Hero,” the second by Ash Tekinay in his essay, “From Shakespeare to

Kierkegaard: An Existential Reading of Hamlet,” and the third by George Cotkin in his book, “Existential America.” Each emphasizes a distinct feature of the existential hero; therefore, by combining their descriptions, a more comprehensive definition can be reached. Soderberg states, “An existentialist hero faces the Ilkay 11 meaninglessness of death andcreates meaning in the face of absurdity.” Existentialists see the world as meaningless, hostile, and absurd; therefore, the existential hero is one who actively combats this absurdity to impose meaning onto his life. Tekinay adds to Soderberg’s description, stating, “The existential hero is an outsider” (116). Existentialists espouse that alienation is a natural feature of human existence. It seems natural, then, that in his search for authenticity, the existential hero will be estranged from his society and from others. Finally, Cotkin describes the existential hero as “a figure confronting death in its various

forms” (193). Many existentialists, such as Sartre and Camus, stress the importance of living with the knowledge of mortality. They also claim that death is no less absurd than birth. As a result, confronting the inevitability of death is a key characteristic of the existential hero. From these three definitions, a clear picture of the existential hero can be drawn: firstly, he must combat absurdity by searching for meaning; secondly, he must face alienation and estrangement; and thirdly, he must confront his mortality. Interestingly, these three criteria are strikingly similar to the three main existentialist principles previously discussed. Therefore, within these parameters, Hamlet and Antonius clearly succeed as existential heroes. Tekinay states, “Hamlet is the model of the existential man who lives in a symbolic exile, alienated from others” (119). Hamlet’s world is pervaded by a sense of nausea, and, as a result, he cannot connect to other human beings (except, of

course, Horatio, an anomaly that was previously addressed). Tekinay continues, “Hamlet exemplifies the existential concept that only when man thinks and imposes meaning onto life does life become worth something” (117). Hamlet’s belief in imposing subjective meaning onto life, despite its absurdity and meaninglessness, has Ilkay 12 already been addressed in great detail. John Russell describes Hamlet’s fulfillment of Cotkin’s criterion: “Hamlet, his ego capable now of confronting the harshest facts of reality, accepts death as an integral part of the process of life” (216). Hamlet physically and emotionally confronts his mortality various times throughout the play, particularly in the graveyard scene, as previously mentioned. In addition, Northrop Frye recognizes Hamlet’s existentialist perception of life and death: [Hamlet] sees consciousness as a kind of vacuum, a nothingness, at the centre of being. Sooner or later, we have to commit ourselves to nothingness”

(“On Shakespeare” 99). Thus, Hamlet recognizes that consciousness and nothingness are synonymous, and, in fact, equally absurd. Furthermore, he realizes that death, succumbing to the ultimate nothingness, is inescapable. Antonius, like Hamlet, easily fulfills the criteria of an existential hero. Mary M Litch observes, “The knight recognizes that he isunableto find importance in his relationships to other humans” (192). Thus, the knight is aware of his indifference to alienation from others, which is a crucial feature of the existential hero. He is also alienated from the divine in his quest for knowledge (Steene 94). Moreover, Birgitta Steene manages to encapsulate Antonius’ validity as an existential hero in one sentence, claiming he is an “Angst-ridden, existentialist man posing the eternal questions about the meaning of life and the horror of death and total annihilation” (4). Antonius incessantly searches for meaning – objective meaning but meaning nonetheless –

despite the corruption and absurdity of his surroundings, and he confronts the finality of death, both the traits of a true existential hero. In a sense, both Hamlet and Antonius epitomize this search for meaning. They try to distinguish between appearances and reality, to “penetrate Ilkay 13 to the real nature ofthings” (Tekinay 118), and this sets them apart as two of the most unforgettable existential heroes in literature and film. Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Ingmar Bergman’s Antonius Block exemplify three principal existentialist concepts – estrangement, the search for meaning in an absurd, hostile, and meaningless world, and the certainty and universality of death – and, consequently, they succeed as existential heroes. Though conceived more than two centuries apart, Hamlet and The Seventh Seal contain undeniable similarities, most strikingly between their two protagonists. Hamlet represents pre-Kierkegaardian existentialist thought, whereas Antonius represents

post-Kierkegaardian existentialism, as developed by Heidegger, Camus, Sartre, and other modern existentialists. Their worldviews and major philosophical doctrines, however, are very much the same. It is easy to misconstrue the play and the film as portraying a pessimistic view of life, as they are so full of morbid concepts such as alienation, meaninglessness, and death. In reality, both works serve as affirmations of human existence, for “death,” explains M. Martinez Carril, “reveals the possibilities of life” (111). Hence, Hamlet and Antonius experience Milan Kundera’s “unbearable lightness of being.” In his novel of the same name, Kundera explores this paradox, which applies not only to Hamlet and Antonius Block, but to all humanity; and, like Shakespeare and Bergman, he refuses to provide any concrete answers: The heaviest of burdens crushes us, we sink beneath it, it pins us to the ground. Butthe heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more

real and truthful they become. Conversely, the absolute absence of a burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into the heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half real, his movements as free as they are insignificant. What then shall we choose? Weight or lightness? (5) Works Cited Aiken, Lewis R. Dying, Death, and Bereavement Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc., Publishers, 2001 Berry, Philippa. “Hamlet’s Ear” Shakespeare Survey 50 Ed Stanley Wells Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human New York: Riverhead Books, 1998. Calderwood, James L. “Hamlet’s Readiness” Shakespeare Quarterly 353 (1984): 267273 JSTOR 1 Mar 2009 < http://wwwjstororg/search> Camus, Albert. The Outsider New York: Penguin Classics, 2000 Carril, M. Martinez “Ingmars Ansikte” Focus on the Seventh Seal Ed Birgitta Steene Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972 Cotkin,

George. Existential America Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. Cowie, Peter. “Ingmar Bergman: The Middle Period” Focus on the Seventh Seal Ed Birgitta Steene. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1972 Frye, Northrop. Fools of Time: Studies in Shakespearean Tragedy Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967. Frye, Northrop. Frye on Shakespeare Markham, ON: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1989 Gervais, Marc. Ingmar Bergman: Magician and Prophet Montreal & Kingston: McGill Queens University Press, 1999. Hart, Henry. “Review” Focus on the Seventh Seal Ed Birgitta Steene Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972 Holbrook, Peter. “Nietzsche’s Hamlet” Shakespeare Survey 50 Ed Stanley Wells Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Kundera, Milan. The Unbearable Lightness of Being New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 1999. Levine, Richard A. “The Tragedy of Hamlet’s World View” College English 237 (1962): 539-546. JSTOR 1 Mar 2009

<http://wwwjstororg/search> Litch, Mary M. Philosophy Through Film New York: Routledge, 2002 Mast, Gerald and Bruce F. Kawin A Short History of the Movies 9th ed Toronto: Pearson Education, 2007. Rieff, Philip and Alan Woolfolk. The Crisis of the Officer Class Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2007. Russell, John. Hamlet and Narcissus Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Press, 1995 Sarris, Andrew. “The Seventh Seal” Focus on the Seventh Seal Ed Birgitta Steene Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972 Scott, James. F “Ingmar Bergman in the 1950s” Focus on the Seventh Seal Ed Birgitta Steene. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1972 “Script Extract.” Focus on the Seventh Seal Ed Birgitta Steene Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972 Shakespeare, William. Hamlet 2nd ed Toronto: Harcourt Canada, 2004 Soderberg, William. “Shakespeare: The Artist as Existential Hero” 14 Mar 2005 1 Mar 2009. <

http://wwwmontgomerycollegeedu/~bsoderbe/shkspr050314htm> Steene, Birgitta. “The Seventh Seal: An Existential Vision” Focus on the Seventh Seal Ed. Birgitta Steene Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1972 Tekinay, Ash. “From Shakespeare to Kierkegaard: An Existential Reading of Hamlet” Dogus University Journal 2001. 1 Mar 2009 <http://journal.dogusedutr/13026739/2001/sayi4/M00057pdf> The Seventh Seal. Dir Ingmar Bergman Perf Max von Sydow, Bibi Anderson, and Bengt Ekerot. 1957 DVD Janus Films, 2006 Tillich, Paul. The Spiritual Situation in Our Technical Society Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988. Young, Colin. “Review” Focus on the Seventh Seal Ed Birgitta Steene Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972