Drawing upon art-historical, linguistic, feminist, theological, and theatrical approaches, this thesis contributes to concurrent discourse on Hamlet's tragic genre. Hamlet's tragic outlook, which depends upon an understanding of matter as destined for decay, and of material items as ends in themselves rather than vehicles for spiritual transformation, is an early modern notion concurrent with theological debates surrounding the Eucharist. Thus, she stands apart from other characters as one that both serves to construct and to deconstruct the objective mode. As a prop, Ophelia's corpse complicates the objective mode through its semantic complexity. In the graveyard scene (5.1), characters and theatrical props cooperate to materialize the objective perspective. Extending an objective reading to Hamlet's characters reveals their function as images, or two-dimensional emblems, in moments of slowing narrative time. Hamlet's "objective mode" evokes early modern materialist philosophies of vanitas and memento mori, and it is communicated in theatre through semiotic means, whereby material items stand for moral ideas according to an established sign-signified relation. Hamlet's tragedy is constructed as a perspective of matter that is destined for decay, and this "objective," or "object-focused," mode of viewing the material world enhances theatrical and theological understandings of the play's props, figurative language, and characters. The purpose of this paper is to explain the power of males' effects over these characters, and analyse victimized Gertrude's and Ophelia's characteristic features. They should be regarded as important for their very detailed positions, and by the help of these women characters the play has raised in value. These women characters are Gertrude and Ophelia. Two victimized/ marginalized women characters are involved in Shakespeare's play. We can focus on characters of Hamlet that are victimized/ marginalized by the other, 'important' characters. In this play, it is easily observed that most of critics and scholars give full attention to Hamlet himself, but Hamlet is not just an attractive character in this tragedy. Hamlet has taken place in their daily language and has been used to speak out for specific worldviews. Even though people do not take place in academic life, and do not read Shakespeare, they have knowledge about Hamlet in one way or another. However, because of Shakespeare's genius, Hamlet, instead of Amleth, has become the source or subject for many studies and works going on the present since the 17 th century.
His masterpiece Hamlet was possibly written in the first period of the 17th century, but the source of Hamlet is Amleth (a revenge tale) which was published in the 16 th century. Hamlet, the most significant play both in English and world literature, is a masterpiece of Shakespeare who is famous as the most well-known poet and dramatist. In adapting Shakespeare to screen, the filmmaker must, therefore, respond to the plays' metatheatricality by either rejecting alienating devices or finding a cinematic counterpart to the theatre's self-reflexivity. They may want to direct a film pointing to its self-referential character or choose to ignore it and attempt a more realistic representation. Does it mean, however, that the audience should always be kept at a safe distance and the illusion of the film world protected? Can they be awakened from "the dream" earlier on than in the final credits? Is metatheatre transferable to the new medium? It seems that the Brechtian revolution has to some extent reached the screen as well, and contemporary Shakespeare directors make use of distancing devices. Mulvey calls it "a hermetically sealed world which unwinds magically, indifferent to the presence of the audience".1 The Hollywood aesthetics, as exemplified in the names of the studios, such as DreamWorks, is based on the presumption that the experience of watching a movie is similar to the state of dreaming. The film medium, however, which prides itself on its realism, rarely discloses its own enunciation and tends to deliberately ignore the spectators, permitting them to indulge in their voyeuristic fantasy. In the theatre, the pretence of the fourth wall may be broken by metatheatrical devices.