How Revenge Works Within the Context of Two of Mel Gibson's Movies

The stoical and callous Porter, a hard-edged character whose determination is eclipsed only by his ability to suffer pain and the cunning, but initially ambivalent Hamlet, have at least one thing in common: revenge. Overreached, betrayed, and underhandedly deceived, both men have been abused, while their malefactors have gone unrequited for their misdeeds. But how does each man deal with his intent to revenge? And how does revenge work in these two separate worlds? Are both stories-being collateral in this theme-also similar in tone and style? In the interest of answering these questions, the theme of revenge, in regards to Shakespeare's great tragedy, Hamlet, and the neo-noir film, Payback, will be explored and examined.

Revenge poses a Herculean conundrum for the Catholic Hamlet, because his conscience, influenced by the doctrine of the Church, compels him to forgive the one whom his father has charged him to kill. Whereas, in Payback, the chain-smoking, sneering, payroll thief, Porter, who has stoic tendencies, never flinches from his gritty, ultra-violent vision of revenge, which involves getting back a stolen 70 grand. Both stories present scenarios that allow for different attitudes toward revenge; however, both still encourage the audience to follow the heroes as they impose their vengeful measures of retribution.

Seizing the law into their own hands and dispensing justice, each protagonist exists within a disparate 'realm of discourse', which creates a unique reality for the characters to operate in; moreover, it gives them separate issues to resolve. The literary critic, Trevor Whittock, defines the concept of 'realm of discourse' clearly when he writes, "that the work of art defines within itself the range of experiences it will treat of and the structure of values that are to guide the reader's judgements" (Whittock, 58).