The Hamlet and The Art of Revenge: A Text Set of
Analysis of the Play Within the Play
Hamlet and The Art of Revenge:
A Text Set of Analysis of the Play Within the Play
What Is A Play Within A Play?
The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, or as it is more commonly called, Hamlet, is often
referenced as one of the most powerful and influential tragedies in English literature. Written between
1599 and 1601, Hamlet is still a large part of the literary cannon and is one of Shakespeare’s most famous
works. In Shakespeare’s time it was one of his most popular works as well as the most performed. Due to
the breath and depth of it’s complex plot, it contains a story line that Arden Shakespeare writers
Thompson and Taylor believe is rich enough for “seemingly endless retelling and adaptations by others”
(Thompson and Taylor, 74). Hence, the play has been subject to many adaptations, retellings and revisions
by various writers since its creation in the early 17th century. Two most prominent adaptations include Walt
Disney The Lion King and Dragon Dynasty’s Legend of the Black Scorpion. While both works take a
dramatic departure from the original source text that Shakespeare presents, analyzing the three works
together proves beneficial as we consider the relationship that stories from the larger literary canon have
to their inevitable adaptations.
Film Adaptation Analysis: Where It Was and Where It’s Going
As our text set considers the relationships between various adaptations and their original source text, it is
important to bring film adaptation analysis into our discussion. In “Adaptation Studies at a Crossroads,”
Thomas Leitch goes to great lengths to reframe the way that critics and readers alike might look at
analyzing film adaptations. Leitch asserts that rather than viewing film adaptations as just recreations of
original texts, viewers should accept “the possibility that literary adaptations are at once cinema and
literature” (Leitch, 63). In other words, instead of going to a film and simply questioning how accurate the
adaptation reflects the original work, viewers should consider the film adaptation literature in its own right
and with its own purpose. Leitch views film adaptations as owning “duel citizenship” in the world of
cinema as well as the world of literature (Leitch, 64). He desires the field to move out of the “notion that
adaptations ought to be faithful to their ostensible source texts” (Leitch, 64). Leitch’s discussion becomes
fruitful as we consider the deeper meanings of the three film adaptations of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. While
Lawrence Oliver’s rendition of Hamlet stays close to the original source text, making it a good candidate
for what Leitch describes as traditional film adaptation analysis, The Lion King and Legend of the Black
Scorpion extend far beyond the plot that Shakespeare presents. This makes the latter two works not less
significant, but rather good works to consider as Leitch and others reinvent the field of film adaptation
analysis.
Standing on the shoulders of fellow film adaption scholar Julie Sanders, Leitch discusses the dichotomy
that Sanders presents between film adaptation and film appropriation. Unlike adaptation, which “signals a
relationship with an informing source text or original,” film appropriation “frequently affects a more
decisive journey away from the informing source into a
wholly new cultural product and domain that may or may not involve a generic shift” (Sanders,
26). Thus, according to Sanders, The Lion King and Legend of the Black Scorpion are not film adaptations,
but rather film appropriations as the viewer leaves Shakespeare’s world of Elizabethan society and enters
Walt Disney’s world of animation and the strict hierarchal world of
imperialistic China. With this distinction in mind, of our text set will hold greater meaning, as we are not
solely concerned with how closely a work replicates Shakespeare, but rather how the work becomes a
comment on the culture it represents. Film appropriation analysis forces the viewer to employ his or her
own knowledge of culture to fully understand the text under consideration. When considering each work
in our text set through this lens, the viewer becomes more aware of not only the significance
of Hamlet, The Lion King and Legend of the Black Scorpion, but also the significance of cultural differences
as each protagonist explores revenge and the usurping of his rightful throne.
While the dichotomy that Sanders presents to her readers seems to be a black and white
distinction, we would like to assert that there are many works that must be analyzed under the old tenets
of film adaptation as well as the new rubric of film appropriation. While The Lion King and Legend of the
Black Scorpion are both departures from the original source text of Hamlet, they have scenes that are
directly taken from Shakespeare’s original work. Thus, it is not enough to stay strictly close to the source
text in analysis nor is it enough to disregard the source text entirely. To explore the full meaning of each
work, analysts must both consult the source text as well as critique the work in its own right.
The Play Within the Play: Recreation of and Departure from Shakespeare
The scene where Hamlet demonstrates his knowledge of how his uncle was murdered by presenting a play
for Claudius is present in all three of our texts. While it is taken directly from Shakespeare’s original work,
the details of how each scene plays out vary. However, each work uses the scene to depict the past action
that the protagonist wishes to avenge by the end of the narrative. Thus, the play within the play, as it is
referenced by literary critics, becomes the vehicle for the revenge that drives the plot forward. As we
further analyze these scenes, Saunders appropriation paradigm reveals reflections of the “wholly new
cultural product” that each text presents.
What Is A Play Within A Play?
One of Shakespeare’s best-known literary devices, the play within the play is used to tell one story while
another story is already in action. Sigmund Freud devoted a significant portion of his career to the topic of
dreams and alternative realities. In one of his greater works, Freud comments at length about “dreams
within dreams.” Scholars have continually used this analysis in connection with the literary device of a play
within the play. He writes:
What is dreamt in a dream after waking from the 'dream within a dream' is what the dream
wish seeks to put in the place of an obliterated reality. It is safe to suppose, therefore, that
what has been 'dreamt' in the dream is a representation of the reality, the true recollection,
while the continuation of the dream, on the contrary, merely represents what the dreamer
wishes. To include something in a 'dream within a dream' is thus equivalent to wishing that
the thing described as a dream had never happened.
Following Freud, we can see that the play within the play is much like an awakened dream. If the dream
within a dream represents a wish to erase the dream itself, a wish that the "dream has never happened,"
then the play within the play represents a desire to erase the events of the past. This holds true in
Shakespeare’s Hamlet as the prince deeply wishes that his father were still alive. Similarly in The Lion
King and Legend of the Black Scorpion each son remembers his father’s death with disdain and regret.
Thus, the play within the play is a direct illustration of a past act that the protagonist needs to come to
terms with.
The Play Within the Play and Revenge
For our purposes, the play within the play holds great significance as it serves as a vehicle for Hamlet's
desire for revenge as acted out in front of his father's murderer. In Hamlet, the play within the play allows
the prince to reenact the death of his father in front of his father’s murderer,
Claudius
.
Hamlet wishes to provoke his uncle as well as make clear that he knows the truth of his father’s death.
In The Lion King, it is not until Simba is on the brink of death, holding on for his life, that Scar confesses
to Mufassa’s murder. The scene becomes nearly identical to the moment in which Scar murders Mufassa.
In this way, it becomes a play within the play, a re-
enac
tment of
the father’s death, much like the plays put on by the protagonists in the other works. Finally in Legend of
the Black Scorpion, the play is a dramatic dance between two characters, one representing the king and
the other his murderous brother.
For Hamlet, Prince Wu Laung, and Simba, the only action that will effectively put their fathers’ deaths in
the past is to reclaim the throne by killing their murderous uncles. While each protagonist arrives at this
conclusion differently, the “obliterated reality” that they seek consists of a life without their uncle and a life
in which they take rightful ownership over the throne.
The Play Within the Play in Hamlet
Shakespeare titled the play within the play that takes place in Act III, Scene ii of Hamlet “The
Mousetrap.” By producing a play for his uncle Claudius, Hamlet hopes to “catch the conscience of the
king”—to confirm his own suspicions that Claudius did, in fact, poison Hamlet senior and to let Claudius
know that Hamlet is aware of his uncle’s fratricide (Doebler, 50). As the play is about to begin, Hamlet
remarks, "look you, how cheerfully my/ mother looks, and my father died within these two hours" (III, ii,
115). Then the play about a murder in Vienna of a Viennese king, Gonzago, begins. A King and Queen
embrace lovingly. Remarking that he is getting old and frail, the player Queen replies that she would never
remarry, saying "None wed the second but who killed the first" (III, ii, 169). The King lies down to sleep
and the Queen exits. Then, another man enters and pours poison into the sleeping King's ear. At this
reenactment of the murder, Claudius stops the play and rushes out of the room in a fit of rage, which
Hamlet sees as indicative of his uncle’s guilt.
How the Play Within the Play Drives Hamlet’s Revenge
Previously, while contemplating producing the play, Hamlet says, “I’ll have these players/ Play something
like the murder of my father/ Before mine uncle. I’ll observe his looks,/ I’ll tent him to the quick. If he but
belch,/ I’ll know my course” (Doebler, 50). Here Hamlet clearly lays out the relationship between this play
within a play and revenge. The revenge is directly initiated by Claudius’s reaction to
Hamlet’s “Mousetrap.” And, as Freud would suggest, it is through the play that Hamlet begins to come to
terms with the murder of his father. It is after the play within the play that Hamlet’s madness that has
been developing for some time now takes on a very definite purpose. He says, “That I essentially am not in
madness/ But mad in craft” (III, iv, 209-210). Now that he has confirmation of Claudius’s guilt, he is utterly
consumed with the idea of revenge; his madness serves as a cover for the vengeful thoughts that fill his
head.
Hamlet’s plans for revenge take an unexpected turn when Laertes challenges Hamlet to a duel. During
this duel, not only do Hamlet, Claudius, and Laertes all die of the same poisoned sword, but Hamlet’s
mother, Gertrude, falls dead upon drinking from a poisoned chalice. Thus Hamlet’s plan for revenge
certainly does not play out the way he intended. Further, it is the obsession with revenge, incited by the
play within the play, that ultimately leads to the death of so many—by killing Laertes’ father and inciting
Laertes’ anger, Hamlet directly and indirectly causes the death of Laertes, Laertes’ father, the Queen, and
ultimately, himself (in addition to Claudius, as he had planned).
Critic John Doebler suggests that the word “mousetrap,” the title which Hamlet assigns to the play,
would carry “rich iconographical associations” for the Renaissance audiences that a contemporary reader
would likely miss (Doebler, 162). Given the commonplace nature of this symbol in the Renaissance,
Doebler asserts that the “brief mention of the play’s title itself” can be seen as “a symbolic microcosm
communicating to the audience much of the elaborate irony on which the whole dramatic action
of Hamlet pivots” (Doebler, 162). Doebler cites the myriad of connotations associated with mice including
gluttony, corruption of all they touch, charges of uncleanliness in the Bible, and the Augustinian
conception of the cross as a mousetrap on which the devil was ensnared and subsequently caused his
downfall. The Augustinian conception of the mousetrap, which would have been very familiar to
Shakespeare’s contemporaries, dovetails perfectly with the outcome of Hamlet’s plan for revenge as “when
the trap is set the devil snaps at the bait; the mouse is caught; but he is caught by one who must himself
die to defeat him fully.” Hamlet’s death parallels Jesus’ and “results in tragic resurrection, in the sense that
he has died while saving the kingdom for mankind” (Doebler, 169). Thus, by conflating Claudius with a
mouse and the play with the initial trap in Hamlet’s plan of revenge, Shakespeare uses the play as a critical
device in conveying the overarching meaning of the entire play to the audience.
The Lion King
Simba = Hamlet
Mufasa = Old Hamlet
Scar = Claudius
The Lion King does not contain the same obvious “play within a play” that appears in The Legend of the
Black Scorpion and Hamlet. However, the recreation of Mufassa’s death plays the same essential role in
inciting Simba’s desire for revenge. Simba returns to pride rock, not to avenge his father’s murder, but
rather to take his rightful place as king, to fulfill his destiny and do the moral and just thing. He still feels
remorse and responsibility for his father’s death. It is not until Simba is on the brink of death, holding on
for his life, that Scar confesses to Mufassa’s murder. The scene becomes nearly identical to the moment in
which
Scar murders Mufassa. In this way, it becomes a play, a reenactment of the father’s death. Unlike Hamlet
and The Legend of the Black Scorpion, Simba is not aware of Scar’s crime until this moment. This final
“play within the play” scene is essential in serving as the catalyst for revenge. The antagonist, not the
protagonist, puts on the “play” in The Lion King. Scar forces Simba into revenging Mufasa's death by
putting Simba's own life at risk. Until this moment, no revenge would have been sought. Ultimately, by
shifting the instigator of revenge from Hamlet or Simba, as is traditional, to Claudius or Scar, the Disney
film is attempting to prevent the audience from perceiving the protagonist in a negative light. Simba's
motives for returning to Pride Rock remain pure; he has come back to fulfill his destiny as king, not
to
murder his uncle. By laying out the story in this way, Disney maintains the distinct line between good and
evil.
Walt Disney’s films obviously target a very specific audience. Nearly all of his animated films are meant
to appeal to audiences within their childhood years, instilling morals and virtues that Disney deemed
important. In 1937 both Cosmopolitan and Karl W. Bigelow referred to Walt Disney as "the Aesop of the
twentieth century" (Watts 144). Disney was considered a moralist, an educator, a child psychologist and
even a theologian. His films were praised for their positive impact on young viewers by experts on child
raising and pyschology (Watts 145). The Lion King was released in 1994 during what is considered the
Disney Renaissance (1989-1999), a time when Disney was once again creating successful films, most of
which were based on fairy tales and other stories meant to teach moral virtues. The Lion King, while not a
fairy tale, is modeled after several stories including Hamlet. Here we see how an analytical lens like
appropriation can yield insights; not only does The Lion King refashion Hamlet, it borrows from fairy tales
and Disney-inspired moral codes to create a film that embodies a new set of cultural values.
Walt Disney utilizes the play within the play to create a morally acceptable ending, one in which the
protagonist is without a doubt a pure hero. When Simba confronts Scar in their final scene, Simba tells
Scar that he “doesn’t deserve to live” (The Lion King). However, Simba will not kill his Uncle; Disney will
not sully the protagonist. When Scar asks if he will kill him, Simba replys, “No Scar, I’m not like you” (The
Lion King). Here Disney is protecting the protagonist to propagate a good-protagonist message. Simba will
not continue the cycle of deaths; rather, he tells Scar to “run, run away... and never return” (The Lion King).
Here Simba is showing great mercy, a quality of a good king, and in turn Disney is pushing this same
message of the desirability of mercy and nonviolence onto the audience. It is essential to Disney to
distinguish good from evil, the dark from the light. Utilizing Jungian archetypes, Scar is symbolized as the
shadow archetype, and is inherently evil, while Simba embodies the light. This is most evident in their final
battle. Where the two lions clash and dark battles light. In this epic scene, the battle between good and
evil, good must, and will, prevail. To appeal to and condition the audience that Disney targets, good must
always defeat evil, while maintaining the moral virtues of the protagonist. This need to maintain the purity
of the protagonist is most evident in the fact that Simba does not execute the final revenge. It is in fact,
the hyenas who kill Scar. This prevents a young audience from associating the protagonist with any act
that could be perceived as evil. In this way his revenge becomes justified, and our protagonist is kept in an
amiable light.
Ultimately the “play within the play” in The Lion King serves as both the catalyst for revenge, but also a
measure to preserve the moral structure of the protagonist and the movie as a whole.
The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life. By Steven Watts. (Columbia: University of
Missouri Press, 1997
The Legend of the Black Scorpion
Prince Wu Luan = Hamlet
Emperor Li = Claudius
Empress Wan = Gertrude
The Legend of the Black Scorpion is an adaptation of Hamlet set in China at the end of the Tang Dynasty
in 907 A.D. The story follows many of the same lines of Shakespeare's original script. Prince Wu Luan is
the son of a poisoned emperor. Emperor Li, Wu Luan's uncle, takes the throne and marries Empress Wan,
the old emperor's wife. The Prince's love interest commits suicide. Before it's over, Wu Luan witnesses the
death of his uncle, bringing closure to his quest for to avenge his father's death, right before meeting his
own end.
However, despite all of its similarities to the original Hamlet, Black Scorpion features key variations that
remind the viewer that this story takes place in an entirely new world. Li and Wan bear remarkable
similarities to two transcendent emperors from Chinese history. Li's story is reminiscent of Zhu
Quanzhong's, the man responsible for the end of the Tang Dynasty, which had lasted for nearly 300 years.
Wan's tale follows that of Wu Zetian, the only woman to ever become emperor of China. But, because these
two people are from different times and in order to fit into the framework of Shakespeare's Hamlet, Black
Scorpion takes some liberties and alters historical events enough to make the movie work.
Empress Wan is a former, but still possible, love interest of Wu Luan, not his mother. This sets up a
multi-level rivalry between the Prince and his uncle, the emperor. Not only is there disagreement about
whether Li killed Wu Luan's father, but Li's new wife has romantic and sexual feelings for Wu Luan. Zetian
entered the Chinese court as a lesser wife of then Emperor Gaozong, not considered an empress. She
began her rise to power by killing her own daughter and blaming it on the current empress, using the
episode to usurp the empress and rise to power. In 655, the emperor suffered a stroke and Wu started
giving orders to state councilors. In 675, Wu's son suddenly died when he tried to assert his authority and
take the throne. Five years later, the next heir apparent was accused by Wu of plotting a rebellion,
banished and forced to commit suicide.
In 683, Emperor Gaozong died and his oldest son took the throne. However, six weeks later, Wu
installed the younger 12-year-old son as emperor. In 690, she forced him out of power and became the
first female Chinese emperor. She ruled for 15 years before palace officials forced her out. Her life is full
of deceit, no different than Wan's. In Black Scorpion, Wan deceives Li so he will trust her, telling him he
pleases her sexually better than her previous husband ever did, making it easier for her to trick him in the
end.
Zhu Quanzhong was a military governor serving underneath Emperor Zhaozong in the early 10th century.
But in 904 he organized the murder of the emperor and most of his family and installed Zhaozong's 13year-old son as the new emperor. In 907, he executed anyone still loyal to Zhaozong and forced the 13year-old emperor to give up the throne. This signaled the end of the Tang Dyansty. Five years later, in 912,
Quanzhong, then emperor, was murdered by his son, Zhu Yougui. Soon thereafter, Yougui was killed by
his brother, Zhu Youzhen, giving the throne to Quanzhong's nephew.
The scene in The Legend of the Black Scorpion that reveals the inner feelings of the characters and
forces the action takes place when Wu Luan presents a play at the coronation of Empress Wan, a play
within a play very similar to what we find in Hamlet.
During the play, Wu Luan wears a mask. He believes that wearing a mask during a performance allows
for the actor to convey "complex and hidden emotions," rather than those that are just on the surface. It
puts the focus of the audience on the actions of the play rather than on the faces of the actors. The play is
a dramatic dance between two characters, one representing Li and the other Wu Luan's father. Wu Luan
beats a drum on the ground behind the drama as the the characters move. It ends with the character Li
blowing poison into the ear of the other, killing him while he lies on the ground, seemingly asleep. The
poison is the same used in the murder of Wu Luan's father, the poison of a black scorpion. In
Shakespeare's Hamlet, the play within the play is presented in much the same way, as the murder is
reenacted. During the play in Black Scorpion, the camera flashes back to Li's face three times, the third
one immediately following the blowing of the poison into the ear. On the third instance, his hand is shown
as he nervously brings it to rest against his leg right as the poison is about to be blown. This is taken as
the realization that the uncle realizes that Wu Luan knows of his deed. The Emperor responds by
appointing Wu Luan as ambassador to a far-away province and sends him away.
Wan's prominence in this adaptation of Hamlet is shown again as she sends General Yin, the army
general, to bring Wu Luan back from the guards that are escorting him to his new post. The guards had
meant to kill Wu Luan, but Wan saves him. These events follow the text of Hamlet closely. Claudius sends
Hamlet away to England in a plot to kill him. However, in Shakespeare's text, Hamlet decides on his own to
return and take revenge on Claudius. In Black Scorpion, Wu Luan must be rescued, suggesting the
stronger role in the film for the female Wan.
Outright accusation of murder does not come until Wu Luan returns on the night of a banquet where the
Emperor is to be poisoned. The banquet is being held by the emperor in an attempt to gain the admiration
of the public. Wu Luan arrives after his rescue, accuses Li of murdering his father "like a coward," and
challenges him to a duel as Li picks up the cup of wine. The Emperor knows the wine is poisoned because
it has already killed Quin Nu, Wu Luan's young lover. Li realizes his whole house is against him. His wife
doesn't love him. His nephew is out for revenge. He fears the spirit of his brother and rather than fight in
dishonor, drinks the cup willingly and accepts death. Wu Luan dies from a poisoned blade, the same as
Hamlet, as he tries to protect Wan from General Yin, who was trying to kill her because he did not support
her cause. Wan is then shown happily smiling as she realizes that there is now nothing standing in the way
of her becoming emperor. However, as soon as the smile crosses her face, a dagger comes flying from the
background and pierces her through the heart. Her killer is never shown, but her death is symbolic in that
is represents the end of corruption in the royal family. By the end of Black Scorpion, Wu Luan is
represented much the same as Hamlet, as a hero who fought for the honor of his father's name and then
died because of the greed of others.
Conclusion
A relatively new field of study, film adaptation analysis has much room to grow and expand as it finds
its identity within the world of academia. When it comes to the text set analysis of Hamlet, The Lion King,
and Legend of the Black Scorpion, it is apparent that the age old approach of strict analysis of an
adaptation's relationship to an original source text is not enough to understand the complexities of each
new work. Conversely, one cannot abandon Shakespeare's original work when considering the richness of
each subsequent film. Thus it becomes important to understand each film as a work of art in its own right
with its own cultural context as well as a comment on the original source text and the original themes
explored by Shakespeare. Shakespeare uses the play within the play as an essential device as he tries to
convey the overarching meaning of Hamlet's ultimate revenege to the audience. Subtle cultural references
in the original text help to further elucidate his intentions. Disney employs Hamlet as the backbone to
The Lion King. Utilizing the core story of Hamlet, and altering it to create a "happily ever after" ending,
Walt Disney creates a story that stands independent of the original text. The Legend of the Black
Scorpion follows the original text of Shakespeare's Hamlet closely in the way the story is presented and
carried out. However, The Legend of the Black Scorpion differs in its characterization of the female
characters, most notably Empress Wan, to make the movie more historically accurate in terms of Chinese
history. The Legend of the Black Scorpion takes real people and events from the Chinese past and alters
them enough to fit into the framework of an adaptation of Hamlet. When considering all these changes
and relationships together, the full signifiicance of Hamlet and it's relationship to its film adaptations is
realized and the field of field adaptation analysis can be taken to a new level.
Bibliography
Doebler, John. "The Play Within the Play: the Muscipula Diaboli in Hamlet." Shakespeare Quarterly 23
(1972): 161-69. JSTOR. Web. 7 Feb. 2010. Leitch, Thomas. "Adaptation Studies at a Crossroads."
Adaptation 1.1 (2008): 63-77. Print.
Shakespeare, William. "The Arden Shakespeare Hamlet. Edited by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor." London:
Thomson Learning (2006). Print.
Watts, Steven. "The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life." Columbia: University of
Missouri Press (1997). Print.
Image citations:
"Laurence Oliver as Hamlet." 8 Jun. 2009. 1 March. 2010 <http://colindickey.wordpress.com/2009/06/>.
Lion King Image Archive "Simba on Pride Rock." 1 Feb. 2010. 1 March.
2010 <http://www.lionking.org/imgarchive/?Miscellaneous_Images+hi>
Rohrbach Library "William Shakespeare 1" April 2009. 1 March.
2010 <http://rohrbachlibrary.wordpress.com/2009/04/>
Public Forum Institutue. "Walt Disney."1 March. 2010
< http://www.publicforuminstitute.org/nde/news/innovators/disney.htm>
Movieberry. "Hamlet Movie Poster"1 March. 2010
< http://www.movieberry.com/hamlet_70/>
Lion King Image Archive "Lion King Video Cover." 1 Feb. 2010. 1 March.
2010 <http://www.lionking.org/imgarchive/?Miscellaneous_Images+hi>
Starpulse "Legend of the Black Scorpion Video Cover" 10 Feb. 2008. 1 March. 2010
<http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2008/02/10/legend_of_the_black_scorpion_arrives_on__26>
Ronald Grant Archive "Hamlet with Sword." 1 March.
2010 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/gallery/2007/sep/11/hamlets?picture=330719285>
Lion King Image Archive "Simba and Scar Fight." 1 Feb. 2010. 1 March.
2010 <http://www.lionking.org/imgarchive/?Miscellaneous_Images+hi>
Universal Pictures Company, Inc. "Hamlet Seated with Claudius." 1953. 1 March. 2010
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/590186/theatre>
Lion King Image Archive "Scar Attacks Simba." 1 Feb. 2010. 1 March.
2010 <http://www.lionking.org/imgarchive/?Miscellaneous_Images+hi>
Lion King Image Archive "Scar's Little Secret." 1 Feb. 2010. 1 March.
2010 <http://www.lionking.org/imgarchive/?Miscellaneous_Images+hi>
"Wu Zitan" 28 Feb. 2010. 1 March. 2010 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Zetian>
"Empress Wan" 1. March. 2010 < http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/13736/1/CONTEST-LEGEND-OFTHE-BLACK-SCORPION-DVD/Page1.html>