Cheer up, Hamlet!
Chin up, Hamlet!
Buck up, you melancholy Dane!
So your uncle is a cad who murdered Dad and married Mum.
That's really no excuse to be as glum as you've become.
So wise up, Hamlet!
Rise up, Hamlet!
Perk up and sing a new refrain!
Your incessant monologizing fills the castle with ennui.
Your "antic disposition" is embarrassing to see,
And by the way, you sulky brat, the answer is "To be."
You're driving poor Opheila insane.
So shut up, you rogue and peasant!
Grow up, it's most unpleasant!
Cheer up, you melancholy Dane!
Friday, December 27, 2013
Cheer Up, Hamlet
Finally, the holiday break from school has given me some time to get back into Hamlet! As promised (see 12/8/13), I have begun to delve into the first season of Slings & Arrows. It took the opening credits of the first episode to provide fodder for a post. The theme song for the first season of the series is a witty little ditty entitled Cheer Up, Hamlet. In the tradition of Hamlet Cha Cha Cha (see 8/14/13 and 8/19/13) and Richard Thompson's cover of The Story of Hamlet (see 10/6/13), here is one more auditory treat. Thanks to YouTube, you can both read the lyrics and listen to the performance.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Shore on Hamlet
How should one judge Hamlet? W. Teignmouth Shore weighed in with his opinion on the matter in Shakespeare's Self (1920). His thesis is as follows.
Shore contends that Elizabethan playgoers "wanted and demanded melodrama decked out with poetics." They were not interested in careful plot construction or subtlety in character drawing, so this is what Shakespeare gave them. The poetry aside, Hamlet is "crude melodrama, which is quite exciting when it is acted as melodrama...."
Shore blames both the audience and the playwright for the puzzle that is Hamlet's character. The audience is at fault for probing Hamlet as an actual person. Shakespeare's offense is taking an actor's part and and using it as "an outlet for [his] unconquerable impulse to pour out poetry on the slightest provocation." Hamlet babbles on matters that he, as a character, could not have had any knowledge. Apparently he learned this loquacity from his father, whose ghost also runs at the mouth.
Ultimately, Shore finds the poetry to be the quality that makes the play fascinating. It saves the play from its melodramatic trappings, even if the outbursts often have nothing to do with the action of the play itself. Shore sums up his analysis with a note of thanks. "Yet we must thank heaven that Shakespeare was more of a poet than a dramatist" (author's italics).
"Hamlet, as should all Shakespeare's plays, ought to be judged as an acting play, written for an Elizabethan audience, which revelled in horrors, jeered at madmen, loved ghostly thrills, believing in the appearance on earth of the spirits of the dead, and which delighted in watching fine sword-play."Shore contends that Hamlet was a familiar story to playgoers of the period, and Shakespeare took the story and adapted it for his contemporary audience. He rewrote the play, but he did not remodel it. Had he done the latter, then he "must have been an exceedingly poor playwright." To judge Shakespeare by modern criteria, though, takes his work out of its intended context. Rather, he should be viewed within his particular time frame. There is the rub.
Shore contends that Elizabethan playgoers "wanted and demanded melodrama decked out with poetics." They were not interested in careful plot construction or subtlety in character drawing, so this is what Shakespeare gave them. The poetry aside, Hamlet is "crude melodrama, which is quite exciting when it is acted as melodrama...."
Shore blames both the audience and the playwright for the puzzle that is Hamlet's character. The audience is at fault for probing Hamlet as an actual person. Shakespeare's offense is taking an actor's part and and using it as "an outlet for [his] unconquerable impulse to pour out poetry on the slightest provocation." Hamlet babbles on matters that he, as a character, could not have had any knowledge. Apparently he learned this loquacity from his father, whose ghost also runs at the mouth.
Ultimately, Shore finds the poetry to be the quality that makes the play fascinating. It saves the play from its melodramatic trappings, even if the outbursts often have nothing to do with the action of the play itself. Shore sums up his analysis with a note of thanks. "Yet we must thank heaven that Shakespeare was more of a poet than a dramatist" (author's italics).
Sunday, December 8, 2013
...It Is To Come
While I have already mentioned a benefit of working in a school (see post on 9/10/13), one of the hazards of the teaching profession is time disappearing in a haze of correcting papers and submitting grades. This is especially true as a holiday vacation looms on the horizon. So blogging about Hamlet will have to take a bit of a break.
As a preview though, one of the next items on my "to-do" list is a Canadian TV series entitled Slings & Arrows. I discovered it in the playbill for the Stratford production that I reviewed previously. (See post on 11/17/13.) A little bit of research and an Internet purchase later, I have Season 1 ready to go. Now if I can just find enough free time to give it a proper viewing...
As a preview though, one of the next items on my "to-do" list is a Canadian TV series entitled Slings & Arrows. I discovered it in the playbill for the Stratford production that I reviewed previously. (See post on 11/17/13.) A little bit of research and an Internet purchase later, I have Season 1 ready to go. Now if I can just find enough free time to give it a proper viewing...
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Hamlet Huh?
When I was writing about the University of Rochester production of Hamlet (see 10/14/13 post), I came across a reference to The Hamletmachine in the playbill. I figured that it was worth a look, so I took to the Internet.
First, I visited the Wikipedia page for the play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamletmachine). It was not terribly helpful. At least it gave an introductory description. The play, by Heiner Mueller, is a reading of Hamlet applied to some modern situation, perhaps Communism and Soviet-bloc Europe, perhaps feminism. Interpretations vary.
At the bottom of the entry is a copy of the text of the play (http://members.efn.org/~dredmond/Hamletmachine.PDF). As it is only nine pages long, it was easy to print a hard copy for reading and adding to my Hamlet file. Reading it led to even more confusion, though.
"What is this?" The play is a quick read, considering its length, but it is not a coherent read. I read it several times, and I am still not entirely clear what is going on. So back to the Internet I went.
Within the realm of YouTube I found a "synopsis" of the play, which I have posted below. This clarified things a bit, although the overly informal nature of the clip distracted from its stated purpose. Other YouTube clips of the play's performance--some mislabeled, some in foreign languages--shed no light on the issue.
One of the beauties of Hamlet is its adaptability. The play can be molded into whatever context the director wishes, generally with good results. The caveat, though, is that it can be changed beyond recognition. That is the case here. Aside from the use of character names, the relation between Hamlet and Hamletmachine is unclear to this blogger. Perhaps a staged production will come to the area. Until then, though, this version of Hamlet will not pique my curiosity much further.
First, I visited the Wikipedia page for the play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamletmachine). It was not terribly helpful. At least it gave an introductory description. The play, by Heiner Mueller, is a reading of Hamlet applied to some modern situation, perhaps Communism and Soviet-bloc Europe, perhaps feminism. Interpretations vary.
At the bottom of the entry is a copy of the text of the play (http://members.efn.org/~dredmond/Hamletmachine.PDF). As it is only nine pages long, it was easy to print a hard copy for reading and adding to my Hamlet file. Reading it led to even more confusion, though.
"What is this?" The play is a quick read, considering its length, but it is not a coherent read. I read it several times, and I am still not entirely clear what is going on. So back to the Internet I went.
Within the realm of YouTube I found a "synopsis" of the play, which I have posted below. This clarified things a bit, although the overly informal nature of the clip distracted from its stated purpose. Other YouTube clips of the play's performance--some mislabeled, some in foreign languages--shed no light on the issue.
One of the beauties of Hamlet is its adaptability. The play can be molded into whatever context the director wishes, generally with good results. The caveat, though, is that it can be changed beyond recognition. That is the case here. Aside from the use of character names, the relation between Hamlet and Hamletmachine is unclear to this blogger. Perhaps a staged production will come to the area. Until then, though, this version of Hamlet will not pique my curiosity much further.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
A Prequel to Hamlet
In the playbill for the Stratford production of Hamlet (cf. 11/17/2013 post), I came across a reference to the novel Gertrude and Claudius by John Updike. I made a note to find the book. While I was familiar with Updike, it was only passingly so. In junior year of high school, I drew his name for an English term paper. In a bit of self-absorbed rebellion, I managed to write the paper without reading much of his work. I noted in Updike a seeming preoccupation with sex, a point I raised in the paper. Now, roughly twenty years later, it was time to return to the author's work.
The novel is a prequel to the action of Hamlet. It uses historical sources for the legend to develop the back stories of Gertrude, Claudius, Hamlet (Senior) and the rest. Reading it from start to finish in little more than a day, I found it to be an excellent work that sets the stage for Shakespeare's play.
The novel opens in Elsinore, the castle of Rorik and the late Ona, parents of Gerutha. It would be best to pause to mention an issue with the characters' names. Updike gives an explanation as to the origin of the various spellings of the names of the characters in the novel, namely the historical sources of the story. He does not explain why he chose to make it confusing for the reader, though. Gerutha becomes Geruthe and then Gertrude. Horwendil, Gerutha's first husband becomes Horvendile. For some unknown reason after his death, he is called Hamlet, as is his son (who began life as Amleth and then became Hamblet), a complication that confuses even Gertrude. Feng, brother to Horwendil, becomes Fengon and then Claudius when he takes the Danish crown. (Taking a new name upon coronation makes some sense at least.) Corambus, Horwendil's Lord Chamberlain becomes Corambis and takes the name Polonius upon Claudius' accession to the throne. Confused? You would not be alone. To make matters easier, I will use only the Shakespearean names in this post (except Horwendil, which distinguishes that character from his son).
Back to the action. We are introduced to Gertrude at the age of 19 (or 17, it varies). She is betrothed to Horwendil, a hard drinker who manages to pass out prior to consummation of the wedding night. We meet his brother, Claudius, a worldly and wily politician. Polonius is on the scene very early as Lord Chamberlain to Rorik and later to Horwendil. He has two children, Laertes and Ophelia, by his late wife. He serves also as confidant to Gertrude, a role that leads to later complications. Shortly after marriage and on the day Fortinbras is killed by Horwendil, Gertrude gives birth to Hamlet. We discover that the sickly lad befriends Yorick during his childhood years. The young Hamlet is described as fond of actors and of self-oration.
The relationship between Horwendil and Gertrude is strained and cold, and Gertrude looks for and takes comfort from Claudius. Their relationship proceeds from that of in-laws to that of lovers, a situation helped along by a conniving Polonius, who provides them a "love nest." The secret is spilled to Horwendil by Claudius' valet. Horwendil confronts Claudius and resolves to banish him and to execute Polonius for conspiracy and Gertrude for adultery. Polonius, as one might expect, overhears the entire exchange while eavesdropping. He volunteers to Claudius the information regarding Horwendil's afternoon nap in the orchard, as well as a way to sneak into and out of the area unnoticed. After a hurried trip to his own manor to retrieve some poison, Claudius murders his brother in order to save Polonius, Gertrude and himself from punishment for their treachery.
With Horwendil dead, seemingly of a scorpion's sting, Claudius is free to propose to Gertrude, who accepts. We begin to learn about Hamlet's advances on Ophelia. Although Hamlet is 30 and Ophelia 17, Gertrude justifies that by comparing the age discrepancy at her first marriage. Gertrude states that she fears Hamlet, and Claudius decides it would be best to keep Hamlet around to strengthen his own regal position. The story ends shortly after the wedding ceremony, as Claudius permits Laertes to return to Paris but asks Hamlet, who has managed to spend ten years at Wittenberg, to stay with the family at Elsinore.
What I found most interesting in the novel is the way that Updike foreshadows the action in Shakespeare's play. Some of this is done with literary allusions. Early in the story there is a reference to Gertrude "protesting too much." A later line, "There's a shape in things, fiddle and fuss however we will around the edges," reminded me immediately of Hamlet's line about divinity (V, ii, 11). Polonius uses his "Neither a borrower" line on Gertrude, and references are made to "reechy" kisses and something being "rotten." There is a discussion of nunneries, of Hamlet playing the ghost, and even of Claudius' oration in "iambic cadences," as if that were a normal manner of speaking.
Other characters make fleeting appearances in the action of the story. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are introduced, but presumably as the fathers to Hamlet's university friends of the same names. Reynaldo is mentioned as Polonius' spy in Paris, and Cornelius and Voltemand get a nod as they head to Norway to speak to the king.
There is a repeated use of the word subtle, as well as its negative. Various character behaviors are described as such. One item that is not subtle is Updike's sexual fascination. Within the first 11 pages we are treated to "untamed raven hair between parted white thighs." There are even more glowing references, which I leave for readers to find for themselves.
The description of Claudius in the closing lines of the novel chill the reader, who knows undoubtedly what is to come: "He had gotten away with it. All would be well."
The novel is a prequel to the action of Hamlet. It uses historical sources for the legend to develop the back stories of Gertrude, Claudius, Hamlet (Senior) and the rest. Reading it from start to finish in little more than a day, I found it to be an excellent work that sets the stage for Shakespeare's play.
The novel opens in Elsinore, the castle of Rorik and the late Ona, parents of Gerutha. It would be best to pause to mention an issue with the characters' names. Updike gives an explanation as to the origin of the various spellings of the names of the characters in the novel, namely the historical sources of the story. He does not explain why he chose to make it confusing for the reader, though. Gerutha becomes Geruthe and then Gertrude. Horwendil, Gerutha's first husband becomes Horvendile. For some unknown reason after his death, he is called Hamlet, as is his son (who began life as Amleth and then became Hamblet), a complication that confuses even Gertrude. Feng, brother to Horwendil, becomes Fengon and then Claudius when he takes the Danish crown. (Taking a new name upon coronation makes some sense at least.) Corambus, Horwendil's Lord Chamberlain becomes Corambis and takes the name Polonius upon Claudius' accession to the throne. Confused? You would not be alone. To make matters easier, I will use only the Shakespearean names in this post (except Horwendil, which distinguishes that character from his son).
Back to the action. We are introduced to Gertrude at the age of 19 (or 17, it varies). She is betrothed to Horwendil, a hard drinker who manages to pass out prior to consummation of the wedding night. We meet his brother, Claudius, a worldly and wily politician. Polonius is on the scene very early as Lord Chamberlain to Rorik and later to Horwendil. He has two children, Laertes and Ophelia, by his late wife. He serves also as confidant to Gertrude, a role that leads to later complications. Shortly after marriage and on the day Fortinbras is killed by Horwendil, Gertrude gives birth to Hamlet. We discover that the sickly lad befriends Yorick during his childhood years. The young Hamlet is described as fond of actors and of self-oration.
The relationship between Horwendil and Gertrude is strained and cold, and Gertrude looks for and takes comfort from Claudius. Their relationship proceeds from that of in-laws to that of lovers, a situation helped along by a conniving Polonius, who provides them a "love nest." The secret is spilled to Horwendil by Claudius' valet. Horwendil confronts Claudius and resolves to banish him and to execute Polonius for conspiracy and Gertrude for adultery. Polonius, as one might expect, overhears the entire exchange while eavesdropping. He volunteers to Claudius the information regarding Horwendil's afternoon nap in the orchard, as well as a way to sneak into and out of the area unnoticed. After a hurried trip to his own manor to retrieve some poison, Claudius murders his brother in order to save Polonius, Gertrude and himself from punishment for their treachery.
With Horwendil dead, seemingly of a scorpion's sting, Claudius is free to propose to Gertrude, who accepts. We begin to learn about Hamlet's advances on Ophelia. Although Hamlet is 30 and Ophelia 17, Gertrude justifies that by comparing the age discrepancy at her first marriage. Gertrude states that she fears Hamlet, and Claudius decides it would be best to keep Hamlet around to strengthen his own regal position. The story ends shortly after the wedding ceremony, as Claudius permits Laertes to return to Paris but asks Hamlet, who has managed to spend ten years at Wittenberg, to stay with the family at Elsinore.
What I found most interesting in the novel is the way that Updike foreshadows the action in Shakespeare's play. Some of this is done with literary allusions. Early in the story there is a reference to Gertrude "protesting too much." A later line, "There's a shape in things, fiddle and fuss however we will around the edges," reminded me immediately of Hamlet's line about divinity (V, ii, 11). Polonius uses his "Neither a borrower" line on Gertrude, and references are made to "reechy" kisses and something being "rotten." There is a discussion of nunneries, of Hamlet playing the ghost, and even of Claudius' oration in "iambic cadences," as if that were a normal manner of speaking.
Other characters make fleeting appearances in the action of the story. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are introduced, but presumably as the fathers to Hamlet's university friends of the same names. Reynaldo is mentioned as Polonius' spy in Paris, and Cornelius and Voltemand get a nod as they head to Norway to speak to the king.
There is a repeated use of the word subtle, as well as its negative. Various character behaviors are described as such. One item that is not subtle is Updike's sexual fascination. Within the first 11 pages we are treated to "untamed raven hair between parted white thighs." There are even more glowing references, which I leave for readers to find for themselves.
The description of Claudius in the closing lines of the novel chill the reader, who knows undoubtedly what is to come: "He had gotten away with it. All would be well."
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Hamlet at Stratford (Ontario)
In 2008, Hamlet brought me to the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Ontario. It was my second trip to Stratford, the first having been entirely forgettable. This one was much the opposite, resulting in the best stage production of Hamlet that I had seen to that point (and to the point of typing this post).
I noted first the intimacy of the Festival Theatre and the excellent sight lines. The fact that I was in the front row of the balcony might have had something to do with that. In looking through the playbill, I noticed that the production was set in 1910, during the Edwardian Era. That was a new twist in the productions I'd seen. I will admit, though, that I was apprehensive; the previous production I had seen at Stratford had been modernized and it did not work. This time, though, it was well played.
Several things stand out five years later. Ben Carlson's performance as Hamlet was excellent. He was engaging, in the role, even if he was older than college age. It was a convincing, even exciting portrayal. The wit that is not always evident in Hamlet was on display here. I found myself laughing during a tragedy. (Is that allowed?) The final scene, when Hamlet and Horatio say farewell, was particularly powerful.
The costuming and staging, especially in the modern context, were interesting. The cast were attired in suits, high collars, some tweeds and sweaters. There was a military influence evident in the wardrobe. Other more modern influences appeared on stage--rifles and, in the scene between Laertes and Claudius, a pool table. Modernity aside, though, the climactic sword fight remained a sword fight.
Although it was a long production, it did not feel that way. I don't recall any obvious deletions to the text, although there must have been some to keep the play to a running timg of approximately three hours.
One other item that still remains with me was the trapdoor and lift in the stage. It allowed for, among other things, an actual grave for Ophelia. I believe it was the first time that I had seen this done live on stage, and it made for a much more realistic cemetery sequence. (As an aside, the Festival Theatre offered a backstage and below stage tour, which I took the following morning. I was able to see the trapdoor and lift up close. If you should have the chance someday to make the trip, stay for the tour!)
This performance of Hamlet ranks highly in my canon, and it has become the benchmark by which I measure other productions. Perhaps that is unfair for the others, but not for this performance, which well deserves the honor.
I noted first the intimacy of the Festival Theatre and the excellent sight lines. The fact that I was in the front row of the balcony might have had something to do with that. In looking through the playbill, I noticed that the production was set in 1910, during the Edwardian Era. That was a new twist in the productions I'd seen. I will admit, though, that I was apprehensive; the previous production I had seen at Stratford had been modernized and it did not work. This time, though, it was well played.
Several things stand out five years later. Ben Carlson's performance as Hamlet was excellent. He was engaging, in the role, even if he was older than college age. It was a convincing, even exciting portrayal. The wit that is not always evident in Hamlet was on display here. I found myself laughing during a tragedy. (Is that allowed?) The final scene, when Hamlet and Horatio say farewell, was particularly powerful.
The costuming and staging, especially in the modern context, were interesting. The cast were attired in suits, high collars, some tweeds and sweaters. There was a military influence evident in the wardrobe. Other more modern influences appeared on stage--rifles and, in the scene between Laertes and Claudius, a pool table. Modernity aside, though, the climactic sword fight remained a sword fight.
Although it was a long production, it did not feel that way. I don't recall any obvious deletions to the text, although there must have been some to keep the play to a running timg of approximately three hours.
One other item that still remains with me was the trapdoor and lift in the stage. It allowed for, among other things, an actual grave for Ophelia. I believe it was the first time that I had seen this done live on stage, and it made for a much more realistic cemetery sequence. (As an aside, the Festival Theatre offered a backstage and below stage tour, which I took the following morning. I was able to see the trapdoor and lift up close. If you should have the chance someday to make the trip, stay for the tour!)
This performance of Hamlet ranks highly in my canon, and it has become the benchmark by which I measure other productions. Perhaps that is unfair for the others, but not for this performance, which well deserves the honor.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Hamlet Hallucinates?
Previous posts describe portrayals of the ghost of Hamlet's father as voice-overs and not as visual apparitions. (See 7/28/13 and 8/3/13.) A logical offshoot of this could be a question: Is Hamlet actually visited by a ghost or is it merely a hallucination indicative of a sick mind? W. W. Greg takes the latter viewpoint in his article "Hamlet's Hallucination" (Modern Language Review, XII (October 1917), 393-421). An abridged version of Greg's hypothesis is found in Hamlet: Enter Critic. (See post of 7/29/13.)
Greg's hypothesis hinges "upon two considerations: the elaborate external evidence for the reality of the Ghost, and the fact that the Ghost reveals to Hamlet true information which he could not otherwise have acquired."
Greg spends considerable time reviewing an oft overlooked portion of the "play within a play," namely the dumb-show that precedes it. Why does the king not blanch when he sees his crime acted out in the prologue? What is different about the main action of The Mousetrap that causes him to rise? It is a question much ignored, but it is one that Greg finds crucial to understanding the character of Hamlet.
Greg furthers his hypothesis by analyzing the language used by the ghost. He compares the ghost's speeches to those of Hamlet and Gertrude, and he notes also that Gertrude is unable to see the ghost when it appears to Hamlet in her chamber. He concludes that the ghost fits better as "but a figment of Hamlet's brain" rather than as a genuine revelation.
Greg commends Shakespeare as "not only a skilful craftsman, but likewise a considerable master of innuendo." He ends his article by offering one more observation, this one of the play's length. He alleges that Shakespeare, a "practical dramatist," wrote the play not only to be acted but also to be read privately. This knowledge may have influenced his treatment of the theme as well.
Greg's hypothesis is a provocative one. It is not one that I had considered previously, but it is well presented and supported. Certainly, it gives this blogger pause to rethink the placement of the ghost in this play and the way that it is presented by the director.
Greg's hypothesis hinges "upon two considerations: the elaborate external evidence for the reality of the Ghost, and the fact that the Ghost reveals to Hamlet true information which he could not otherwise have acquired."
Greg spends considerable time reviewing an oft overlooked portion of the "play within a play," namely the dumb-show that precedes it. Why does the king not blanch when he sees his crime acted out in the prologue? What is different about the main action of The Mousetrap that causes him to rise? It is a question much ignored, but it is one that Greg finds crucial to understanding the character of Hamlet.
Greg furthers his hypothesis by analyzing the language used by the ghost. He compares the ghost's speeches to those of Hamlet and Gertrude, and he notes also that Gertrude is unable to see the ghost when it appears to Hamlet in her chamber. He concludes that the ghost fits better as "but a figment of Hamlet's brain" rather than as a genuine revelation.
Greg commends Shakespeare as "not only a skilful craftsman, but likewise a considerable master of innuendo." He ends his article by offering one more observation, this one of the play's length. He alleges that Shakespeare, a "practical dramatist," wrote the play not only to be acted but also to be read privately. This knowledge may have influenced his treatment of the theme as well.
Greg's hypothesis is a provocative one. It is not one that I had considered previously, but it is well presented and supported. Certainly, it gives this blogger pause to rethink the placement of the ghost in this play and the way that it is presented by the director.
Monday, November 4, 2013
A Hamlet Reduction
Many years ago I was given a copy of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged). No, it is not what you may be thinking. It is the acting script of the play performed by the Reduced Shakespeare Company. The goal of the three-actor troupe is to perform all of Shakespeare's plays in one evening. That noble aim devolves into absurdity by the end of the performance, but it is indeed a success.
While each of Shakespeare's plays receives at least a mention, the largest portion of the evening is saved for Hamlet. In fact, it comprises the entire second act of The Complete Works. Somehow the three actors manage to include the memorable characters, scenes, lines and even soliloquies in the (very) abridged version. That is not all. There is even a thorough presentation of Freudian psychoanalysis as it applies to Ophelia in the "nunnery" scene, complete with audience participation.
The original version of the play is from 1987. In 2011, the writers revised it as The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged) [revised]. The new edition has updated jokes, bringing it into the age of the Internet, the i-device and Lulu, the "bratty character" on General Hospital.
Although I have been unable to see The Complete Works performed live on stage, there is a commercially available video version of the original edition. Through the wonders of technology, the 88-minute performance is posted (as of this typing) on YouTube for all to see. The link is below. If only the Hamlet portion interests you, start watching at the 52-minute mark. It would be a shame to skip the first act, though. You would miss Titus Andronicus as a celebrity cooking show, the Histories as an American football game and Othello as a rap. Laughs abound. If you have the time and inclination, The Complete Works is worth a view.
While each of Shakespeare's plays receives at least a mention, the largest portion of the evening is saved for Hamlet. In fact, it comprises the entire second act of The Complete Works. Somehow the three actors manage to include the memorable characters, scenes, lines and even soliloquies in the (very) abridged version. That is not all. There is even a thorough presentation of Freudian psychoanalysis as it applies to Ophelia in the "nunnery" scene, complete with audience participation.
The original version of the play is from 1987. In 2011, the writers revised it as The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged) [revised]. The new edition has updated jokes, bringing it into the age of the Internet, the i-device and Lulu, the "bratty character" on General Hospital.
Although I have been unable to see The Complete Works performed live on stage, there is a commercially available video version of the original edition. Through the wonders of technology, the 88-minute performance is posted (as of this typing) on YouTube for all to see. The link is below. If only the Hamlet portion interests you, start watching at the 52-minute mark. It would be a shame to skip the first act, though. You would miss Titus Andronicus as a celebrity cooking show, the Histories as an American football game and Othello as a rap. Laughs abound. If you have the time and inclination, The Complete Works is worth a view.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Misunderstanding Hamlet
One essay in the book Hamlet: Enter Critic (See post on July 29, 2013) is entitled "A New Way of Misunderstanding Hamlet." It is a piece written by Thomas M. Kettle in 1918. Kettle's title comes from his assertion that Shakespeare has been so over-analyzed as to be "mummified into an orthodoxy." Kettle then proceeds to analyze Hamlet himself, adding (purposely and ironically) to the misunderstanding he decries. A few items from the essay are particularly noteworthy.
Kettle states early in the essay that the best way to restore Shakespeare to freshness is a "prolonged bath of oblivion." He suggests that Shakespeare's works should be lost for 150 years so that future generations may come to them fresh. He adds:
Later, Kettle explains his concept of misunderstanding Hamlet. Each person studying Hamlet understands different "sub-meaning and personal colour," which may be entirely different from what the playwright intended.
It is this humble blogger's hope that readers of the blog will continue to enjoy the misunderstandings of the play presented herein and perhaps even to formulate their own.
Kettle states early in the essay that the best way to restore Shakespeare to freshness is a "prolonged bath of oblivion." He suggests that Shakespeare's works should be lost for 150 years so that future generations may come to them fresh. He adds:
"Failing that [Shakespeare] must be excluded from all school and university courses, and forbidden under heavy penalties to any one not having attained his majority."This writer can only hope that no one in education who might read the quote considers taking it seriously.
Later, Kettle explains his concept of misunderstanding Hamlet. Each person studying Hamlet understands different "sub-meaning and personal colour," which may be entirely different from what the playwright intended.
"What each of us does is to construct a private understanding of Hamlet (which is certain to be a misunderstanding) out of materials furnished conjointly by ourselves, Shakespeare, a cloud of critics, and the actor who happens to be concrete before our eyes at the moment...."One other noteworthy element of Kettle's essay is his harsh criticism of Horatio. While many have misunderstood Horatio favorably, Kettle characterizes him as nothing more than a "wandering ineptitude." It is a vitriolic yet thought-provoking hypothesis.
It is this humble blogger's hope that readers of the blog will continue to enjoy the misunderstandings of the play presented herein and perhaps even to formulate their own.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Hamlet at University Revisited
Following my post of 14 October 2013, I was able to borrow a video copy of the 2003 production of Hamlet at the University of Rochester. (Thank you Nigel!) After an encore presentation, I learned that my memory did not betray me in this instance. The performance was every bit as good as I recalled it being. Now that I have seen it anew, I can be a bit more descriptive.
The cast was a diverse one. Narada Campbell, as Claudius, was reminiscent of a young Live and Let Die-era Yaphet Kotto. Polonius was a very young version of the character, not the grey and wrinkly portrayal that is typical. Ophelia was stunningly emotional, and her screaming fit over the death of her father leads to a (much needed) injection of sedative. The players were mostly a female group, with one young boy to round out the company. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were cast as perky, pigtailed co-eds. Noshir Dalal as Hamlet was no less remarkable in a repeat viewing, although I will say he is a very angry and emotional Hamlet.
The wardrobe is present day, with denim, suits, cargo pants and even some flannel on the gravediggers. It was not out of place; in fact it worked quite well.
The armoire was the major set piece, and it did get plenty of use. The drawers were storage spaces for clothing, tools and dead bodies. One even doubled as a stage for the dumb show (performed with dolls) preceding The Mousetrap. As mentioned previously, the wardrobe portion was indeed a bedroom during The Mousetrap and a brightly lit altarpiece during Claudius' soliloquy. It also served as an initial entry point for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and a dressing room for a towel-clad Horatio. While Gertrude was recounting the drowning of Ophelia, the wardrobe opened to provide a visual of the scene to match Gertrude's narration. In the final scene, Fortinbras arrived through it, and Hamlet's body and Horatio are shut into it. The armoire remains the most ingenious piece of staging I have seen.
The text, while edited to fit into the time slot, did not display any of the obvious cuts that other productions have shown. It was a full production with very subtle omissions. (Honestly, I could not spot anything that was glaringly missing.) That said, there are plenty of updates for a modern setting. In a bit of foreshadowing, Laertes carries his fencing foils with him to France. (His satchel full of condoms is one additional piece of luggage.) Personal music devices, a laptop and cell phones all appear. In fact, the cell phone's inadvertent ring becomes the plot device that betrays Polonius and Claudius hiding behind the arras during the "nunnery" scene. In one major change, Hamlet's sword is replaced with a gun, which ultimately becomes the tool used to dispatch Polonius. Hamlet's letters to a dressing (and momentarily bare) Horatio and to Claudius arrive via UPS. The climactic sword fight remains, although it is adapted as a fencing duel.
Now that I've had the opportunity to see this production twice I can put it to rest, its place secure in the upper reaches of my Hamlet canon.
The cast was a diverse one. Narada Campbell, as Claudius, was reminiscent of a young Live and Let Die-era Yaphet Kotto. Polonius was a very young version of the character, not the grey and wrinkly portrayal that is typical. Ophelia was stunningly emotional, and her screaming fit over the death of her father leads to a (much needed) injection of sedative. The players were mostly a female group, with one young boy to round out the company. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were cast as perky, pigtailed co-eds. Noshir Dalal as Hamlet was no less remarkable in a repeat viewing, although I will say he is a very angry and emotional Hamlet.
The wardrobe is present day, with denim, suits, cargo pants and even some flannel on the gravediggers. It was not out of place; in fact it worked quite well.
The armoire was the major set piece, and it did get plenty of use. The drawers were storage spaces for clothing, tools and dead bodies. One even doubled as a stage for the dumb show (performed with dolls) preceding The Mousetrap. As mentioned previously, the wardrobe portion was indeed a bedroom during The Mousetrap and a brightly lit altarpiece during Claudius' soliloquy. It also served as an initial entry point for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and a dressing room for a towel-clad Horatio. While Gertrude was recounting the drowning of Ophelia, the wardrobe opened to provide a visual of the scene to match Gertrude's narration. In the final scene, Fortinbras arrived through it, and Hamlet's body and Horatio are shut into it. The armoire remains the most ingenious piece of staging I have seen.
The text, while edited to fit into the time slot, did not display any of the obvious cuts that other productions have shown. It was a full production with very subtle omissions. (Honestly, I could not spot anything that was glaringly missing.) That said, there are plenty of updates for a modern setting. In a bit of foreshadowing, Laertes carries his fencing foils with him to France. (His satchel full of condoms is one additional piece of luggage.) Personal music devices, a laptop and cell phones all appear. In fact, the cell phone's inadvertent ring becomes the plot device that betrays Polonius and Claudius hiding behind the arras during the "nunnery" scene. In one major change, Hamlet's sword is replaced with a gun, which ultimately becomes the tool used to dispatch Polonius. Hamlet's letters to a dressing (and momentarily bare) Horatio and to Claudius arrive via UPS. The climactic sword fight remains, although it is adapted as a fencing duel.
Now that I've had the opportunity to see this production twice I can put it to rest, its place secure in the upper reaches of my Hamlet canon.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Hamlet at University
The first full version of Hamlet that I saw onstage was produced by the International Theatre Program at the University of Rochester in their 2002-2003 season. Now, ten years later, I'm finally getting around to writing about it. At least I have a souvenir playbill (and the Internet) to help my memory.
As noted in the playbill, the version of Hamlet as performed here was taken from Harold Jenkins' 1982 Arden edition. I will admit that my level of scholarship has not led me into the different folios and quartos of the play and the relative merits thereof. The company stated that the Arden version was "best suited to the aims of [the] student actors and scholars, and director" and that's good enough for me. They adapted the text to fit in a running time of roughly three hours.
Ten years notwithstanding, several elements still stand out from that performance. First was the young man who played the role of Hamlet, Noshir Dalal. It was, I seem to recall, his first major stage role. After seeing him, I found that very difficult to believe, which is perhaps why it has stayed with me this long. He did an excellent job, never showing any hint of being a "rookie." His personal web page shows that he has continued in the acting profession and has appeared in numerous stage, television and film productions.
One notable set element was a large armoire that stood at the back of the stage. I remember that it served several functions. At one point, it served as a bed. The actors stood in front of it, and it was as if we the audience were looking down on the bed from above (a mirror on the ceiling, perhaps?). During Claudius' soliloquy in III, iii, the inside of the wardrobe may have been lit to serve as a church window.
One minor textual adaptation has also remained in my memory. As Laertes was attempting to leave for France, his suitcase became unlatched while talking with Ophelia. Out of it fell a large number of condoms. The shock value of the scene, undoubtedly modernized (and perhaps not unreasonably so) for the benefit of and amusement of the college audience, certainly served its purpose.
Truly this is one version of the production that I enjoy being able to revisit many years later in this blog. Finding photographs of the performance on the International Theatre Program website has allowed the nostalgia to wax even more, and it has provided evidence of the many uses for that armoire. It has given me suitable incentive to see if a video of the play that was advertised ten years ago might still be available. This is one production I would like very much to be able to watch again.
As noted in the playbill, the version of Hamlet as performed here was taken from Harold Jenkins' 1982 Arden edition. I will admit that my level of scholarship has not led me into the different folios and quartos of the play and the relative merits thereof. The company stated that the Arden version was "best suited to the aims of [the] student actors and scholars, and director" and that's good enough for me. They adapted the text to fit in a running time of roughly three hours.
Ten years notwithstanding, several elements still stand out from that performance. First was the young man who played the role of Hamlet, Noshir Dalal. It was, I seem to recall, his first major stage role. After seeing him, I found that very difficult to believe, which is perhaps why it has stayed with me this long. He did an excellent job, never showing any hint of being a "rookie." His personal web page shows that he has continued in the acting profession and has appeared in numerous stage, television and film productions.
One notable set element was a large armoire that stood at the back of the stage. I remember that it served several functions. At one point, it served as a bed. The actors stood in front of it, and it was as if we the audience were looking down on the bed from above (a mirror on the ceiling, perhaps?). During Claudius' soliloquy in III, iii, the inside of the wardrobe may have been lit to serve as a church window.
One minor textual adaptation has also remained in my memory. As Laertes was attempting to leave for France, his suitcase became unlatched while talking with Ophelia. Out of it fell a large number of condoms. The shock value of the scene, undoubtedly modernized (and perhaps not unreasonably so) for the benefit of and amusement of the college audience, certainly served its purpose.
Truly this is one version of the production that I enjoy being able to revisit many years later in this blog. Finding photographs of the performance on the International Theatre Program website has allowed the nostalgia to wax even more, and it has provided evidence of the many uses for that armoire. It has given me suitable incentive to see if a video of the play that was advertised ten years ago might still be available. This is one production I would like very much to be able to watch again.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
An Unexpected Hamlet
The fame and adaptability of Hamlet are such that allusions can be found seemingly everywhere: TV, film and even the New York Times Crossword ("BB or not BB; that is the question."). Imagine my surprise when Hamlet made an appearance at a rock concert! I was in Albany, New York, to see a performance of singer, songwriter and guitar master Richard Thompson at The Egg. My attention was already rapt, but it became even more so when he announced that his next song was about Hamlet. (Thompson devotees may not have been too surprised. As a new fan, though, I was caught immediately off guard.) He proceeded to tell us a story.
The song in question is entitled (The Story of ) Hamlet. It was written in 1949 (or so) by Frank Loesser. As Mr. Thompson told us, it was quite an accomplishment to cover the entire play in four verses. It might also be a sign, he said, that Shakespeare used too much padding. Loesser removed Shakespeare's English and replaced it with then-contemporary, "hep-cat" English.
Mr. Thompson's version of the song showcased his guitar playing and his singing, as well as Mr. Loesser's humorous retelling of Hamlet. It was one highlight in a show filled with them.
I was able to find on YouTube a clip of the song as played by Mr. Thompson a few years ago. Skip ahead to 4:30 for the beginning of Hamlet. (The first song, Persuasion, is excellent as well!) The performance is a bit rough, but you'll get the essence of it.
The song in question is entitled (The Story of ) Hamlet. It was written in 1949 (or so) by Frank Loesser. As Mr. Thompson told us, it was quite an accomplishment to cover the entire play in four verses. It might also be a sign, he said, that Shakespeare used too much padding. Loesser removed Shakespeare's English and replaced it with then-contemporary, "hep-cat" English.
Mr. Thompson's version of the song showcased his guitar playing and his singing, as well as Mr. Loesser's humorous retelling of Hamlet. It was one highlight in a show filled with them.
I was able to find on YouTube a clip of the song as played by Mr. Thompson a few years ago. Skip ahead to 4:30 for the beginning of Hamlet. (The first song, Persuasion, is excellent as well!) The performance is a bit rough, but you'll get the essence of it.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Hamlet On The Fringe
The 2013 First Niagara Rochester Fringe Festival included a work entitled SaMe SeX ShAkEsPeArE, produced by the Rochester Community Players. It consisted of six scenes from Shakespearean plays performed in a gender-bent fashion. Some female roles were portrayed by males, and some male roles were played by females. There were scenes with an all-male cast and scenes with an all-female cast. One scene had both roles gender-reversed. It was an interesting revision that led to equally interesting on-stage interactions.
As blogger's luck would have it, one of the selected scenes was Act III, Scene 1 from Hamlet. The roles of Hamlet and Ophelia were both performed by women. Hamlet appeared on stage in a costume reminiscent of a 1950's-era teenager--slicked, short hair, black jacket (albeit not leather) and black jeans. (S)He was attempting to light a cigarette, but the lighter would not work, so the unlit cigarette ended up behind Hamlet's ear. (S)He began with the "To be or not to be" soliloquy. It was well acted and played straightforward. It seemed at times as if Hamlet was speaking directly to the audience, and the actress came off stage and close to the first row to accentuate this. As expected, the soliloquy led into Ophelia's entrance. She was in a relatively modern, feminine costume, including a skirt with long pants underneath. The scene continued through the "nunnery" exchange and ended at what would be the entrance of Claudius and Polonius in a full production.
This is the second time that I have seen Hamlet portrayed by a female. (See my previous post from July 21, 2013.) This time, however, there was a difference. When Kelli Fox portrayed Hamlet, I found it obvious to the point of distraction that the production had a female playing a male role. This time it was not so glaring. This could have been a function of extracting a single scene from the full play. As I watched it, though, the scene became a brief portrait of a relationship, gender aside. Yes, Shakespeare's text uses the word "Lord" to signify that Hamlet is male. That notwithstanding, this easily could have been two partners involved in a domestic squabble, an situational vignette of our post-DOMA world. That realism gave the scene extra life and made it that much more moving.
This production exemplified for me the timeless quality of Hamlet. One can change the time period, the costuming, even the gender of the cast. When done well, however, Shakespeare's words still resonate and still have the power to evoke a response from the audience.
As blogger's luck would have it, one of the selected scenes was Act III, Scene 1 from Hamlet. The roles of Hamlet and Ophelia were both performed by women. Hamlet appeared on stage in a costume reminiscent of a 1950's-era teenager--slicked, short hair, black jacket (albeit not leather) and black jeans. (S)He was attempting to light a cigarette, but the lighter would not work, so the unlit cigarette ended up behind Hamlet's ear. (S)He began with the "To be or not to be" soliloquy. It was well acted and played straightforward. It seemed at times as if Hamlet was speaking directly to the audience, and the actress came off stage and close to the first row to accentuate this. As expected, the soliloquy led into Ophelia's entrance. She was in a relatively modern, feminine costume, including a skirt with long pants underneath. The scene continued through the "nunnery" exchange and ended at what would be the entrance of Claudius and Polonius in a full production.
This is the second time that I have seen Hamlet portrayed by a female. (See my previous post from July 21, 2013.) This time, however, there was a difference. When Kelli Fox portrayed Hamlet, I found it obvious to the point of distraction that the production had a female playing a male role. This time it was not so glaring. This could have been a function of extracting a single scene from the full play. As I watched it, though, the scene became a brief portrait of a relationship, gender aside. Yes, Shakespeare's text uses the word "Lord" to signify that Hamlet is male. That notwithstanding, this easily could have been two partners involved in a domestic squabble, an situational vignette of our post-DOMA world. That realism gave the scene extra life and made it that much more moving.
This production exemplified for me the timeless quality of Hamlet. One can change the time period, the costuming, even the gender of the cast. When done well, however, Shakespeare's words still resonate and still have the power to evoke a response from the audience.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
A Small Rewrite
Did you ever wonder how that scene with the gravediggers ended up in Hamlet? Leave it to Rowan Atkinson and Hugh Laurie to give you the answer. Check out the clip below, regarding Shakespeare's long play with the snappy title, the dodgy soliloquy and the title character whom no one likes.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Hamlet on Broadway (2009)
Travels took me to New York City in October of 2009. One reason was Hamlet starring Jude Law at the Broadhurst Theatre. To see another version of the play, with a bona fide Hollywood star, was sufficient incentive for the trip. (To see A Steady Rain with Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman the following day cemented things.)
I regret that I did not take better notes upon seeing the production. The idea of this blog was four years in the future, so the only timely (albeit brief) reflections that I had were in a subsequent letter to a friend. As such, I'm forced to rely on my memories of the show.
My first observation was the proximity of the seat that I managed to score--front row center. I don't know how I managed that; it must have been luck, considering the late date that I purchased the ticket. It made for a very up-close view, close enough to see beads of sweat on the actors' faces. As I discovered, though, the closeness actually cut down the ability to see the whole stage. The set, including the castle catwalk, went very high up on the stage, which left me craning my neck to see. It was a small price to pay, though.
The set was large, filling the stage both vertically and horizontally. The aforementioned high catwalk, stone walls and falling snow made it the most impressive design that I had seen live.
In terms of casting, I found that Jude Law was not the only actor whom I had seen previously. Ron Cook, who played Polonius, had appeared in the film Hot Fuzz. Kevin McNally had been in the BBC series, Life on Mars. He was immediately familiar to me.
The production was very enjoyable. Jude Law played the role of Hamlet well, although he was a bit emotionally overwrought early on. Older than university age, in his Henley and collared shirts he was not obviously too old. Polonius, in a business suit, was less a fop and more devious than I had seen in other versions. I enjoyed Kevin McNally's portrayal of Claudius, although that could have been my bias after enjoying his previous BBC TV appearance.
I wish that I had further critique of the production. Suffice it to say that it was a well-staged and well-played Hamlet and a worthy addition to the collection.
I regret that I did not take better notes upon seeing the production. The idea of this blog was four years in the future, so the only timely (albeit brief) reflections that I had were in a subsequent letter to a friend. As such, I'm forced to rely on my memories of the show.
My first observation was the proximity of the seat that I managed to score--front row center. I don't know how I managed that; it must have been luck, considering the late date that I purchased the ticket. It made for a very up-close view, close enough to see beads of sweat on the actors' faces. As I discovered, though, the closeness actually cut down the ability to see the whole stage. The set, including the castle catwalk, went very high up on the stage, which left me craning my neck to see. It was a small price to pay, though.
The set was large, filling the stage both vertically and horizontally. The aforementioned high catwalk, stone walls and falling snow made it the most impressive design that I had seen live.
In terms of casting, I found that Jude Law was not the only actor whom I had seen previously. Ron Cook, who played Polonius, had appeared in the film Hot Fuzz. Kevin McNally had been in the BBC series, Life on Mars. He was immediately familiar to me.
The production was very enjoyable. Jude Law played the role of Hamlet well, although he was a bit emotionally overwrought early on. Older than university age, in his Henley and collared shirts he was not obviously too old. Polonius, in a business suit, was less a fop and more devious than I had seen in other versions. I enjoyed Kevin McNally's portrayal of Claudius, although that could have been my bias after enjoying his previous BBC TV appearance.
I wish that I had further critique of the production. Suffice it to say that it was a well-staged and well-played Hamlet and a worthy addition to the collection.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
An Updated Hamlet
One of the advantages of working in a school is the opportunity to pick up items cast off by students. One such item was a 2006 novel entitled The Dead Fathers Club. I had never heard of it before, but when I read that it was an "update of Hamlet" I could not resist. Written in the speaking style of its eleven-year-old protagonist, it is a very quick read for its 300+ pages.
The story is a familiar one. A young boy, Philip Noble, is visited by the ghost of his recently deceased father. The ghost tells Philip that his death was not accidental, and he names his own brother, Alan, as the culprit. The ghost urges Philip to kill his uncle Alan in order to save the ghost from "The Terrors."
Many Hamlet allusions creep into the work. In an early scene, characters are described as smoking "Hamlet cigars." Philip's mother is not named Gertrude, but his angelfish is. Two of Philip's friends, twins as it turns out, are named Ross and Gary. An associate of Philip's uncle Alan, a Mr. Fairview, spends his time spouting aphorisms (of the religious variety in this case). He has two children, a son named Dane and a daughter named Leah, who becomes a special interest of young Philip. In an attempt to gauge Alan's guilt, Philip heads to the video store to pick up a DVD copy of The Murder of Gonzago, starring, among others, "Academy Award winner Mel Gibson." At one point in the story, Philip thinks of killing Alan while Alan is kneeling to install a PlayStation (or is it PrayStation?), but he decides against committing the act right then. The original version of Hamlet even appears in a trivia night question at the family's pub.
Numerous bits of dialogues from Hamlet make it into the story. A selection:
The story is a familiar one. A young boy, Philip Noble, is visited by the ghost of his recently deceased father. The ghost tells Philip that his death was not accidental, and he names his own brother, Alan, as the culprit. The ghost urges Philip to kill his uncle Alan in order to save the ghost from "The Terrors."
Many Hamlet allusions creep into the work. In an early scene, characters are described as smoking "Hamlet cigars." Philip's mother is not named Gertrude, but his angelfish is. Two of Philip's friends, twins as it turns out, are named Ross and Gary. An associate of Philip's uncle Alan, a Mr. Fairview, spends his time spouting aphorisms (of the religious variety in this case). He has two children, a son named Dane and a daughter named Leah, who becomes a special interest of young Philip. In an attempt to gauge Alan's guilt, Philip heads to the video store to pick up a DVD copy of The Murder of Gonzago, starring, among others, "Academy Award winner Mel Gibson." At one point in the story, Philip thinks of killing Alan while Alan is kneeling to install a PlayStation (or is it PrayStation?), but he decides against committing the act right then. The original version of Hamlet even appears in a trivia night question at the family's pub.
Numerous bits of dialogues from Hamlet make it into the story. A selection:
- "words, words, words"
- "smiling damned villain"
- "fishmonger"
- "To be or not to be"
Monday, September 2, 2013
A Hamlet Regret
Most of the posts thus far have described versions of Hamlet that I have been able to experience. This post, however, is different. There is one production that eluded me, a lost opportunity that I regret (occasionally) to this day.
In 2008, Hamlet was a Shakespeare in the Park production in New York's Central Park. I discovered this one shortly after it had closed its run. Although getting to it would have been a bit difficult, the casting would have provided ample incentive. This Hamlet starred, among others, Sam Waterston as Polonius. As a die-hard fan of the original Law and Order, the opportunity to see Mr. Waterston in this role would have been tremendous. In addition, Andre Braugher starred as Claudius, which would have been a bonus. Alas, it was not to be.
The New York Times review that alerted me to the production can be accessed here. Although the review is mixed, the critic has good things to say about Polonius.
In 2008, Hamlet was a Shakespeare in the Park production in New York's Central Park. I discovered this one shortly after it had closed its run. Although getting to it would have been a bit difficult, the casting would have provided ample incentive. This Hamlet starred, among others, Sam Waterston as Polonius. As a die-hard fan of the original Law and Order, the opportunity to see Mr. Waterston in this role would have been tremendous. In addition, Andre Braugher starred as Claudius, which would have been a bonus. Alas, it was not to be.
The New York Times review that alerted me to the production can be accessed here. Although the review is mixed, the critic has good things to say about Polonius.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Hamlet Streaming
During an Internet search before starting this blog I came across Hamlet Live. I was intrigued enough to take a look to discover what exactly it meant. It was a 2012 production out of Toronto that, in addition to being staged, was also streamed on demand on the Internet. The actors were not paid for the performance; rather it was a labor of love for them. Although the production (and VOD) had ended well before I took up this blogging mantle, I was able to view the performance through the good graces of the cast and producers. (Thanks, Kyle!)
The version of Hamlet presented here is a much different take from any I have seen. The story takes place in the year 2080. The set, as much as I could see from the VOD production, is minimal, although not nearly as minimalist as other versions. There is certainly a futuristic feel to it. The costumes are of a modern persuasion as well, with Hamlet often in a sleeveless garment and Claudius in a military-esque suit.
As is typical, the script is edited to fit in a shorter running time, here roughly two hours. The editing did not feel obvious or overdone. Fortinbras does not appear. The first scene with the players is reduced. The gravedigger's scene is shorter, as is Osric's scene with Hamlet and Horatio. Some of Hamlet's speeches were shortened. That aside, though, there is still plenty of material left for the cast to perform.
There were many novelties with this production that caused it to stand out. Hamlet refers to "our philosophy" when speaking with Horatio (I, v), a subtlety which emphasizes their relationship. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern appear in an entirely new and grotesque conception--as a horribly mutated set of conjoined twins with a Germanic accent. The ghost appears wearing a gas mask. As in the NY Classical Theatre production that I described in a previous post, the ghost has the ability to control Hamlet's movements, causing jerky physical maneuvering reminiscent of a demonic possession. The "players" are actually puppets, and The Murder of Gonzago is played as a twisted puppet play on a video screen. The letters that Hamlet sends to Horatio and Claudius are actually video messages a la Skype. Hamlet's confrontation with Gertrude nearly results in her death at his hands. A confrontation between Gertrude and Ophelia does result in the latter's death, after Ophelia is stabbed by Gertrude. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern need not wait for England to kill them; Hamlet takes care of that with a hunting knife on the boat ride. The gravedigger, upon un-boxing (no digging here) Yorick's skull, removes a nail from the skull's nasal cavity and inserts it into his own. Instead of interring Ophelia's body, she had been cremated (perhaps to conceal Gertrude's crime?). Her ashes become a major issue as they are spilled on the stage and subsequently smeared by Hamlet on his own face instead of climbing into her grave.
The climax of the play represented a completely new take on the duel between Hamlet and Laertes. This is no ordinary sword fight, but rather a new sport that the producers and cast call "Blood Falls." It's an aerial version of a sword fight that takes place above the stage. This required what had to be the most athletic Hamlet and Laertes that I have seen, as the scene demanded actual hanging above the stage while fighting and reciting lines. It was an impressive sight. Hamlet's final confrontation with Claudius was a much longer sword fight than the typical quick stabbing.
All in all, this was a very interesting adaptation of Hamlet. Although the production has ended, the website is still active (as of this typing), and the Blog section presents some insight into the production. It is worth checking out if the post above intrigues you at all.
The version of Hamlet presented here is a much different take from any I have seen. The story takes place in the year 2080. The set, as much as I could see from the VOD production, is minimal, although not nearly as minimalist as other versions. There is certainly a futuristic feel to it. The costumes are of a modern persuasion as well, with Hamlet often in a sleeveless garment and Claudius in a military-esque suit.
As is typical, the script is edited to fit in a shorter running time, here roughly two hours. The editing did not feel obvious or overdone. Fortinbras does not appear. The first scene with the players is reduced. The gravedigger's scene is shorter, as is Osric's scene with Hamlet and Horatio. Some of Hamlet's speeches were shortened. That aside, though, there is still plenty of material left for the cast to perform.
There were many novelties with this production that caused it to stand out. Hamlet refers to "our philosophy" when speaking with Horatio (I, v), a subtlety which emphasizes their relationship. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern appear in an entirely new and grotesque conception--as a horribly mutated set of conjoined twins with a Germanic accent. The ghost appears wearing a gas mask. As in the NY Classical Theatre production that I described in a previous post, the ghost has the ability to control Hamlet's movements, causing jerky physical maneuvering reminiscent of a demonic possession. The "players" are actually puppets, and The Murder of Gonzago is played as a twisted puppet play on a video screen. The letters that Hamlet sends to Horatio and Claudius are actually video messages a la Skype. Hamlet's confrontation with Gertrude nearly results in her death at his hands. A confrontation between Gertrude and Ophelia does result in the latter's death, after Ophelia is stabbed by Gertrude. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern need not wait for England to kill them; Hamlet takes care of that with a hunting knife on the boat ride. The gravedigger, upon un-boxing (no digging here) Yorick's skull, removes a nail from the skull's nasal cavity and inserts it into his own. Instead of interring Ophelia's body, she had been cremated (perhaps to conceal Gertrude's crime?). Her ashes become a major issue as they are spilled on the stage and subsequently smeared by Hamlet on his own face instead of climbing into her grave.
The climax of the play represented a completely new take on the duel between Hamlet and Laertes. This is no ordinary sword fight, but rather a new sport that the producers and cast call "Blood Falls." It's an aerial version of a sword fight that takes place above the stage. This required what had to be the most athletic Hamlet and Laertes that I have seen, as the scene demanded actual hanging above the stage while fighting and reciting lines. It was an impressive sight. Hamlet's final confrontation with Claudius was a much longer sword fight than the typical quick stabbing.
All in all, this was a very interesting adaptation of Hamlet. Although the production has ended, the website is still active (as of this typing), and the Blog section presents some insight into the production. It is worth checking out if the post above intrigues you at all.
Monday, August 19, 2013
"Hamlet, Cha-Cha-Cha!" (Part II)
Hamlet, Cha-Cha-Cha! was performed live in Spring 2013, by the Central New York Playhouse in Syracuse, NY. Having read the play, I could not miss the opportunity to see it done on stage. It did not disappoint.
The company's venue is a converted store in a mall. They do a great job of using the space, and they continue to improve it. The set was minimal, but it served its purpose well. Although the sound was a bit on the low end of the volume dial for the performance that I saw, the space is small enough to hear what is being said. (I saw another production in the same space and there were no sound issues.)
The play itself was gloriously overacted. To an extent, it fit the script. The play is raucously hilarious, and the actors took it that way, doing a very good job. Unfortunately, though, the playwright, Monk Ferris, wrote that the play should be performed straight so that the humor will work. Overplaying it cut into the humor a bit. I did laugh at many things, but probably not as many as I could have.
The play ran fairly closely to the script. The scene involving Yorick was omitted, perhaps for time constraints. One major change, though, was Horatio. While he is characterized as "an amiable sponge," this production portrayed him as flamboyantly gay. It was way over the top. In fact, a new concluding scene was written, in which Horatio takes the crown of Denmark for himself. He tries on the King's crown, but it does not fit. Gertrude's crown fits perfectly, though, and thus Denmark has a new queen. I did not find any need to rewrite the role, and I thought it actually detracted from the production.
Overall, the production was enjoyable. It is an interesting and amusing take on Hamlet, and it is one worth seeing if it ever comes to a theatre near you.
The company's venue is a converted store in a mall. They do a great job of using the space, and they continue to improve it. The set was minimal, but it served its purpose well. Although the sound was a bit on the low end of the volume dial for the performance that I saw, the space is small enough to hear what is being said. (I saw another production in the same space and there were no sound issues.)
The play itself was gloriously overacted. To an extent, it fit the script. The play is raucously hilarious, and the actors took it that way, doing a very good job. Unfortunately, though, the playwright, Monk Ferris, wrote that the play should be performed straight so that the humor will work. Overplaying it cut into the humor a bit. I did laugh at many things, but probably not as many as I could have.
The play ran fairly closely to the script. The scene involving Yorick was omitted, perhaps for time constraints. One major change, though, was Horatio. While he is characterized as "an amiable sponge," this production portrayed him as flamboyantly gay. It was way over the top. In fact, a new concluding scene was written, in which Horatio takes the crown of Denmark for himself. He tries on the King's crown, but it does not fit. Gertrude's crown fits perfectly, though, and thus Denmark has a new queen. I did not find any need to rewrite the role, and I thought it actually detracted from the production.
Overall, the production was enjoyable. It is an interesting and amusing take on Hamlet, and it is one worth seeing if it ever comes to a theatre near you.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
"Hamlet, Cha-Cha-Cha!" (Part I)
I came across this title when I saw that a local company was performing it. Before seeing the production, I decided to do a bit of research first, as I had never heard of this one. (Warning: Spoilers follow.)
Hamlet, Cha-Cha-Cha! is a musically comedic take on Hamlet written by Monk Ferris. Satire, farce--call it what you will. The location and time period remain the same as the original. Most of the characters from the original play are here as well. There is one notable change: Hamlet's Wittenberg chums are now Rosie Krantz and Gilda Stern. In addition, there is a chorus, to back up the numerous musical numbers.
The curtain rises at the wedding feast with Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, Ophelia, his softich "main squeeze," and Horatio, "an amiable sponge" on stage. In what becomes a running gag, Horatio and Ophelia spend an inordinate amount of time looking for the buffet table or filling themselves from it. Otherwise, the situation is familiar: an untimely death, an o'erhasty marriage, a spectral appearance. The action, though, is interrupted with (and accentuated with) song. For example, Hamlet and the ghost of his father perform a duet on "That's the Spirit!"
The play continues with soliloquies, a "play within a play," song, dance, food and humor galore. Poor Polonius meets his end. Rosie and Gilda head to England with Hamlet, but in a twist they manage to outsmart the English authorities. Ophelia goes for a swim and is rescued by "some group called Save The Whales." Her reappearance provides a prelude to a duel, a poisoned goblet, plenty of dead bodies...and one final musical number, of course.
This is a wonderfully humorous variation on Hamlet. It manages to take itself seriously while lampooning its precursor. The musical numbers add a new twisted dimension to the action. If you have the chance to see this done live, take advantage. I did...but more on that another time.
Hamlet, Cha-Cha-Cha! is a musically comedic take on Hamlet written by Monk Ferris. Satire, farce--call it what you will. The location and time period remain the same as the original. Most of the characters from the original play are here as well. There is one notable change: Hamlet's Wittenberg chums are now Rosie Krantz and Gilda Stern. In addition, there is a chorus, to back up the numerous musical numbers.
The curtain rises at the wedding feast with Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, Ophelia, his softich "main squeeze," and Horatio, "an amiable sponge" on stage. In what becomes a running gag, Horatio and Ophelia spend an inordinate amount of time looking for the buffet table or filling themselves from it. Otherwise, the situation is familiar: an untimely death, an o'erhasty marriage, a spectral appearance. The action, though, is interrupted with (and accentuated with) song. For example, Hamlet and the ghost of his father perform a duet on "That's the Spirit!"
The play continues with soliloquies, a "play within a play," song, dance, food and humor galore. Poor Polonius meets his end. Rosie and Gilda head to England with Hamlet, but in a twist they manage to outsmart the English authorities. Ophelia goes for a swim and is rescued by "some group called Save The Whales." Her reappearance provides a prelude to a duel, a poisoned goblet, plenty of dead bodies...and one final musical number, of course.
This is a wonderfully humorous variation on Hamlet. It manages to take itself seriously while lampooning its precursor. The musical numbers add a new twisted dimension to the action. If you have the chance to see this done live, take advantage. I did...but more on that another time.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Hamlet the Obese?
A critical excerpt by E. Vale Blake, circa 1880, brings a new element to the discussion of Hamlet, one which could make for very interesting casting some day. With the ubiquitous discussions of public health, it is even timely. Hamlet's psychological problems had a physical cause--he was fat!
The author bases his assertions on literal translations of Shakespeare's text, coupled with scientific analysis. His primary evidence is Gertrude's line at V, ii, 300: "He's fat and scant of breath!" From this, Blake offers several other lines which could be understood to be discussions of Hamlet's weight.
And so forth...
I find his review far-fetched to say the least. It would make for an interesting variation on the Hamlet theme, though. Imagine a production in which Hamlet becomes the poster child for healthy eating and exercise, complete with public service announcements!
From "The Impediment of Adipose," Popular Science Monthly, XVII (May 1880).
The author bases his assertions on literal translations of Shakespeare's text, coupled with scientific analysis. His primary evidence is Gertrude's line at V, ii, 300: "He's fat and scant of breath!" From this, Blake offers several other lines which could be understood to be discussions of Hamlet's weight.
- "to grunt and sweat under a weary life" (III, i, 85)
- "too, too solid flesh" (I, ii, 135)
- "in this distracted globe" (globe meaning a corpulent person) (I, v, 104)
- "to shatter all his bulk" (II, i, 106)
And so forth...
I find his review far-fetched to say the least. It would make for an interesting variation on the Hamlet theme, though. Imagine a production in which Hamlet becomes the poster child for healthy eating and exercise, complete with public service announcements!
From "The Impediment of Adipose," Popular Science Monthly, XVII (May 1880).
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Benedix on "Hamlet"
The first entry in the book Hamlet: Enter Critic is from
Roderich Benedix, circa 1873. The critical excerpt is rather pointed
and, in places, laugh aloud funny. Toward the end of the selection is a
quote that is relevant to a discussion of performances of Hamlet.
"That it is not [the] piece itself particularly which impresses the public is evident from the fact, that for several decades the play has been given in different places in different shapes. Every one who has undertaken to alter the piece has picked out such parts as he considered especially effective, and left out other portions.... The fact that a piece has admitted of so many alterations shows how very loosely it is constructed."From Die Shakespearomanie (Stuttgart, 1873)
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Hamlet On The Move
The April 2010 production of Hamlet by the New York Classical Theatre had the most inventive staging of any that I have seen. The play was performed in New York City's World Financial Center. It was not tied down to one stage, though. The action of the play moved throughout the complex--atria, staircases, hallways. As the cast moved, so, too, did the audience move to follow them. It was a very interactive performance, as the action took place among the audience at times. The "play within a play" occurred in a lobby that served as a theatre in the round. I watched as Hamlet and Ophelia took up a seat next to me, giving me a very clear vantage point of "country matters."
The novelty of moving became a drawback to the production, though. The play became (and felt) excessively long, due to the constant upheaval. As soon as the audience got comfortable (as much as possible while sitting on a hard floor), off we would go to another location. And this was no small audience, either. The production was free--a blessing and a curse. It appeared that some families used it as a night out, complete with very young children in tow. Moving a large audience into areas not designed for them left some scenes cramped and others with poor sight lines to the action, unless you ran from one location to the next. It was a nice idea on paper, but it did not work out too well in practice.
The script was edited in order to account for the time lost in transitions. Oddly, the play began with a narration describing the early action of Act I, as if it were a previous episode of a TV serial that we had missed ("Previously on Hamlet..."). The action of the evening itself began with the "To be" soliloquy, and then the play moved back into Act II action. It was as if the director wished to hook the audience early by using the most famous speech; instead, it felt misplaced.
Another edition had to do with the ghost of Hamlet's father. Due perhaps to the traveling nature of the production, the ghost did not appear. Rather, young Hamlet voiced his father's words as if he were possessed, accompanied at times by strange bodily movements. It was Exorcist Regan McNeil-esque--wondrously strange.
The sword fight finale was well choreographed and well performed. Regrettably, though, it had been a long evening and this viewer was ready to depart Elsinore for more comfortable surroundings, so I was not able to give it my full attention.
Overall, I compliment the New York Classical Theatre on a novel and well-executed production. I wish that my reflection on it were more timely as I might have had better recall of the particulars of the play. Even so, I am glad to have seen it, as it is probably one production the likes of which I shall not look upon again.
The novelty of moving became a drawback to the production, though. The play became (and felt) excessively long, due to the constant upheaval. As soon as the audience got comfortable (as much as possible while sitting on a hard floor), off we would go to another location. And this was no small audience, either. The production was free--a blessing and a curse. It appeared that some families used it as a night out, complete with very young children in tow. Moving a large audience into areas not designed for them left some scenes cramped and others with poor sight lines to the action, unless you ran from one location to the next. It was a nice idea on paper, but it did not work out too well in practice.
The script was edited in order to account for the time lost in transitions. Oddly, the play began with a narration describing the early action of Act I, as if it were a previous episode of a TV serial that we had missed ("Previously on Hamlet..."). The action of the evening itself began with the "To be" soliloquy, and then the play moved back into Act II action. It was as if the director wished to hook the audience early by using the most famous speech; instead, it felt misplaced.
Another edition had to do with the ghost of Hamlet's father. Due perhaps to the traveling nature of the production, the ghost did not appear. Rather, young Hamlet voiced his father's words as if he were possessed, accompanied at times by strange bodily movements. It was Exorcist Regan McNeil-esque--wondrously strange.
The sword fight finale was well choreographed and well performed. Regrettably, though, it had been a long evening and this viewer was ready to depart Elsinore for more comfortable surroundings, so I was not able to give it my full attention.
Overall, I compliment the New York Classical Theatre on a novel and well-executed production. I wish that my reflection on it were more timely as I might have had better recall of the particulars of the play. Even so, I am glad to have seen it, as it is probably one production the likes of which I shall not look upon again.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Hamlet: Enter Critic
On a recent vacation trip I happened into Baine's Books and Coffee in Appomattox, VA. Among the selection of used books I found one entitled Hamlet: Enter Critic, edited by Claire Sacks and Edgar Whan. It is an old book, copyright 1960. In the preface, the editors describe their rationale for the work. It represents a "controlled selection of critical material" in a field with an enormous amount of spilt ink. Seeing the names of some of the authors represented--Dickens, Eliot, Olivier, Poe--was enough for me to pick it up. (The minimal cost was a factor as well.)
Occasional posts to the blog may come from this resource as well, especially as they reflect performances of Hamlet.
Occasional posts to the blog may come from this resource as well, especially as they reflect performances of Hamlet.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
"Hamlet" Up Close
Turner Classic Movies (TCM) recently broadcast the 1969 production of Hamlet, directed by Tony Richardson. Robert Osborne, in his introduction, discussed the version--filmed at The Round House, where the cast was performing the play live each evening. The director wanted to keep a minimal set so that the viewer would concentrate on the words and the actors.
My first thought while watching it concerned the cinematography. The film consists largely of close-ups of the actors delivering lines. This certainly works to minimize the set. It's difficult to tell how the set might look; there are not enough wide angle shots to see it! There were occasions when the frame was so tight on the actor's face that movement caused part of it to move out of frame. We are left with a shot of the actor's face from the nose down, for instance.
The screenplay plays fast and loose with the original script. It is edited, as one might expect, in order to pare the play to a 2+ hour run time. The editing seemed very drastic, though. Additionally, there are major changes to the script. The "To be" soliloquy is moved from III, i to II, ii. Claudius' soliloquy in III, iii is moved to after IV, iii, well after Hamlet has met with Gertrude in her chamber. Actually, the soliloquy seemed to be thrown in as an afterthought. Hamlet's speech pondering killing Claudius while at prayer was omitted entirely.
Nicol Williamson plays the title role. He was 33 years old at the time, older than the college age of Hamlet. As is usually the case, though, the viewer has to suspend disbelief in order to imagine a younger Hamlet. Anthony Hopkins as Claudius is particularly slimy. Peter Gale's portrayal of Osric was most amusing.
The climactic sword fight was quick and not as impressive as others that I have seen. As with other versions I have seen, the poisoned pearl for the goblet came from Claudius' earring. The death scenes, especially Gertrude and Claudius, are rather loud and emotive.
This production was an interesting adaptation of a stage version to the screen. While it's not among my favorites, it is respectable.
For the IMDb entry, click here.
My first thought while watching it concerned the cinematography. The film consists largely of close-ups of the actors delivering lines. This certainly works to minimize the set. It's difficult to tell how the set might look; there are not enough wide angle shots to see it! There were occasions when the frame was so tight on the actor's face that movement caused part of it to move out of frame. We are left with a shot of the actor's face from the nose down, for instance.
The screenplay plays fast and loose with the original script. It is edited, as one might expect, in order to pare the play to a 2+ hour run time. The editing seemed very drastic, though. Additionally, there are major changes to the script. The "To be" soliloquy is moved from III, i to II, ii. Claudius' soliloquy in III, iii is moved to after IV, iii, well after Hamlet has met with Gertrude in her chamber. Actually, the soliloquy seemed to be thrown in as an afterthought. Hamlet's speech pondering killing Claudius while at prayer was omitted entirely.
Nicol Williamson plays the title role. He was 33 years old at the time, older than the college age of Hamlet. As is usually the case, though, the viewer has to suspend disbelief in order to imagine a younger Hamlet. Anthony Hopkins as Claudius is particularly slimy. Peter Gale's portrayal of Osric was most amusing.
The climactic sword fight was quick and not as impressive as others that I have seen. As with other versions I have seen, the poisoned pearl for the goblet came from Claudius' earring. The death scenes, especially Gertrude and Claudius, are rather loud and emotive.
This production was an interesting adaptation of a stage version to the screen. While it's not among my favorites, it is respectable.
For the IMDb entry, click here.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
"Hamlet" by Disney
Well, not Hamlet, per se. As has been discussed often, the Disney film The Lion King was influenced by Hamlet. Several characters are notably similar.
Simba as Hamlet
Mufasa as Hamlet's father
Scar as Claudius
The story is a familiar one. The king is killed by his brother, who ascends subsequently to the throne. The son returns to the kingdom to regain the throne.
It's no coincidence; the filmmakers admit that they followed the Hamlet storyline when crafting the film. It's a loose correlation, but one that demonstrates the adaptability of Shakespeare's play. It's close enough to merit mention in this blog.
(For interviews with the filmmakers, check out the "Film Journey" featurette on disc two of The Lion King Platinum Edition DVD.)
Simba as Hamlet
Mufasa as Hamlet's father
Scar as Claudius
The story is a familiar one. The king is killed by his brother, who ascends subsequently to the throne. The son returns to the kingdom to regain the throne.
It's no coincidence; the filmmakers admit that they followed the Hamlet storyline when crafting the film. It's a loose correlation, but one that demonstrates the adaptability of Shakespeare's play. It's close enough to merit mention in this blog.
(For interviews with the filmmakers, check out the "Film Journey" featurette on disc two of The Lion King Platinum Edition DVD.)
Hamlet at Geva
Hamlet came to Geva Theatre in Rochester, New York, in the spring of 2005. What drew me to it was the fact that it was Hamlet. Add to that the appearance of Kelli Fox (sister of Michael J.)...in the title role...and it made for a memorable night at the theatre. Fortunately, I wrote a description of the performance later that evening, so I do not have to rely too much on my memory.
The play was fairly true to Shakespeare's original as I recall, with a few obvious changes noted below. It was edited to make it a more reasonable length, but the editions were not glaring. The set was well designed, done in faux marble and black and white checkered floor tile. A portion of the stage had the ability to raise and lower to become a bed or a grave or a stage within a stage, and a steel catwalk above the floor was well used throughout.
The play opened with a scene not in the actual Shakespearean play. Hamlet and his chums, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, were at Wittenberg, watching the players (whom we will see again) perform A Midsummer Night's Dream. Hamlet learns of his father's death when Horatio interrupts the performance. A strange way to begin the play, methought.
There was a peculiarity with the climactic sword fight between Laertes and Hamlet. The poisoned pearl that Claudius cast into the goblet was his own earring...taken out of his ear. The poisoned pearl was fatal to Gertrude when touching wine but not to Claudius when lodged in his ear? Odd.
At the close of the play, the players make their return. Fortinbras was not cast in this production. At Hamlet's death, the players returned to the castle at that exact moment (fortuitously so) to hear Horatio tell Hamlet's tale.
Two acting performances stood out. Kelli Fox's take on Hamlet was noteworthy, primarily because I could never warm up to an actress in that role. She is a fine performer, but I could not suspend my disbelief long enough to become accustomed to her as Hamlet. The other memorable performance was Jordan Charney as Polonius and also the gravedigger. As a longtime fan of Law and Order, in which he played a recurring role, I enjoyed seeing Mr. Charney live and in person.
My summation of the play eight years ago was "a good solid effort, although not earth-shattering." The passing of time notwithstanding, I still stand by that. It was a well acted and well directed production, and a worthy addition to the collection.
The play was fairly true to Shakespeare's original as I recall, with a few obvious changes noted below. It was edited to make it a more reasonable length, but the editions were not glaring. The set was well designed, done in faux marble and black and white checkered floor tile. A portion of the stage had the ability to raise and lower to become a bed or a grave or a stage within a stage, and a steel catwalk above the floor was well used throughout.
The play opened with a scene not in the actual Shakespearean play. Hamlet and his chums, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, were at Wittenberg, watching the players (whom we will see again) perform A Midsummer Night's Dream. Hamlet learns of his father's death when Horatio interrupts the performance. A strange way to begin the play, methought.
There was a peculiarity with the climactic sword fight between Laertes and Hamlet. The poisoned pearl that Claudius cast into the goblet was his own earring...taken out of his ear. The poisoned pearl was fatal to Gertrude when touching wine but not to Claudius when lodged in his ear? Odd.
At the close of the play, the players make their return. Fortinbras was not cast in this production. At Hamlet's death, the players returned to the castle at that exact moment (fortuitously so) to hear Horatio tell Hamlet's tale.
Two acting performances stood out. Kelli Fox's take on Hamlet was noteworthy, primarily because I could never warm up to an actress in that role. She is a fine performer, but I could not suspend my disbelief long enough to become accustomed to her as Hamlet. The other memorable performance was Jordan Charney as Polonius and also the gravedigger. As a longtime fan of Law and Order, in which he played a recurring role, I enjoyed seeing Mr. Charney live and in person.
My summation of the play eight years ago was "a good solid effort, although not earth-shattering." The passing of time notwithstanding, I still stand by that. It was a well acted and well directed production, and a worthy addition to the collection.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
A Brief Interlude
In reflecting on Hamlet, I recalled one of the first times I saw a portion of the play performed. It was 1993, and I was a high school senior. College visits brought me to Georgetown University. One of the activities for prospective students and parents was a short course by Professor Michael Collins. He taught English at the University. (I have no idea whether he is still there.) He spoke on Hamlet, specifically the role of Polonius. The discussion centered on Polonius' parting advice to Laertes. Although Polonius always has ulterior motives, what if the speech were sincere? Perhaps it could be a father trying truly to give lasting advice to a son who is leaving. That would certainly fit the moment that the prospective students and parents would be facing several months hence. Then Prof. Collins performed the speech himself. It was, as I recall, well done. The fact that it stands out twenty years later must mean something.
.gif){kind=link}
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Coming (Perhaps) to a Theatre Near You
The Acting Company has released its play selections for the 2013-2014 season. They will be performing Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. The schedule may be found at the link below.
http://theactingcompany.org/on-tour/
It will be interesting to see the two works performed concurrently--in some cases on consecutive days!
http://theactingcompany.org/on-tour/
It will be interesting to see the two works performed concurrently--in some cases on consecutive days!
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
"Hamlet" in Wikipedia
Two Wikipedia pages discuss versions of Hamlet on stage and in film.
Hamlet in Performance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_in_performance
I'll try not to repeat what appears in the Wikis but perhaps to add to or to reflect upon what is there from my own experience.
Hamlet in Performance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_in_performance
- This page cites major stage productions of the play.
- This page cites versions of Hamlet that have appeared in film.
I'll try not to repeat what appears in the Wikis but perhaps to add to or to reflect upon what is there from my own experience.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Hamlet Crossing the Delaware (Park)
The first version to be described is the most recent version that I have seen live: this summer's Shakespeare in Delaware Park production. Delaware Park is located in Buffalo, NY. Hamlet is one of the two productions this year. (The other is Measure For Measure.) Its run began on June 20 and will conclude on July 14. I saw the performance on June 26. The scenery, lighting and sound are all top-notch. Major plus--IT'S FREE!! (Donations are accepted.)
The production was a traditional version of the play. The costuming was elegant period dress. The set was minimal but well done, and it works for this production. There were multiple levels, including an in-stage level for the gravedigger scene. The rousing sword fight between Laertes and Hamlet used much of the set, including the levels and the stairs.
I thought that the performance was well acted. As with most versions that I have seen, the actor playing Hamlet is older than one would expect of a college student. This is fairly common, though; in fact, having an actual college student act the part is atypical to my experience. The cast did an excellent job, playing it safe and traditional and carrying their roles well. Tim Newell, in the role of Claudius, was particularly notable.
The running time was approximately 2.5 hours, long enough without seeming overly so. The play was shortened in order to fit the time slot. This did not cause continuity issues, although there was one minor exception. The conversation between Hamlet and Horatio describing Hamlet's escape from pirates was edited. The demise of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern was mentioned only briefly, leaving it a bit vague as to what happened to them until the final scene. Horatio drawing his finger across his throat--that was the sign that the two went "to't."
One other modification was in the final scene. Horatio's parting line to Hamlet--"Good night sweet prince..."--was taken from its usual place and put at the very end, after Fortinbras' appearance. Horatio and Hamlet are left on stage as the lights fade to black. It's effective, allowing the play to end focused on the relationship of the two and not on Fortinbras' pronouncements.
All in all, this was a well-done production and a great way to spend an evening out in Buffalo. (One note to the prospective visitor: arrive early in order to find a parking space!)
(For further information on the troupe, go to shakespeareindelawarepark.org.)
The production was a traditional version of the play. The costuming was elegant period dress. The set was minimal but well done, and it works for this production. There were multiple levels, including an in-stage level for the gravedigger scene. The rousing sword fight between Laertes and Hamlet used much of the set, including the levels and the stairs.
I thought that the performance was well acted. As with most versions that I have seen, the actor playing Hamlet is older than one would expect of a college student. This is fairly common, though; in fact, having an actual college student act the part is atypical to my experience. The cast did an excellent job, playing it safe and traditional and carrying their roles well. Tim Newell, in the role of Claudius, was particularly notable.
The running time was approximately 2.5 hours, long enough without seeming overly so. The play was shortened in order to fit the time slot. This did not cause continuity issues, although there was one minor exception. The conversation between Hamlet and Horatio describing Hamlet's escape from pirates was edited. The demise of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern was mentioned only briefly, leaving it a bit vague as to what happened to them until the final scene. Horatio drawing his finger across his throat--that was the sign that the two went "to't."
One other modification was in the final scene. Horatio's parting line to Hamlet--"Good night sweet prince..."--was taken from its usual place and put at the very end, after Fortinbras' appearance. Horatio and Hamlet are left on stage as the lights fade to black. It's effective, allowing the play to end focused on the relationship of the two and not on Fortinbras' pronouncements.
All in all, this was a well-done production and a great way to spend an evening out in Buffalo. (One note to the prospective visitor: arrive early in order to find a parking space!)
(For further information on the troupe, go to shakespeareindelawarepark.org.)
Saturday, June 29, 2013
What Is To Come
My hope is to share with readers thoughts on various versions of Hamlet
that I have encountered over the years. That may mean live performances, film versions and print versions.
As I come across new additions to the collection, I hope to share those as well. New posts will appear periodically. This entire enterprise is a work in progress. Comments, including versions of the play you might have seen, will be welcome.
As I come across new additions to the collection, I hope to share those as well. New posts will appear periodically. This entire enterprise is a work in progress. Comments, including versions of the play you might have seen, will be welcome.
Why?
So why a(nother) blog about Hamlet? Ultimately I blame one of my college English professors.
I read the play for the first time in high school twenty years ago. Strangely enough, I had read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead two years earlier. It made much more sense once I had read Hamlet. I came across both again in college. A few years after graduation, I found out that a former professor was teaching a course on Hamlet. That was it. An entire semester-long course on one play. Well, I was already a fan of the play. I had already begun collecting different versions of it. This cemented things, though.
That was a few years back. Since then, I figure that I have seen the work live no fewer than a half dozen times and in film presentations at least the same. That doesn't begin to describe the various adaptations and offshoots I have come across.
In a recent discussion with that same professor about Hamlet (what else?), he suggested that a blog could be a good idea. Other fans of the play might be interested in my experiences and research. I got to thinking that he might be right. I took a look and found several blogs dedicated to Hamlet. Undeterred, though, I decided to forge ahead. We'll see how it goes.
I read the play for the first time in high school twenty years ago. Strangely enough, I had read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead two years earlier. It made much more sense once I had read Hamlet. I came across both again in college. A few years after graduation, I found out that a former professor was teaching a course on Hamlet. That was it. An entire semester-long course on one play. Well, I was already a fan of the play. I had already begun collecting different versions of it. This cemented things, though.
That was a few years back. Since then, I figure that I have seen the work live no fewer than a half dozen times and in film presentations at least the same. That doesn't begin to describe the various adaptations and offshoots I have come across.
In a recent discussion with that same professor about Hamlet (what else?), he suggested that a blog could be a good idea. Other fans of the play might be interested in my experiences and research. I got to thinking that he might be right. I took a look and found several blogs dedicated to Hamlet. Undeterred, though, I decided to forge ahead. We'll see how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)