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."

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.

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.

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.