Back to the Fringe (Part I)

It has been one year since the Rochester Fringe Festival provided a topic for a post.  (See 9/30/13.)  Its return to Rochester brought with it several productions that included presentations of Hamlet.

In a return from the 2013 festival, the Rochester Community Players presented SaMe SeX ShAkEsPeArE, a collection of gender-bent scenes from selected Shakespearean works.  This year, in addition to dramatic excerpts it included an original scene based on "Lover's Sonnet #116."

Blogger's luck shone again with a scene entitled "Hamlet Soliloquy."  The speech in question was the "Rogue and Peasant Slave" soliloquy.  It was performed by a young actress, Rebecca Miller, who was in perhaps her second stage performance.  (The playbill noted that her stage debut had been in A Midsummer Night's Dream during the recently concluded summer.)  She wore dark modern dress (hooded sweatshirt, jeans, low-cut Chuck Taylor Converse sneakers).  The set was minimal--a stage with one metal folding chair.  The speech itself was performed in a very straightforward, believable manner.  It was not overly emotive, not grossly edited, not overdone.  Frankly, it was real.  Ms. Miller managed to avoid direct eye contact with any audience members, something I found much more suitable than other versions of soliloquies that have bordered on breaking the fourth wall.  It was refreshing, and it left me wishing that there had been another Hamlet scene or two to follow.

SaMe SeX ShAkEsPeArE was a brief taste of Hamlet (and an up-and-coming talent in Ms. Miller).  It was enough to whet the appetite for both and to leave me looking forward to what was to come.

Revisiting Huck

In several earlier posts I discussed connections between Hamlet and Huckleberry Finn.  I was able to obtain a journal article discussing further ties between the two literary giants.  (Thanks Jeff!)  The article, written by Anthony Berret, S.J., is entitled "The Influence of Hamlet on Huckleberry Finn." (See citation below.)  This week's post draws largely on Fr. Berret's article.

Previous posts on this blog (6/22/14, 6/29/14) discussed the appearance of a modified version of Hamlet's soliloquy in Chapter XXI of Huckleberry Finn.  Also discussed in additional posts were burlesques of Hamlet, both in American vaudeville (7/13/14) and in Mark Twain's own work (7/6/14).  Fr. Berret mentions several versions of Hamlet burlesques, including Twain's abortive attempt, within the current article.  (Now I have even more future library finds!)

Fr. Berret shows that the parallel between Hamlet and Huckleberry Finn is much more significant than the mere appearance of the soliloquy.  The early chapters of Huckleberry Finn are similar to the beginning of Hamlet.  Both main characters are "restless and [feel] confined by civilization."  Both are mournful, dejected, lonesome.  Huck makes references to ghosts, especially "a ghost who is trying to reveal something."  Hamlet has the same sentiments about ghosts after the spectral appearance of his father.  Fr. Berret draws a parallel between the ghost of Hamlet's father and Pap Finn, whose appearances seem ghostly.  Just as Hamlet has two fathers, one natural and one foster, so Huck has Pap and Jim.

Both Hamlet and Huck are caught in moral dilemmas.  For Hamlet, it is acting upon the death of his father.  For Huck, it is whether to return Jim to slavery.  "Probably the gravest difficulty each one faces is the conflict between obedience to felt duty and reverence for the dominant culture of his society."  Both characters react similarly, deferring final action and becoming distracted in dramatic pursuits.

These dramatic pursuits fill the middle sections of Hamlet and Huckleberry Finn.  In the former is the play-within-a-play, wherein Hamlet tries to catch the conscience of the King.  In the latter is the play performed by the king and the duke.  The "To be or not to be" soliloquy appears at this point in both works, while "would-be actors...are rehearsing their show."  As the plays unfold, we discover how "Huck resembles Hamlet in his enthusiasm for drama."

The final episodes of Hamlet and Huckleberry Finn--the duel and the Phelps farm episode, respectively-- show further similarity.  In each, an earlier character returns to precipitate action.  In the former it is Laertes; in the latter it is Tom Sawyer.  Both returning characters lead the main character into action, and the protagonist's chief task is accomplished, although not as he had planned.  Both Hamlet and Huck find that providence has played a role in leading them to that point.

As Fr. Berret summarizes, the similarities between Hamlet and Huckleberry Finn add an extra dimension to each work.

"Awareness of these parallels enriches the experience of reading the novel.  It creates comedy by contrasting the two works, and tragedy by comparing them.  It adds to the novel's identity by relating it to Shakespeare's tragedies and their American burlesques."

American Literary Realism, 1870-1910, Vol. 18, No. 1/2 (Spring--Autumn, 1985), pp. 196-207

Revisiting Gibson

A day off from work gave me a good excuse to spend the day with Hamlet.  It was a return to the first performance that I had ever seen, Franco Zeffirelli's film starring Mel Gibson.  I forget when I saw it for the first time, but it was shortly after its theatrical release (and before I had read the text).  I recall watching it on a "new release" VHS copy rented from a video store.  I guess that dates me.  This time I watched it on DVD (a somewhat less obsolete format) as one more among many versions.

I discovered soon into the film that this is not Hamlet.  Rather, it is a film based on the Shakespearean play of that name.  That it is billed as "adapted from the play" says something.  It makes little sense to compare it to a stage production, as they are completely different beasts.  A film allows the luxury of numerous lush sets, novel camera work, cuts and dissolves.  This film is terrific in those aspects.  The production is visually stunning in cinematography and costuming.  The big-name cast is top-notch.

I found the screenplay to be a mess.  This is a function of having seen many stage productions and having a sense for what goes where in the play.  The film script is heavily edited to reduce it to a running time of 135 minutes, and as a result it is incredibly disjointed from Shakespeare's original.  While I could spend much time recounting this (and the Internet probably has much of this discussion already), one egregious example occurs in the middle of the film.  It begins with the nunnery scene.  The dialogue between Hamlet and Ophelia does not include the word "nunnery," and Hamlet knows all along that they are being watched.  Following the interaction, it is decided that Hamlet must go to England.

Cut to a tomb, in which Hamlet speaks the "To be or not to be" soliloquy.  It is a great setting for what Mel Gibson calls "a speech about a Catch-22," and he delivers it exceedingly well.  The speech dissolves into Hamlet on horseback and then on a shore, sunbathing.  Enter Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for their first appearance.  There had been no introductory conversation between them and Gertrude and Claudius.  They chat with Hamlet, he states that man delights not him and the players enter.  There is no discussion between the players and Hamlet, and there is no speech about "rugged Pyrrhus."  They are off-screen quickly and Hamlet dives into the "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy with no introduction and no context.  The "Murder of Gonzago" scene likewise was rewritten.  Polonius' description of the actors' talents (tragical historical, etc.) moves there, as does the actual nunnery dialogue between Hamlet and Ophelia.

Revisiting the film these many years later made for an interesting viewing experience.  More interesting at this point, though, were the two documentaries on the DVD.  Themes and questions that have surfaced in previous posts and in my own reflection on Hamlet were discussed by the cast and crew.  One such question is that of the problem of Hamlet.  As Gibson puts it, Hamlet's main problem is that no one understands him.  How is the problem solved?  There is no definite answer.  The actor just wanders in and goes crazy.  Ironically, though, Gibson calls Hamlet "the one voice of sanity throughout the play."  The character is very personal to the actor portraying him, which leaves the actor "pretty much on [his] own."  It's more than a part; it's an "assault on [the actor's] personality."

The contrast between Hamlet on stage on Hamlet on film is addressed by Mel Gibson.  As he states bluntly, "Film is not really the place for Hamlet."  To his mind, Hamlet is for the live stage.  It is a work to be redone night after night, "taking risks, getting it wrong, making it better."  While this film version is good in its own right, it made me appreciate a straightforward stage version even more.

Hamlet on the Beeb

Another acquisition from a local library was a VHS copy of the BBC production of Hamlet from 1980.  It was part of the Time-Life collection, "The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare."  Interestingly, it the same version for which I obtained the vinyl recording described in a previous post (7/21/14).

This particular production of Hamlet starred Derek Jacobi in the title role and Patrick Stewart as Claudius.  What was notable immediately was the amount of facial hair present on cast members.  Nearly every actor sported beard and mustache.  Patrick Stewart even sported a full head of hair, the first time I recall seeing him that way.  I also noticed that Hamlet and Ophelia seemed older than typical.  Jacobi was 42 years old at the time, and he looked it.

The production was a taped version of a live performance.  As such, the play is performed on a stage set.  The decoration was minimal.  Interestingly, it appeared that the rear of the stage was set on a slant in order to give the perception of depth.  Costuming was typical period with lush garments befitting a royal court.

The running time of the performance was just over three and one half hours.  Not much seemed to have been edited from Shakespeare's original.  In fact, the only shortening that was noticeable was in Hamlet's instructions to the players; Herod was not out-Heroded this time.  Other than that, it was a very full, straightforward production.  And it felt it.  By the time it was finished, I felt that I had been through a long performance.  Not much of the direction was given over to humor.  It was very traditional, satisfying and long.

Hamlet's soliloquies did display some peculiarities.  Jacobi chose to play them in part as direct conversations with the audience.  It was a bit disquieting when he was looking directly at me (or rather, the camera) while speaking.  The "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy was very emotional and loud.  Upon Ophelia's entrance at the conclusion of the "To be or not to be" soliloquy, Hamlet takes the book she was "reading" and inverts it.  Apparently she had been holding it with the text upside down, a sign that perhaps she had been spying on him.

I mention two other minor points of note.  When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were welcomed to Elsinore, they were not confused by Claudius and Gertrude as is usual.  Claudius shook hands with Rosencrantz first and Guildenstern second, and then Gertrude did the opposite.  Perhaps this was an attempt by the director to give each of them a distinct personality and not make them completely interchangeable.  When Hamlet thrice spoke the line "except my life" to Polonius, he feigned suicide with his dagger, sending Polonius from the room as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern entered.

The duel scene included both rapier and dagger.  Hamlet's first hit on Laertes was a very cheap one.  The second hit resulted from a much more extended and athletic exchange.  In a bit of turn-about, Laertes's fatal hit on Hamlet is also a cheap one, delivered as Hamlet attempts to return a dropped rapier to Laertes.  Claudius' death scene is fairly violent.  He is run through with the rapier and then forced to drink from the poisoned cup.  This is a decided contrast to the RSC production featuring Stewart as Claudius, when he drank from the cup by choice after shrugging.  (See 2/23/14 post.)

Length aside, this was a very respectful and respectable production of Hamlet.  It is one that I can say I have seen once, although I don't know if it is fit for a repeat viewing.