Farewell to New Burbage

In what has become a Christmas tradition for me, I spent the beginning of the holiday break with the New Burbage Theatre Company.  This year it was the DVD set of Season 3 of Slings & Arrows.  The journey began two years ago with their production of Hamlet, and then it continued with Macbeth last year.  This year, the company staged (or attempted to stage) King Lear.

The third season's theme was very darkly comic.  It was a season obsessed with death.  King Lear itself is not exactly a plethora of laughs.  Add to that the lead, Charles Kingman, who is himself dying and wants to stage the play before he passes from the Earth.  In other festival happenings, Darren Nichols returns to direct a musical about a heroin-addicted prostitute.  The entire season was in macrocosm its own Lear.

For being fairly heavy, as Season 3 drew to a close I was left with a thought:  Bravo!  It was a terrific close to what was a terrific series.  The characters, both new and old, have become like old friends, and it has been a pleasure to revisit them.  William Hutt as Charles Kingman was marvelous.  He was suitably crusty and belligerent, a perfect depiction of such a role.  (As it turns out, this may be the only filmed version of his Lear.)  One of his off-stage lines was a highlight of the season.  In a cast meeting, he delivers the following commentary.

"If they'll accept that Lear has a black daughter, they'll accept anything."

Having seen plenty of live Shakespeare, I could sympathize with this statement, even if it garnered an obscenity tossed his way by another cast member.

As the curtain dropped, I will admit that there was a certain sense of loss.  The Festival was left basically in a shambles.  Charles Kingman was able to fulfill his dying wish with a marvelous performance of Lear.  Cast members moved on to other opportunities.  And the final season of Slings & Arrows was over.  What to do now?  There are still plenty of DVD special features to explore.  What about Christmas 2016?  The beauty of DVDs is that they can be re-watched.  Perhaps I'll start all over again...

A Scottish Film

Approximately one year ago, I was in the midst of watching and blogging about the second season of Slings & Arrows, the Canadian series about the trials and tribulations of a theatre festival.  The focus of that season was their production of Macbeth.  After finishing the series, I added seeing Macbeth live to my to-do list.  The 2016 Stratford Festival calendar should allow me to check that one off as "Done."

As a precursor to the summer, I happened upon the new film version of Macbeth, starring Michael Fassbender.  Were it not for a casual mention by my brother, I might have missed this one entirely.  Were it not for a quick Internet theatre search, the limited release in my area might have passed me by.  Fortunately, all things worked out that I was able to see it before it closed.

I must admit that my reading of Macbeth was long ago and incomplete.  It was on the required reading list in junior year of high school, but the teacher did not leave us enough time to read the entire play.  (Maybe we shouldn't have wasted time on I Never Promised You a Rose Garden or The Ox-Bow Incident!)  So I went into the film with a good, albeit partial working knowledge of the plot.  After the fact I checked out a plot summary of the play for comparison's sake.

I thought it was a terrific presentation, but certainly not a holiday season pick-me-up.  It was a very well done film--well acted, well directed, well photographed. It did not seem dated, but it also was not shockingly modern.  Everything fit together in a classic and classy show.

The acting was solid, with all of the roles quite believable.  Strangely, Lady Macbeth did not strike me as vile as I remembered the character; unpleasant and scheming, yes.  Her husband certainly made up for it!  Fassbender's Macbeth is by turns wicked and mad; certainly more foul than fair.  The dialogue was thickly Scottish accented at times, and it was difficult to figure out what was being said. (My own unfamiliarity with the text is partly responsible for this, I'm sure.)  I would love to see the film again with open on-screen captions in order to follow the spoken word more easily.  Seeing the film again would also provide an opportunity to take in the scenery.  It is a beautifully shot film, with picturesque backdrops of mountains, woods and the castle.

The text must have been edited in order to fit the running time of two hours, but I couldn't pick out many glaring omissions, aside from the witches' "Double, double..." lines.  The story was not changed enough to be noticeable.  The one revision that was apparent was the manner in which Birnam Wood came to Dunsinane.  In the text, the soldiers shield themselves behind branches.  In the film, fire is set to the entire wood.  The prevailing winds blow the ash at the castle, hence Birnam Wood coming to Dunsinane.  It was a novel way to fit an adaptation to the original plot without doing either a gross disservice.

The violence of the play was on full display in the film.  It was not over the top considering the text, but it also was not toned down.  It was difficult to watch Macduff's family being incinerated by a vengeful (and despicable) Macbeth.  The battlefield scenes were suitably brutal, with much blood spilt ala Sam Peckinpah.  The gore was balletic at times.  The final fight between Macbeth and Macduff was violent, but Macbeth died with his head still attached.

For the Shakespearean devotee, this is a must-see.  I would recommend it as well for the casual Shakespearean observer, although reading the play ahead of time (or at least knowing what happens) would be a big help.  It gave me even more reason to look forward to Summer 2016 in Stratford!

Hamlet & Don Quixote

In the Bloom Anthology is an essay by Ivan Turgenev, entitled "Hamlet and Don Quixote:  The Two Eternal Human Types."  Turgenev compares the two works, which appeared in the same year.  He states his belief that the characters represent "the two ends of the axis about which [human nature] turns."  All humanity can be divided into one of the two classes.  Each of us resembles Hamlet or Don Quixote.

My first thought after reading the opening of the essay was the similarity to a deleted scene from Quentin Tarantino's film, Pulp Fiction.  Uma Thurman's character, Mia, gives John Travolta's character, Vincent, her theory that people are either Elvis people or Beatles people.  While they can like both of them, they tend to prefer one over the other and this says something about their personalities.  (If you haven't seen the scene, or if you just want to give it a repeat viewing, it is embedded at the end of this post.)

Turgenev describes Don Quixote as exemplifying "faith in the truth...existing outside of the individual...[and]...which is attainable only by constant devotion and the power of self-abnegation" (author's italics).  His mind is truly addled, to the point of imagining Dulcinea, the love of his life.  Hamlet, on the other hand, represents analysis, egotism, skepticism, and incredulity.  Hamlet "lives entirely for himself" and yet has no faith in himself.  He "scorns himself, and at the same time lives, so to speak, nourished by this scorn."  Does Hamlet really love?  His interactions with Ophelia present us with that very question.

Don Quixote is a comical figure whose appearance is one aspect of the comedy.  We ridicule him and yet we can love him.  Hamlet's appearance is attractive and yet melancholic.  To love him is impossible, though, as he himself does not love anyone.  Hamlet is literate, of noble birth and royal lineage, yet he rebukes kings and courtiers.  Don Quixote is ignorant, poor, old and lonely with no connections, but deeply respects monarchs and other existing orders.

Turgenev considers that Polonius and Sancho Panza represent the general masses' reaction to Hamlet and Don Quixote, respectively.  Polonius humors Hamlet, tolerates him as an adult would a sick child, but ultimately the masses find Hamlet to be useless.  That feeling is mutual.  As one of noble birth might complain, "[Is] it really worth while to bother about the masses?  They are so rude and filthy!"  Conversely, Sancho Panza knows Don Quixote is demented and yet is devoted to him to the point of death.

Turgenev summarizes his discussion thus.

"And so, on the one side stand the Hamlets--reflective, conscientious, often all-comprehensive, but as often also useless and doomed to immobility; and on the other the half-crazy Don Quixotes, who help and influence mankind only to the extent that they see but a single point--often nonexistent in the form they see it."

At the conclusion of the essay, I was left with the question.  Into which category would I fall?  I think this blogging exercise makes that answer quite apparent.  Considering Turgenev's argument, though, is that good or bad (or does thinking just make it so)?

Sweet "Prince"

Douglas Brode's novel, Sweet Prince:  The Passion of Hamlet, is now added to the ever-growing collection of all things Hamlet.  While not as overwhelmingly awful as it had been advertised to me, it certainly is a strange and not altogether pleasant entry into the Hamlet literature.

The novel is inspired by Sven Gade's silent film (see 10/19/14 post).  Typing that line alone warns the reader of the spoilers to follow, but consider the abridgment a service to save you from having to read the entire novel.  If you don't want the plot ruined, though, stop reading now.

The novel opens with a back story to the usual Hamlet narrative.  We are introduced to the same characters with whom we are familiar.  Claudius (called Fengon) and Gertrude are romantically involved, leaving Old Hamblet as a not-entirely unknowing cuckold.  Polonius and Ophelia round out the royal court.  Young Amuleth (Hamlet), child of Old Hamblet and Gertrude, is a student at Wittenberge with friends Fortinbras and Horatio.  Laertes, too, is there, although he is much the alcohol abuser and ladies' man.

The home situation reaches a boil when Hamblet dies at the point of Fengon's sword.  The death is ascribed to marauders.  A funeral and hasty marriage follow, and Brode provides a reason why this turn of events occurs and why Amuleth (soon to be Hamlet) does not rise to Denmark's throne.

The action follows the predictable Shakespearean-inspired path.  Hamlet puts on a bit of an antic disposition, for a time in the guise of a cross-dresser.  A roving group of players perform a grisly play for the members of the court, leading an offended Claudius to stagger from the room in search of light.  Hamlet visits Gertrude's chamber for the anticipated confrontation.  Suddenly, the action veers sharply a la Gade.  His film took an extraordinary liberty with Shakespeare's original:  it turned Hamlet into a princess.  Brode uses the same plot element.  We learn that Gertrude gave birth to a daughter and has been hiding this from Denmark for decades.  Following the revelation, a concealed Polonius is stabbed to death.

What follows is awkward both in the action of the story and in its written word.  The prince is now a princess, and the personal pronoun shifts from he to she.  Horatio heads out into the woods for a homosexual liaison with Hamlet and discovers the true gender of his friend.  The two engage in lovemaking described in graphic terms.  Ophelia stumbles upon the two, believes that she is seeing two men making love and staggers away, ending up in the river.  In this instance, though, she is saved from drowning by Fortinbras, on his way to the castle.

The plot for Hamlet's death is hatched with Gertrude as the chief conspirator.  The duel follows.  Hamlet unveils her true self to the entire court.  A sword fight with an unbated sword follows.  Laertes is stabbed to death on his own foil.  Gertrude drinks poison purposely to save her daughter from death.  Claudius dies at his own hand, falling on his sword.  At the moment of death, though, he unleashes yet one more shocking plot twist:  he is Hamlet's true father.  We discover that Old Hamblet had a notion of this, but he chose to believe Gertrude's lies to the contrary.

After some self-realization by Hamlet, the story ends with the four friends--Hamlet, Horatio, Ophelia and Fortinbras--as rulers of a new "modern" kingdom.  Brode alludes to this modernity extending into bedroom activities including all four of them.  The players (remember them?) ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after.

A strange novel, indeed!  In the introduction to the work, Brode discusses his writing method.  He states that all of the written dialogue is taken from one of Shakespeare's written works, be it play or sonnet.  While I did not check this (nor do I intend to), the novel read as if it were an accurate statement.  Taking Shakepeare's lines and putting them into different contexts at times came across as amateurish, though.  Old Will must have groaned to see "Once more into the breach" used by Gertrude as a come-on to Fengon for a second romantic liaison or to see Hamlet ask an amorous Horatio if her beaver is "easier than it was."  Much of the description of romantic encounters is exceedingly graphic, moreso than is truly necessary to make one's point.  It appears that Brode got caught up in the enjoyment of his writing.  I must give special note, however, to perhaps the most clever line to appear in the work:  Hamlet is called "the prince formerly known as Artist."  Bravo!

Overall, I cannot recommend this one to the general reading public, for one very important reason.  It tarnishes Shakespeare's original.  I dread the thought that someone might read this alone and think that it is representative of Hamlet.  I could recommend it to those who are familiar with Hamlet, if only to use as an example of what one can do with the story, for better and for worse.

Seasonal Shakespeare

Finally, some time for Shakespeare!  Granted, that meant that this week's post is two days later than usual.  Last night was the big-screen presentation of The Winter's Tale, courtesy of the Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company and the Garrick Theatre.  It was another among the many terrific works brought to audiences by Fathom Events.

I have to get the negativity out of the way first.  The show was scheduled to start at 7:30 p.m.  The curtain did not rise until 8 p.m., though.  For thirty minutes it was credit screens and an overhead shot of the theatre audience, with a Kenneth Branagh narrated introduction thrown in the middle.  While the introduction was interesting, it could have been shown promptly at 7:30 p.m. or before.  There really is no reason that a show should not start at the scheduled time.  (And really.  8 p.m. EST is 1 a.m. GMT.  Why is this advertised as "live" theatre?  Is a performance really being staged in London at 1 a.m.?)

Another minor issue was the cinematography.  The play was shot in 16:9 Cinemascope.  It gave this viewer a constrained, claustrophobic feeling.  While the extreme wide angle was good to capture all of the lateral action, losing the top and bottom of the frame did give it a tight perspective.  It could have been better with more height and less width.

There.  On to the acting, which was excellent!  Kenneth Branagh as Leontes was the slimiest, most wretched villain I have seen in a while.  Branagh played it absolutely to the hilt--at once pitiable and detestable.  The tragedy portion of the play, which covered the first half of the performance, was at times difficult to watch.  The interval was much needed, if only to catch one's breath and to get some relief from having to see Leontes mistreat his family.  Judy Dench as Paulina and Miranda Raison as Hermione were additional stand-out performances.

The second half of the play, the pastoral comedy portion, seemed to drag a bit.  (That could have been due to the late start and the twenty-minute interval.)  Once the main cast was all reassembled for the climax of the play, though, the action picked up.  The final scene, with the appearance of the statue of Hermione, was well done.  It was suitably emotional and not emotive.  The audience was left with the feeling of a happy ending...as long as they forgot that because of Leontes, Mamillius is still dead.

Overall, it was a very pleasant evening at the cinema.  I was impressed with the quality of Branagh's company, minor production issues notwithstanding.  The troupe will present Romeo and Juliet next year (as we were reminded repeatedly throughout the previews and interval).  Although it's a long way off, it is one more performance that I will hope to see.

Driven to Distraction

I have not had much time of late to devote to things Hamlet.  The burdens of work have kept me from being able to sit with a full-scale production or a piece of writing longer than a short passage.  With the Thanksgiving holiday very near (and Christmas break just about one month away), I look forward to getting back to Hamlet and other Shakespearean delights.

When I do, one of the first things could be a book that I picked up late in the summer:  Sweet Prince:  The Passion of Hamlet by Douglas Brode.  A novel about the characters, it was recommended, although not entirely positively.  The tagline on the rear cover--"Was Hamlet gay?"--perhaps should dissuade me.  In any event, the book is there, perched among many on my "To Read" list.  Until then...

Zhivago Hamlet

Here's another offbeat entry into the Hamlet world.  A poetic "Hamlet" appears in Boris Pasternak's novel, Doctor Zhivago.  An English translation of the poem is presented in the Bloom anthology.  After reading it and deciding that it was post-worthy, I made a quick Internet search to find the poem for shameless cutting-and-pasting.  I found the Russian version, but my ability to read Cyrillic is a bit rusty (i.e., completely nonexistent).  English translations abound, but they also differ in text.  Presented below are two variations, one by Ann Pasternak Slater and the other by Eleanor Rowe.  (Incidentally, neither is an exact replication of the version I read originally.)

Version I:  Ann Pasternak Slater translation
The murmurs ebb; onto the stage I enter.
I am trying, standing in the door,
To discover in the distant echoes
What the coming years may hold in store.

The nocturnal darkness with a thousand
Binoculars is focused onto me.
Take away this cup, O Abba, Father,
Everything is possible to thee.

I am fond of this thy stubborn project,
And to play my part I am content.
But another drama is in progress,
And, this once, O let me be exempt.

But the plan of action is determined,
And the end irrevocably sealed.
I am alone; all round me drowns in falsehood:
Life is not a walk across a field.

(http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/nov/06/saturday-poem-hamlet-boris-pasternak)

Version II:  Eleanor Rowe translation
The rumbling has grown quiet. I walk out on the stage.
Leaning against a door jamb,
I try to catch in a distant echo
What will happen in my lifetime.

At me is aimed the murkiness of night;
I'm pinned by a thousand opera glasses.
If only it is possible, Abba, Father,
May this cup be carried past me.

I cherish your stubborn design
And am agreed to play this role.
But now a different drama is underway;
This time, release me.

But the order of the acts has been determined,
And the ending of the journey cannot be averted.
I am alone; all drowns in Pharisaism.
To live life is not to cross a field.

(http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Readings/hamlet.html)

Poetic Hamlet

In the Bloom critical anthology, I came across several poems dedicated to Hamlet.  They were written by Walter de la Mare, who has penned numerous poems about Shakespearean characters.  The Bloom volume contained the three poems relevant to Hamlet:  "Hamlet," "Polonius," and "Ophelia."  I included the text of the tribute to the title character below, courtesy of an Internet site (referenced after).  It is an interesting portrait of Denmark's Prince.

Umbrageous cedars murmuring symphonies
Stooped in late twilight o'er dark Denmark's Prince:
He sat, his eyes companioned with dream--
Lustrous large eyes that held the world in view
As some entranced child's a puppet show.
Darkness gave birth to the all-trembling stars,
And a far roar of long-drawn cataracts,
Flooding immeasurable night with sound.
He sat so still, his very thoughts took wing,
And, lightest Ariels, the stillness haunted
With midge-like measures; but, at last, even they
Sank 'neath the influences of his night.
The sweet dust shed faint perfume in the gloom;
Through all wild space the stars' bright arrows fell
On the lone Prince--the troubled son of man--
On Time's dark waters in unearthly trouble:
Then, as the roar increased, and one fair tower
Of cloud took sky and stars with majesty,
He rose, his face a parchment of old age,
Sorrow hath scribbled o'er, and o'er, and o'er.

Other poems at  http://www.readbookonline.net/books/De%20la%20Mare/389/

Bamlet

A two-for-one special on posts today...  As much as I detest discussing politics, I could not resist the photo from today's New York Post.  I don't know how I feel about Shakespeare's tragic hero being compared to the subject of the article, but it does provide for amusing copy.

Halloween Hamlet

What better way to spend a Halloween evening than with Hamlet and vampires?  The opportunity presented itself in the guise of the film, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Undead.  Like its relative, Zombie Hamlet, this was another one of those "Because I had a gift card" purchases.  (See 9/27/15 post.)  Unlike its relative, this film was an unfunny and muddled mess.

The film opens with the following disclaimer:  "Since the 1600's there have been numerous versions of Shakespeare's Hamlet adapted to portray vampires.  This is one of them."  I don't recall any other versions of Hamlet and vampires; maybe they don't get as much press as the non-vampirical ones.  The premise of the film involves Julian, a rather unlikable loser who lives in a room in the office of his father, a doctor.  Julian's father, attempting to give his son some ambition to change his lot, presents Julian with a newspaper want-ad:  "Off-Broadway production of Hamlet seeks young controllable human theatre director."  Julian comments that it sounds pretty stupid (viewer be warned), but he heads to the theatre anyway.

Julian meets theatre owner, playwright, and resident vampire, Theo Holmes.  The play for which Theo needs a director is his work, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Undead.  Upon seeing the title, Julian comments, "Gonna be interesting to see how Shakespeare and zombies go together."  When Theo corrects him that the play involves vampires, not zombies, Julian retorts, "Yeah, that makes way more sense."  (Another warning to the viewer.)

During rehearsals, we see Julian's treatment of the characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  He ties them together, literally, to reinforce the idea that they are part of one character.  (Seen it before; 8/25/13 post.)  The actors are awful.  Consider this contribution from one of the pair:  "Since we're talking about the play, right, like, I was thinking we could do these modernizations, bro."  Instead of Rosencrantz and Guildensterns (with the extra s), he offers the following updates:

• Rosenbros and Guildendude

• Dudenkrantz and Dogenstern

• Rosenbros and Goldenho

What follows is an incomprehensible 55-minute trip through drama and the supernatural.  The local Rosicrucian and Goldenstone Society, which has a branch dealing with Hamlet and vampires, gets involved in the action.  Add to the mix numerous vampires, Ralph Macchio as a terribly-stereotyped Italian gangster (Why?) selling hand sanitizer in a gun-shaped container (really), and Jeremy Sisto parodying his role as a police detective on Law and Order.  By the time it's all over, even the Holy Grail and the real Prince Hamlet have appeared.

Whereas Zombie Hamlet proved that one could have fun with the Shakespearean work, this film disproved the point.  It tries too hard to be funny, and none of the humor works.  (In fact, the film put this blogger to sleep, multiple times.)  The DVD contains deleted scenes, which leads this one to wonder how bad a scene must be not to make this film.  If you decide to give this one a try, be warned.  It's not a very satisfying ride.

Arnold on Hamlet

One essay in the Bloom anthology (see 10/11/15 post) is entitled "Hamlet Once More," by Matthew Arnold.  I remember Arnold's poem, "Dover Beach," from my high school sophomore English class.  (Admittedly, I don't recall much else about the poem.)

Arnold characterizes Hamlet as "tantalising and ineffective."  He explains the reason for that statement.

"To the common public Hamlet is a famous piece by a famous poet, with crime, a ghost, battle, and carnage; and that is sufficient.  To the youthful enthusiast Hamlet is a piece handling the mystery of the universe, and having throughout cadences, phrases, and words full of divinest Shakespearian magic; and that, too, is sufficient.  To the pedant, finally, Hamlet is an occasion for airing his psychology; and what does pedant require more?"

Arnold's problem with Hamlet is precisely its mutability.  As he puts it, "The rest is puzzle."  It lacks the "perfect comprehension and profoundest emotion, which is ideal for tragedy."  Instead, it presents difficulty in interpretation and solution.  That, for Arnold, is an issue.

I can agree with Arnold, to a point.  (Maybe the line about pedant makes me defensive.)  I think part of the greatness of the play is its adaptability.  Hamlet fits (or can fit) different historical periods.  It can be relevant to different generations of playgoers.  Unfortunately, this can lead to abuses as well.  Just because Hamlet can be adapted does not mean that every adaptation is valid.  If it were less of a puzzle, perhaps directors would be less likely to commit the transgressions that I have detailed in previous posts.  On the other hand, though, if every performance of Hamlet were exactly the same it would make for boring theatre.  It's that directorial balancing act that makes it such fun to watch (and about which to pontificate post after post).

National Debacle

After months of anticipation, October 15 finally arrived.  The National Theatre's broadcast of Hamlet starring Benedict Cumberbatch was shown on the big screen through Fathom Events and NT Live.  In the case of the summer trip to Stratford, the time spent waiting was well rewarded.  Unfortunately, this experience was entirely the opposite.  It was an utter disaster.

It did not take long to realize that something was seriously rotten.  The play opened with Hamlet sitting in what appeared to be his bedroom, listening to a vinyl LP on his phonograph.  There was a knock at the door.  Hamlet:  "Who's there?  Nay, answer me.  Stand and unfold yourself."  Horatio entered, and the two friends chatted.

That simple opening said much about this production.  I have no problem with updating Hamlet to fit a different historical context.  I have seen (and written about) modern presentations that have been done quite well.  Also, I understand that editing is necessary, especially as the print version of Hamlet was probably never performed as such during Shakespeare's day.  What happened here, though, was different.  Scenes were rewritten and lines were given to different players to speak.  That is intolerable.  It smacks of arrogance on the part of the director, in this case Lyndsey Turner.  It's as if the director has decided that Shakespeare did not know what he was doing and she could do it much better.  As this production displayed, it was not even close.

The set consisted of a large castle hall.  It was well-arranged and well-decorated.  The problem was that it was the only set.  We were supposed to believe that the second floor of the set was castle parapets, even though the decoration had not changed.  When we returned after the interval for Act II, the castle had been filled with dirt, as if a front-loader had delivered fill during the intermission.  Why?  This was never explained.

What was the time period of the play?  I still don't know.  Initially I would have guessed early to mid- 1900's.  The were candles on the table, but there was also electricity.  At one point there was an office on stage, with furniture and Bakelite rotary telephones.  The music had a Jazz Age feel.  Later, though, Hamlet appeared in a David Bowie Ziggy Stardust T-shirt.  1970's?  By the time it was all over, I no longer knew or cared.

An additional irritation was the revision of the text.  Again, editing is one thing, but rewriting the language is another.  Stubbornness was "unholy," not "impious."  One did "heed"" and did not "reck" his reed.  It became "our" philosophy, not Horatio's alone.  Ophelia was not "beautified" at all.  Hamlet was "hot" and not "fat" and scant of breath.  A "union" became a "jewel."  To what purpose is changing the words?  While some alterations maintained the meter, other instances were a bit more ham-fisted.

I cannot say much about the acting.  There was nothing terribly impressive about any of it.  None of the characters was sympathetic.  Perhaps this was due to the excessive shifting of roles and redistributing of lines.  Hamlet tried far too hard to play an antic disposition.  Polonius was neither shifty nor foppish, but just plain bland.  Laertes came off as a sort of East African warlord, which did not fit the demographic of the rest of his family.

The editing was schizophrenic.  Scenes morphed in and out of other scenes with no apparent regard for exits and entrances.  Hamlet's "too, too solid flesh" soliloquy was delivered while the court was seated around a large banquet table.  There was a freeze-frame, the rest of the cast was put into shadow and slow-motion, and Hamlet spoke in the foreground.  Polonius burst onto a later scene declaring that he would be brief, but the editing provided no background to his speech.

When first we saw Hamlet pretending to be mad, it was in the costume of a toy soldier.  Why?  (This was a question throughout the evening.  That and WTF?)  As he repeated "except my life, except my life..." he feigned suicide by hanging with the drum strap around his neck.  Cut, in the middle of the line, to the "To be or not to be" soliloquy, with Hamlet sitting on a table.  The soliloquy ended upon the arrival of ambassadors from Norway.  The nunnery scene appeared later, just before the arrival of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  Hamlet took Polonius' line about the arrival of the players, and then the troupe arrived.  We were treated to some invented dialogue, evidently to replace the line about "mobled queen," which was not good.  In the midst of the player's speech about Priam, the "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy appeared, couched in another freeze-frame.  "What's Hecuba to him or he to her?"  Unfreeze, cue the players and then "The play's the thing...."

Next we saw Hamlet instructing the player about speaking the speech according to instruction.  (If only the director had followed this advice!)  One of the player's lines was something about a "smiling, damned villain."  Hamlet and Horatio had a short interlude, during which Horatio presented Hamlet with a painted plate displaying Claudius' image.  I don't know where that scene falls in the original play.  Then it was time for "The Mousetrap."  As Hamlet spoke of chameleon's dishes and promise-crammed air, Gertrude blurted out "These words are not mine."  I was about to yell at the screen, "No, they're Claudius's words!" but I was able to restrain myself.  There was no dumb show (save the entire production).  Hamlet took the role of Lucianus, speaking his lines and killing Gonzago.  "Smiling damned villain" reappeared.  There was a need for light and then Hamlet declared, "Tis now the witching time of night."  Um, methinks there was a word missing.

I applaud the director for the framing of the chapel scene, even if there was no chapel.  Claudius was on ground level, on his knees, praying.  Hamlet entered above on the second floor overlook.  It explains why Hamlet can deliver a soliloquy without Claudius hearing.  I recall reading that suggestion once and thought it made good sense.  Here, it was well-played!  That led to the chamber scene (with no bed).  Hamlet and Gertrude actually did garner some slight sympathy in this scene.  It was one of the most realistic interludes of the evening.  But then the scene was over, Hamlet dragged Polonius away, multiple people ran or crawled across stage looking for him, Ophelia ended up on stage screaming with her hands covered in Polonius's blood, cue an explosion of leaves and Act I was over.

As Act II began, my first thought was "Why is the castle full of dirt?  Was there a landslide?"  Fortinbras appeared, and Hamlet delivered the "How all occasions" soliloquy.  It seemed edited, but as it is not one that appears in every production, it could have been my own unfamiliarity with seeing it performed.  Ophelia's madness scene was dreadful, largely due to entirely unsympathetic acting and, again, to invented dialogue.  Laertes reappeared, all emotion and bluster.  Letters were delivered.  Somewhere in there was a mention of a character named Matthias.  I don't know who that is.  We moved to Ophelia's burial.  The second gravedigger was female, in a business suit and heels, carrying a portfolio/clipboard.  Who was she?  I'm not sure.  Yorick was there, but there was no mention of Alexander or bungholes.  Hamlet and Laertes scuffled.  Claudius and Laertes plotted at graveside Hamlet's demise, including preparing a chalice "of the like."  Osric, or Voltemand (the same actress, at least) invited Hamlet to the duel; as she was a female character, there was no hat.

Finally, the duel arrived.  Hamlet was in a white fencing vest.  The rest of the cast was in black.  (Subtle.)  The first two passes of the fight were lame.  Then a mess erupted.  Hamlet was nicked with the poisoned foil.  He and Laertes brawled.  Just as Hamlet was about to wound Laertes there was another freeze-frame, completely destroying the moment.  The cast members started some sort of dance of death as shadows played on the walls.  Unfreeze.  Laertes was stabbed.  Then Gertrude decided to drink.  (Had she forgetten her cue?)  She dropped dead, Horatio declared that the drink was poisoned, the usual suspects died and the rest was silence...until Fortinbras arrived to claim his rights of memory.  He advised someone (who?) to take up the body (only one?) and then sent Horatio to bid the soldiers to shoot.  As Horatio climbed the dirt mountain upstage, the screen faded to black.

Thus, the most foul murder of Shakespeare's classic was ended.  To say it left a sour taste is to understate things.  The only saving grace--I did not have to fly to London to see the production.  It was $15 and three hours, spent.

Bloom's Hamlet

Another collection of essays on Hamlet has been added to the collection on my bookshelves.  This one is a secondhand copy of Bloom's Shakespeare Through the Ages:  Hamlet, edited by Harold Bloom and Brett Foster.  It is an anthology reminiscent of Hamlet:  Enter Critic, mentioned in this blog long ago.  (See 7/29/13 post and others.)  This one will be suitable for keeping on my desk at work and perusing during the few fleeting free moments of the school day.  Look for the occasional post to appear here as the material warrants.

Ghostly Fringe

The First Niagara Rochester Fringe Festival has become an annual tradition in Upstate NY.  Another tradition has been at least one show worthy of a blog post.  This year was no exception.  Amidst the concerts and comedy was a theatrical presentation entitled HamletGhosts.  A production of the NYC-based company, The Brewing Dept., here's the description of the show, taken from the Fringe Festival Guide.

"Through a series of vignettes mixing Shakespeare with Lady Gaga, Yahoo Answers and personal narratives, audiences witness the guts of Hamlet without any of the plot."

It's an interesting idea.  Show a play without actually showing the play.  At the end of the seventy-minute show, though, this audience member was left wondering, "What was that?"

The show began with an actress dressed as a clown introducing the remaining cast members.  She became the de facto tour guide of the production, moving in and out of scenes and in and out of the audience, as the case warranted.  A schizophrenic scene followed, questioning the value of Hamlet and finding answers on Yahoo.  With that, we were off and running.

The rest of the production was an often unrecognizable mish-mash.  There was just enough Hamlet to justify the title.  The play was five acts in length.  There were occasional snippets of dialogue borrowed from Hamlet's soliloquies.  Ophelia proclaimed Hamlet's madness...and caressed the blogger's right arm by way of example.  Mel Gibson appeared; at least, his voice did as the audio from the chamber scene in the Zeffirelli film was played while a cast member lip-synced.  The duel scene of Act V was reenacted, albeit very loosely.  The play closed with dead bodies strewn about the stage and our tour guide lamenting the end of the performance.

Mixed into the obvious Hamlet allusions were numerous oddities.  There was plentiful discussion of death, especially suicide.  There were stories of Twitter meltdowns and open readings of depressive diary entries.  There were dance numbers set to contemporary pop music.  There was cross-dressing and soft-core (fully clothed) erotica.  One scene involved a shirtless cast member recounting his sexual discovery and coming out.  In what had to be the most bizarre inclusion of all, a fish hat-wearing cast member gave directions on how to clean a fish while using audience members to assist her.

The Fringe Festival is touted as a celebration of creativity.  This show was certainly creative and unique.  Somewhat endearing in its outright weirdness, it was an interesting, albeit not terribly enjoyable diversion.

P.S.  Fortunately, I was able to exorcise the ghosts immediately after the show.  Live and loud rock music courtesy of The Ginger Faye Bakers was the perfect remedy to scare them away!

Zombie Hamlet

There are certain things one would consider buying only when there is a gift card involved.  (Thanks, Kathy!)  That was the case with this post.  With money to kill at Amazon, I searched through the DVD section for Hamlet.  What surfaced--way down the list--was a relatively recent something called Zombie Hamlet.  With free money in hand, I figured it had to be worth a shot.  Surprisingly, it turned out to be a lot of fun!

The film is less an adaptation of Hamlet than a film about someone making a (very loose) film adaptation of Hamlet.  It follows the latest venture from director Osric Taylor.  The title:  Hamlet, Son of Richmond.  It's a version of Hamlet set during the Civil War.  Aside:  As a Civil War buff, this combination of Hamlet and the Confederacy grabbed me immediately.  Seriously, I think it actually has potential....

The film hits obstacles from the outset.  The budget is reduced significantly.  While scouting locations in Louisiana, all financial backing is pulled.  A reclusive author and owner of the plantation that becomes the film set offers to pay for the film.  There's a catch.  Osric has to add zombies.  They're hot in the current film-making climate, after all.  When Osric objects, the Louisiana District Attorney responds, "Who'd even pay to see a movie about Shakespeare?"  The zombies stay and suddenly it's Hamlet meets Ken Burns meets The Walking Dead, starring the second worst actor who could be cast in a Shakespearean role (right behind Hulk Hogan).  Then the financier dies.  What to do?  It must be seen to be believed.

What follows is a story of bodies alive, dead and undead; carnal, bloody and unnatural acts; and voodoo loan sharks.  This is no highbrow movie by any stretch.  It is an entertaining ninety-minute diversion, though.  The casual slaughter of Shakespeare's masterpiece ("To not to be or to not not to be...") is good for plenty of laughs.  In the end, even the mindlessness of social media and viral video plays a part.  As the curtain falls, Osric is off to his next several projects, including Romeo and Ghoul-iet.  (Yes, really.)  If that's not enough, the worst actor who could be cast in a Shakespearean role gets his chance as Vampire Macbeth.  To quote that Martin Sheen classic, Acapulco Now, "The horror, the horror!"

Dreyfuss Dialogues

The final interview among the Special Features included in the DVD release of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead was with Richard Dreyfuss, the Player King.  As with this post, it began quickly, with the moderator wasting no time in asking what Dreyfuss thought the play was about.  The actor was at a loss.  First, he compared it to a scene from The Honeymooners, when Ralph doesn't think that question will ever be asked.  Then Dreyfuss quoted comedian Buddy Hackett, "It all depend how you look at it."  Next he answered that the play represents the experience of Hamlet all turned around.  Ultimately, though, he admitted that the play is beyond his own intellectual capabilities to understand it.

The next question, "What drew you to the film?" was a bit safer.  Dreyfuss replied that he took the part because it was a role from Tom Stoppard.  Later, Dreyfuss called working with Tom Stoppard intimidating.  For a first-time film director, Stoppard was very certain of everything, very quietly sure.  Another reason Dreyfuss took the role was that it was a role he never believed he would be asked to play.  He went on to say that he did not really prepare for the role.  If anything, he went to Donald Wolfit.  I had to look up that reference.  Wolfit was a British actor of stage and film who played King Lear, among many roles.

The interviewer drew a parallel between Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead and Groundhog Day, the 1993 film in which Bill Murray is forced to relive February 2.  He asked Dreyfuss if the characters having to relive Hamlet is what makes the Player so world-weary.  Dreyfuss agreed in part, stating that the Player does know more than the others.  This helps to inform the sense of irony in the play.  Dreyfuss suggested a revision to the film.  He would have liked to see it end exactly where it began, in order to play up the cyclical sense of the action.  Perhaps, though, this was only because admittedly he didn't understand the play in total, but only moment by moment.

Dreyfuss commented repeatedly how much he enjoyed his role.  He loved the Player doing Priam standing on a table.  He called it thrilling and another way of acting different from what he had done.  He was not intimidated by it, though.  In fact, he regretted not doing more Shakespeare in his career.  Dreyfuss discussed later a brief two-and-a-half week stint directing Hamlet.  He discounted his effort as becoming the director that he hated, with line readings and posed action.

For an actor who repeated that he did not understand the play, Dreyfuss posed a very interesting observation about R & G and Hamlet.  He called the former a fulfillment of his own idea about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  He believes that they are not slimebags but rather pigeons or "schmoos," trapped in an accident of fate.  When they arrive at Elsinore, the first person they meet is Claudius.  It is he who tells them that Hamlet is mad.  He's the King of Denmark, so he must know what he's talking about.  This initial conversation colors their later perceptions of Hamlet.  What would have happened if they had not met Claudius first?

When asked to name his favorite role, Dreyfuss replied, "Hamlet."  (The interviewer meant one of Dreyfuss's own film roles.)  When asked what part he yearns to play, Dreyfuss's answer was the same:  "Hamlet."  He didn't know why he never took the role.  He did say that he would like to produce Hamlet for radio.  (I don't know if that ever happened.  I found that he did direct a stage version in 1994 at the Old Repertory Theatre in Birmingham.)

Dreyfuss's admiration for Hamlet is evident.  He admitted that there are probably six or eight guys who love the play more than he does.  He stated that he finds greatness, mystery, wackiness in every line.  If he were on a desert island, Hamlet would be the play he would take with him.  I agree with him on that one and on a comment toward the end of the discussion that could be my new philosophy.

"If I could just wake up and go to Barnes & Noble and go home and read my books, I would be fine."

Who wouldn't?  Indeed, who wouldn't?

Stratford Preview

Because it's never too early to begin planning for summer vacation...

Stratford has announced their 2016 season.  This season's trip to see Hamlet may have started an annual tradition!  There are several items of interest, including a Scottish headliner.  Check the link here for the full lineup.

Roth Riffs

Tim Roth's interview was the third one I viewed in the Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead DVD set.  (See 7/5/15 post.)  While it was not restricted solely to the film and wandered into Roth's career, the R&G tidbits were certainly interesting enough.

Roth opens with the story of how he got the role of Guildenstern.  He met with Tom Stoppard and Gary Oldman.  Roth and Oldman had worked together previously (which could be why they seemed to get on so well together in R&G).  Roth refused to read for the part, an example of a general practice for him.  (Apparently Oldman would not read for his part either.)  Things went well in the meeting, but Stoppard was not sold on Roth.  It was between Roth and Daniel Day-Lewis, who was playing Hamlet at the National Theatre in London.  On the night that Stoppard went to see Day-Lewis perform, the actor had a nervous breakdown during the performance.  In the first scene, when the Ghost appeared, Day-Lewis saw the ghost of his own father.  Day-Lewis had to take care of the personal issues, so he became unavailable for the role of Guildenstern.  Roth got the part.

Roth is asked why it is that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are confused by the other characters.  He attributes this as a device created by Stoppard.  He denies the assumption that this practice can be traced back to Shakespeare's time.  In R&G, perhaps it's because they have complicated names.  Maybe it is due also to the relative lack of concern accorded them by the other characters.  In this work, Roth considers them to be two sides of the same coin.

Roth relates his thoughts on the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  He thinks that the end for them is not quite the end.  They won't get to die, but they'll be trapped in reliving the play, trying to figure things out and to get it right.

Near the end of the interview, Roth tells the interviewer that he might like to do more Shakespeare.  In fact, he and Oldman inquired about recreating their roles in Franco Zeffirelli's Hamlet starring Mel Gibson, complete with the same costumes.  They were not hired.  Considering the sloppy manner in which the roles were handled in that film, perhaps it was a blessing in disguise.

Welcome Le Moyne Students!

Greetings Fellow Dolphins!

To those of you who have found this blog and are enrolled in Hamlet: Views and Variations, I bid you welcome.  As a sometime student and now Le Moyne College alumnus (Class of 1997), I hope that you enjoy the class.  It did not come along until after my time on the Heights, so I was never fortunate enough to be able to take it.  I hope that the posts on this blog may help to deepen your appreciation of Hamlet...or at least help you to graduate.

Best wishes on your study of Hamlet this semester!

The Stratford Archives

While visiting Stratford, I was able to visit the festival archives.  It was a great chance to hear about the history of the festival and the efforts both to preserve that history and to make it available to the public.  There was a display of items from productions past.  As it turned out, there were several relating to Hamlet, and photography was permitted.

Production stills and costume design sketches from past productions.

Design sketch for Gertrude's costume

Costumes from past productions, highlighting different directorial visions

Artifacts from past productions

One item of particular note was not included in the archive display.  Stratford keeps within the archives "Composite Scripts" for Shakespeare's canon.  The scripts, prepared from stage manager's notes, detail how each director has rendered the text in his particular production.  They allow subsequent directors to see what was done by a previous director, and they provide a fantastic historical document of the Stratford stage.  I was able to view the script for Hamlet, and it was a true highlight.  Each director's emendations are noted in the Shakespearean text with a different color ink.  It was easy to see which changes are consistent and which are unique.  (Cue the pool table!)  For a self-professed Hamlet nut, the trip to the archives provided a perfect denouement to the Stratford visit!

Star Talks Stratford

In addition to the Stratford Festival's excellent stage productions, there are numerous free events for theatre goers.  As luck would have it, one of these occurred immediately following the July 29 performance of Hamlet.  Toronto Star theatre critic Richard Ouzounian joined in conversation with Antoni Cimolino and Jonathan Goad.  Cimolino is Stratford Festival's Artistic Director and the Director of Hamlet.  Goad plays Hamlet in Cimolino's production.  To have such an opportunity dropped into my lap made it an absolute must!  Notepad at the ready, I was able to record the discussion that ensued.

The first topic was the selection of an actor to play Hamlet.  Cimolino's discussion with Goad began nearly ten years ago and continued through planning of the current production.  The technical needs for the role are enormous.  Plus, the actor must be able to play a soldier, a courtier and a scholar while dealing with issues of justice and vengeance.  When the offer to play Hamlet came, Goad felt he was probably too old for the role that he called "an intimate experience."  He asked his wife, and she told him that he certainly was not too old.  We discovered that Goad's wife is Adrienne Gould, the actress who played Ophelia opposite her husband.  Thanks to her, he took the part.

The conversation moved to the matter of the setting of the play.  Cimolino described Hamlet as a play about killing children, about sacrificing the young to avenge the crimes of their parents.  The ghost of Hamlet's father is the voice of the old generation calling to the younger generation.  The tragedy of the play is the loss of youth trying to find justice in a corrupt world.  With this philosophy in mind, World War I seemed a perfect setting for the production.  It was a time when the world said goodbye to the old ways and hello to a modern era.  The stage set was designed with this in mind.  The rectangular prisms were based on the Memorial to the Murdered Jews in Europe in Berlin.  (Different World War perhaps, but no matter.)  I had never seen the memorial, but a photograph of it makes this parallel very obvious and striking.

When asked about the look of his character, Goad said that he trusted his director in that respect.  The look in the play is one for all time.  Goad furthered this discussion of flexibility.  No two shows are exactly the same, one of the beauties of live theatre.  He described it as classical jazz, giving the play room to breathe.

A discussion of casting and the roles in Hamlet followed.  The entire Stratford company gets extremely high marks.  Cimolino gave a reason for the high quality of the company.  The Canadian TV and film industries are not as highly renowned as in the U.S., so the actors are blessed to be able to do the classics and not get rich.  (Jonathan Goad:  "So blessed!")  Regarding Polonius, Cimolino chose to portray him as a religious, Richelieu-esque figure.  Religion figures in Hamlet, and the chapel is mentioned although many productions do not show it.  This production displayed it prominently.  Gertrude was portrayed as a professional woman, not a "clothes horse."

The conversation shifted to the topic of Hamlet's relationships.  Goad took this question.  He finds all of the scenes difficult and challenging.  Hamlet's relationships are a series of disappointments.  Hamlet is not a lover; he yearns for connections.  The scenes with Ophelia--the nunnery scene, her funeral--are especially difficult.  (That he and Ophelia are married in real life adds to this!)  Ophelia is completely abandoned in the play--by Laertes, by Hamlet and ultimately by Polonius, although not by his choice.  She's left alone and dies alone.

The nunnery scene in this production was marked by Hamlet exiting and reentering repeatedly.  Cimolino described this as the repeated failure of Hamlet's words.  He tries to talk to Ophelia and keeps getting it wrong.  Goad added that the idea of the scene was not male violence perpetrated on women.  Hamlet tries to say good bye and just can't bring himself to leave.  Family contact was a constant theme in the production.  This was evident both in Hamlet's family and in Polonius' family.  As Cimolino put it, they try to hold on tight, but by the end of the play it "all still goes to ratshit."

The next topic was Hamlet's soliloquies.  Goad described them as dialogue, not monologue.  Hamlet is isolated in the play, so he talks to the audience.  Sometimes this plays a little more evidently than others. ("I have heard/That guilty creatures sitting at a play....")  In delivering the speeches, Goad had to erase the weight of history.  He tried to stay in the moment, to bring himself to the soliloquies and to put an original stamp on them.  Cimolino commented that the "How all occasions" soliloquy is very important.  He described Hamlet's tragic flaw as an excess of passion.  After the ghost's visitation, Hamlet wants to "get it right."  Then he kills Polonius inadvertently.  Seeing the Polish soldiers marching to their deaths has a huge effect on Hamlet.  The soliloquy is Hamlet remarking that nothing is perfect, so one must do one's best.  In that speech, the idealist in Hamlet dies.

The next topic was the troupe of players.  Just as the conversation was about to begin, Mike Shara, who played Laertes, appeared at the window behind the dais.  A knock and a wave--it was a beautifully inserted comic moment.  Returning to the discussion, Cimolino said that he chose to portray the players as wandering Romany gypsies.  It is a gesture designed to elicit empathy for the wandering underdogs who were much persecuted in European history.  The first player is as a second father to Hamlet.

At this point, the floor was opened for audience questions.  To the question of an aha moment, Goad replied that you have to know the lines so well that you forget them and lose yourself in the performance of the story.  On the topic of Hamlet's constant motion on stage, Cimolino ascribed it to his active hunt for the murderer.  A question was raised about Hamlet's supposed inactivity.  Goad stated that one thing they did with this production was to examine the text in order to question the standbys in this play.  Hamlet is never asked to kill anyone.  He's not effeminate.  He's not an artist.  He's not indecisive.

In response to a question about how the play mirrors the director's personality, Cimolino said that family is hugely important to him as well.  The family unit is greater than death.  Perhaps the loss of youth was a light into the life of William Shakespeare, who lost his own son around the time that he was writing the play.

A discussion about Ophelia dropped a bombshell on the audience.  She was pregnant!  It was not obvious, but Cimolino said that it was there.  (This makes the play fit for repeated viewings.)  Goad said that Hamlet and Ophelia have been intimate.  The songs that Ophelia sings are about men taking advantage of women.  Perhaps the one that she and her father duet early in the play was one of his favorites from his youth.  In addition, one of the herbs mentioned later in the play was used as an abortion drug.

The final topic of the Star Talk concerned the scene in Gertrude's chamber.  As Hamlet is dragging the body of Polonius away, he says, "Good night, mother."  Cimolino referred to it as a dream that has become a nightmare.  He paralleled the encounter to that of a young son who visits his mother in her room and doesn't want to leave.  Goad said that the moment itself was not intentionally comic, but the juxtaposition is.  It's an absurd moment, but it's done.  And with that so was the afternoon's discussion.

Being Hamlet

The appetizer to the production of Hamlet at this year's Stratford Festival was a forum entitled, Being Hamlet.  Hosted by Paul Kennedy, it featured a panel discussion of three actors who have played Hamlet at Stratford.  Present were Brent Carver (1986), Ben Carlson (2008) and Jonathan Goad (2015).  The forum was moved to the comfortable surroundings of the Tom Patterson Theatre to accommodate the large crowd.  While their answers to questions were insightful and interesting, it was a treat to watch the three interact with each other and trade occasional barbs.

Each of the four panel members described his first experience with Hamlet.  For Kennedy, it was when he was nine years old.  He described reading the text in his bedroom, a very personal experience for him.  Carver met the play during his university years at Summer Stock in Vancouver.  He was playing in a non-Shakespearean version of the play and so studied the "real" one.  He commented that when performing it you realize that you think you know the play, but you don't.  Goad discovered the play in the form of a comic book treatment when he was in grade 7.  The first time he saw it on stage was in 2000 in Stratford, when Paul Gross played the lead.  Carlson's first experience with Hamlet also was in Stratford; he saw Carver's 1986 performance.  As he told him playfully, "It's all your fault!"

The next topic for the actors was how they prepared for such a demanding role.  Goad commented that besides extensive rehearsals at Stratford, one's entire acting career is preparation for being Hamlet.  Carver's preparation was different.  In 1975, he had been part of a rock opera version of Hamlet.  (This Hamlet fan was intrigued, in the way one is intrigued by auto accidents.)  In 1984, he played Hamlet at the Grand Theatre, which prepared him for the 1986 Stratford production.  Carlson's preparation was different still--he took up running, roughly 14K.  Also, he read Shakespeare's entire canon in order to understand the playwright.

Hamlet is described as the quintessence of theatre and the "center of Western thought" and as such has become to an extent a cliche.  The actors discussed that aspect of the experience.  According to Carlson, because it is a cliche the actor must invent the role for himself and make it his own.  It's such a great role that an actor undertaking the role "can't totally fail."  Goad commented that in Hamlet we see more of William Shakespeare than in any other play in the canon.  Yet, as Carlson added, he's still a huge mystery.  Goad stated that we see ourselves in Hamlet; "Hamlet is us and we are Hamlet."

The discussion turned to an interesting question.  What is it like to watch the play from the audience after having been Hamlet?  To Carlson, it was a "great relief!"  He has discovered, though, that he watches the play now and notices what has been cut, what has been added.  (I know the feeling.)  Of the performances Goad has seen, he commented that he's never met a Hamlet that he didn't like.  Carver referred to the phenomenon of Shakespeare's plays traveling in packs.  It seems that when one Hamlet appears, there are several other companies performing it also.  (If the past year is any indication, that has been the case around these parts.)

Goad took the next question, regarding using other productions of Hamlet in one's own performance.  He stated directly that if there is a good idea, you steal it.  Direct imitation is not possible, though.  The role is a personal experience.  He looks at it as throwing off the historical shackles, not reinventing it.  One must challenge the notions of history in performing it anew.

What about physical challenges of being Hamlet?  How does the actor catch his breath?  Carlson commented that the interval in his production occurred after the "How all occasions" soliloquy, so there was a very long break for him when Hamlet was in England.  As Goad put it, Claudius was the tour guide for the next several scenes.  Carver added that even a break is not really a break, though.  The actor can't really rest.  Soon he'll be back on stage and must be active and engaged.

Next was a tough one for the actors:  What is your favorite soliloquy?  Carlson is partial to Claudius' soliloquy ("O, my offense is rank..."); that's the one he's never had to speak on stage.  In it, we see Claudius' humanity.  Goad understandably ducked the question at first, declaring that each is special and inseparable from the whole.  He gave special mention of the "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy, though, as being extraordinary both in content and length.  He described "To be or not to be..." as the heart of the play.  Carver remarked that he was surprised when that speech came up in his play.  It was always "Oh, here it comes!"  Carver gave high marks to Hamlet's "divinity that shapes our ends" speech.  Goad and Carlson agreed that they are struck by the tiny moments and by the rapidity and wit of Shakespeare's prose.

The actors were asked to describe epiphany moments.  Carver led off, stating that it is amazing to be able to play Hamlet.  He called it daunting, a privilege and a responsibility.  Goad remarked that he never feels up to the role, and he's always grateful for the opportunity to reveal himself through the part.  When asked if he would play it again, he hedged and then admitted that he probably would not.

Carlson's epiphany moment was a severe anxiety attack he had in Chicago on his first day in the role.  William Shakespeare taps into horrific themes--murder, violence, possible incest--and they got to him.  He called a friend who had Hamlet experience to ask if this was normal.  The response was that it was a shared phenomenon and a sign that "you're alive and thinking."  Carlson went on to describe an onstage interaction with a spider that became the object of his artistic anger.  (The arachnid fared better than Claudius.)

The heavy nature of the play was a continued topic.  Goad called every day a revelation.  The actor must avail himself to the circumstances of the day.  The play is consumed with death and self-revelation.  It examines disillusionment and one's place in the world.  Ophelia's drowning and 20,000 Polish soldiers marching to their death are the final straws.  Carver added that the play causes something in one's DNA to be shifted, and he's not sure what it is.  The actor plans something on stage and things go awry.  The best he can do is to be in the present.

The players were asked how being Hamlet has changed them.  According to Carver, it made him question what he was doing and why.  In fact, he began to probe whether he could act.  Carlson recounted that after Hamlet everything is more interesting.  It opens the mind to the possibility.  He finds that everything has more color.  Goad's response:  "I can't wait until it's over."  The play has caused him to put a heavy burden on himself.

There was time for some questions from the audience.  On the subject of universal themes in the play, Carver remarked that "It's William Shakespeare!"  The story is universal, as is the mystery.  Goad added that different countries have responded differently to the play due to their political stances.

The actors were asked what influence their directors have had on them.  Carlson described how his first director was an authority on the text of the play.  They disagreed over the relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude.  The director thought there was an Oedipal issue, and Carlson thought that was rubbish.  He found the relationship between Hamlet and his father to be much more formative and interesting.  They talked and were able to reach a compromise.  Carver said his director had the biggest influence on him in the areas of structure and pacing of character.  They had disagreements on where the energy level lies.  Goad, in the midst of a run with director Antoni Cimolino, remarked that the two have similar approaches.  Over twenty hours of discussion and conversation, they distilled the play in a certain way.  Their focus is not to be fussy, not to go for easy answers.  Goad was even encouraged in his character's outrageous behavior.

"Has being Hamlet made you paranoid?"  Carlson answered that question with a resounding YES!  Carver added that the role forces one to question everything.  It's required, and one's expectations must be shed.  He commented that he thinks Hamlet would have made a great king.  Goad's answer was that he doesn't think he's paranoid.  (Carlson:  "What does everyone else think?")  The actor must access sensitive parts of himself.  Hamlet saw himself as a leader and knew his capabilities.

Perhaps the most fitting summary was delivered as the forum was drawing to a close.  Everyone has an opinion on Hamlet.  One never forgets his first Hamlet...or his second.  Agreed.

Return to Stratford

After much anticipation, July 29 arrived.  Time for a return trip to Stratford, Ontario to see Hamlet!  With as long a wait as it has been, I was worried that the show might not live up to the expectations.  Gladly, it did not disappoint.  In fact, it is a considerable achievement!

The show opened promptly at 2 p.m. with a new twist.  Soldiers walked onto stage in view of an onstage observer, leaned down near the trap door in the floor and made as if to carry a body.  They walked upstage, the lights went out and then the play began in proper.  It was a great way to grab the audience's attention quickly.  The soldiers were attired in what appeared to be World War I era military outfits; a sign of a modern presentment?

As the action began, the costuming of other cast members fit into a WWI time frame.  The design was lavish, striking and colorful.  Claudius was in a white military dress uniform.  Gertrude's silk dress was stunning.  Polonius, in a novel twist, wore a religious cassock.  Laertes was in a leather coat.  Hamlet, fittingly, was entirely in black.

The modern era continued to present itself in Ophelia's chamber.  As Laertes entered to bid Ophelia good bye, she was interrupted while working away at a sewing machine.  In the room were a music stand and violin, which she played later when her father visited.  She accompanied him on a song about St. Valentine's Day, a clear foreshadowing of her madness scene to come.

The set consisted of numerous black rectangular prisms, reminiscent of the monolith in Stanley Kubrick's 2001:  A Space Odyssey.  They could be moved to suit numerous purposes--walls, seats, parapets on which Hamlet climbed.  Two of the larger ones had wall lighting on the back, and one had a large lighted cross.  This reminded me of the University of Rochester production I saw years ago.  (See 10/14/13 post.)

The play within a play scene featured a large troupe, approximately eleven in number.  The dumb show remained.  In a new twist, the players pulled Claudius from the audience and had him imitate pouring poison in Gonzago's ear.  The play continued as typical.  I noted a stress on Hamlet's line about "lacking advancement," perhaps a knowing allusion to J. Dover Wilson's treatment of the scene.  (See 12/28/14 post.)  The interval arrived as Hamlet grabbed a rifle with bayonet from a palace guard and headed to Gertrude's chamber.

The bedroom scene opened the second act.  Polonius was not stabbed through the arras; instead he was shot with the rifle Hamlet had taken.  It was a different take, one I had seen in the RSC film version (see 2/23/14 post), but it worked within the context of the production.  The remainder of the scene was very dark comedy indeed.  Ophelia appeared clad in her father's robe, and her madness was well-played psychosis.  The "flowers" she presented were her father's personal effects, carried to the room in the violin case.  The daisies, which withered and died, were represented by the broken neck of the violin.

In a notable shift of dialogue, the discussion between Laertes and Claudius of the murder plot did not occur in its textual place.  Instead, it was shifted until the funeral scene in the graveyard.  The two conspired at Ophelia's grave after the rest of the cast had exited.  It was adept editing that did not seem particularly out of place.

Prior to the duel, Claudius took a foil from Osric.  He made a few mock thrusts with it and then presented it to Laertes.  Thus began the plot.  The fight itself, a fencing match, was respectable although not terribly violent.  Gertrude was evidently drunk when she called her son "fat and scant of breath" and then drank from the poisoned cup.  The duel ended with no stage blood spilt and bodies strewn about.  Fortinbras entered, and bid his soldiers to shoot.  In a visual rhyme from the play's opening, the soldiers picked up Hamlet from the floor, the trap opened with a bright shaft of light directed upward and the stage went black.  The opening of the play had been the closing, played in reverse.

The acting in this production was balanced and excellent all around.  Each member of the cast helped to create a wonderful production.  Jonathan Goad as Hamlet was believable--at times sad, at times manic but never so over the top as to detract from the role.  Seana McKenna and Geraint Wyn Davies as Gertrude and Claudius were regal and human.  (In an aside, both starred in The Physicists, which I saw later that night.  Two different starring roles performed excellently in the same day--my opinion of repertory actors could not be high enough.)  In fact, I never really found Claudius to be evil enough to warrant boos or hisses.  Tom Rooney as Polonius was neither the underhanded spy nor the comic fop, but rather seemed just a normal person.  Adrienne Gould as Ophelia brought both beauty and class to the role.

Bravo to Antoni Cimolino's direction!  The play was a tight 2:45 in length.  While there were editions to the script, nothing stood out as prominently missing.  Fortinbras was left in the play, which adds the political dimension to the work.  All of Hamlet's soliloquies were there, including "How all occasions," which frequently is dropped.  The dumb show was there.  The lines that were removed were done very adroitly, never detracting from the overall force of the work.

And so I can add another Hamlet to my collection.  This was a very worthy production, certainly in the upper echelons of those that I have seen.  It takes its place alongside another excellent work, the Stratford festival production of 2008 (see 11/17/13 post).  They are two different takes on a classic (with, as I discovered in looking back, several overlapping cast members) but two excellent takes.  After a few recent subpar Hamlet productions that I have seen, Stratford has restored my faith in the stage!

Oldman Opines

Gary Oldman, one of the stars of Tom Stoppard's film, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, sat down to chat about the film and his career in general.  The interview is part of the Special Features included with the DVD release of the movie.  (See 7/5/15 post for Tom Stoppard's interview.)

Oldman sees the two characters as very different.  In fact, he said that he was asked first to play Guildenstern and wanted to be Rosencrantz instead.  He draws the parallel to Abbott and Costello.  One is the leader and the other is led.  He describes Guildenstern as more intensive, a character who fancies himself to be an intellectual.  Rosencrantz, on the other hand, is slower, but with moments of deep philosophical understanding.  He's a genius, evidenced by all of his inventions during the course of the film.  Plus, he has the speech about life and death, which Oldman wanted very much to deliver.

When asked what the play is about, Oldman replied that it's the story of Hamlet.  It's twisted, with a different perspective than Shakespeare's original, but ultimately it's the story of Hamlet through the point of view of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  Even in Hamlet, the pair do not know what they're doing.  They don't know why they're being put to death, responding that they didn't really do anything.  That's true for their roles in Hamlet, though.  They didn't really do anything.

Oldman relates that he's always thought that he had a good Hamlet in him.  He was asked once to play Horatio, but he declined.  He didn't want to be "the vase on stage with the flowers."  Obviously Hamlet is the flowers of the production.  Oldman admits, though, that the time for that has passed him; he's too old to be Hamlet now.  He could be Claudius, though....

As enjoyable as it was to have been part of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Oldman tells about one of the drawbacks.  He can never see Hamlet now without thinking of his and Tim Roth's performances.  He can't see Polonius behind the arras being stabbed without thinking of himself and Roth hiding with him, tapping Polonius on the shoulder.  I can empathize with Oldman.  Having seen the film, it's hard to view the characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern without thinking of Roth's and Oldman's superior performances.

Fringe Preview

The lineup for the 2015 First Niagara Rochester Fringe Festival is out!  There are several Shakespearean offerings this year, so that means potentially several visits and blog posts.  For information on this year's productions, click the link above.

Princess of Agecroft

My annual trip to Richmond, Virginia, had a new element this year.  In addition to the usual assortment of sites of historical and gustatory importance, it featured the Quill Theatre's performance of Hamlet at Agecroft Hall.  A Tudor mansion was a perfect locale to see a novel yet ultimately unsatisfying edition of Shakespeare's classic.

I attended the opening night performance, although there had been two preview showings earlier in the week.  The play was billed as a 7:30 start.  At 7:35, there were still patrons wandering into the box office.  Apparently the company allows late arrivals and late seating and does not believe in beginning promptly.  The play opened, after a lengthy and unnecessary introduction, at 7:42.

The stage is set in one of the Agecroft Hall courtyards.  The backdrop, the house itself, provides a terrific setting for watching Shakespeare.  The stage was a thrust with audience on three sides.  There was no set other than the mansion and a few benches that served various functions.

The costuming was modern, with black casual wear, white and seersucker suits, college T-shirts and frat apparel among the outfits.  Claudius was particularly natty in the white suit with matching red pocket square, necktie and socks.

Time to address the elephant in the room.  Hamlet in this production was portrayed by Molly Hood.  This was neither Kelli Fox's "trouser role" (see 7/21/13 post) nor Asta Nielsen's case of mistaken gender identity (see 10/19/14 post).  The play was rewritten to make the role of Hamlet female.  In fact, the play was introduced as "Hamlet, Princess of Denmark."  All of the other major roles were played gender-traditional.  I suppose that it's a sign of my own conservatism, but I have a problem with the entire premise.  The author of the play wrote it with a male main character.  Changing the gender equates to changing his words and, in places, his meter.  Lord became lady, friend, and heir.  Son became child.  Try as I might, I cannot understand the rationale behind such a drastic rewriting of Shakespeare's work.  He left us a wonderful play.  Such an excessive change is beyond the realm of "directorial license."

The gender of the lead character was not the only issue.  The acting across the boards was very inconsistent.  Hamlet was tough to figure--one minute furious, the next wailing, the next self-mutilating and the next laughing.  Maybe her insanity was not feigned.  It did not make for a sympathetic portrayal, though.  Claudius was well performed, understated and believable.  Gertrude was utterly forgettable.  Polonius was well acted as a naive fop, but the character was played as homosexual, which adds another odd dimension to an already confused production.  The portrayal of Ophelia was of a young lady confused by the situation, and her emotion felt genuine.  Laertes as a young urban gangster type did not work.  The ghost/player king might have worked had not his lines been screamed.  Finally, what was the deal with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?  They were, in a word, dreadful.  Their clueless performances did nothing except to make me wish that the boat ride to England had occurred in Act I.

As the play opened, another confusion became apparent.  What was the time frame for the play?  It had to have been present day, if the use of smart phones was any indication.  They were everywhere.  Hamlet's "letters" to Ophelia were texts.  There were photos sent via smart phone.  While Polonius was offering farewell advice to Laertes, Ophelia texted upstage.  Smart phones were used to record actions and to take "selfies."  (Ugh.)  Polonius, Gertrude and Claudius spent much time reading Ophelia's phone.  (Oddly enough, I don't recall ever seeing Hamlet with one, though.)

In terms of Shakespeare's text, editions presented themselves early and often.  There were the numerous changes to reflect the change to Hamlet's gender.  There was never any discussion of Norway, and that entire subplot, including the "How all occasions" soliloquy, was removed.  There was no discussion between Polonius and Reynaldo about spying on Laertes.

The intermission occurred after "Madness in great ones must not unwatched go."  I'm unsure why Hamlet ran back on stage and departed after Claudius had delivered the line and had exited.  It was an odd placement.  In any event, the first act clocked at one hour.  The advertised fifteen-minute break dragged to at least twenty-five.  Overheard during the break was the following:  "I like the pace.  I don't like the gay thing."  The speaker was bothered by the gender and metrical changes to the text as well.  I concurred silently.

The second act opened with "The Mousetrap."  It was among the worst portrayals of it that I have seen.  It is unclear what the intent was.  The players tried accenting their speech, but they were so ham-handed as to be laughable.  Was it Scottish?  Irish?  Was it supposed to be a farce?  Lucianus was so dreadfully over the top that it made me wonder.  Was this an attempt to play the scene as J. Dover Wilson had described it?  (See 12/28/14 post.)  It could have been, but it was not done clearly enough to be recognizable.

Claudius' soliloquy was the best of the bunch in the evening.  The others, i.e., all of Hamlet's, were rather blah.  They wandered between comedic mugging to the audience and being merely passable.  Claudius, though, was believable.  (I'm not surprised that the actor has also portrayed Hamlet.)

Hamlet's visit to Gertrude brought out a new twist to the play.  Polonius was dispatched with a dagger.  The ghost then made his second appearance, although the dialogue was edited so severely as to make the visit pointless.  At the end of the scene, the ghost turned Polonius into a spirit.  This was shown by the actor covering his eyes with his hands.  Then the two of them walked off stage together.  It was reminiscent of the walking dead from the Classic Stage Company production (see 4/5/15 post).

Ophelia's mad scene was well played, not overly emotional but rather quite reasonable.  Strangely, she sang the songs to modern melodies.  The subsequent discussion between Claudius and Laertes was interrupted by what might have been a courier telling Claudius that Hamlet would see him soon.  That was it.  No letters, no further discussion.  It was too abrupt a transition.  Gertrude's announcement of Ophelia's death was, to be charitable, not good.

Ophelia's funeral provided the high comedic moment of the night.  The first gravedigger, played by the actor who had portrayed Polonius, stole the scene.  His accent, a clearly staged and fake southern drawl, was akin to that of George W. Bush.  Fortunately, he was left enough lines to give the audience a show.  Ophelia, as a ghost, walked to her own funeral, led by the priest who might have been the ghost of Hamlet's father (same actor, unclear portrayal).  Line editing took a tumble here.  The couplet "Let Hercules himself do what he may,/The cat will mew, and dog will have his day" was botched.  Hamlet dropped the first line (intentionally or not), which destroyed the rhyme.

As Hamlet recounted the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (Thank God!!), their spirits walked across stage.  Osric appeared in a strange pimp-like outfit.  Was he one of Laertes' acquaintances?  He acted that way during the duel.  On that point, why was there a duel?  If the characters have smart phones and knives, why would they resort to an archaic sword fight?  (Best to suspend disbelief, I suppose.)  The mock fight included extra passes that Shakespeare did not.  Gertrude drank from the poisoned chalice, not out of suicidal tendency or out of a motherly protective instinct, but because she was drunk.  People were poisoned, people were stabbed, people died and the rest should have been silence.  But Horatio kept talking, throwing in the line delivered to Fortinbras.  With the latter's removal from the production, though, keeping those lines in was unnecessary (To whom was he speaking?) and anticlimactic.  He finally stopped talking, the lights dimmed and the audience clapped.

We were not finished yet, though.  Speaking of anti-climaxes, all of the ghosts reappeared on stage and had a laughable group dance number.  Not to be left out, the three living cast members--Horatio and the other two bit players--had some sort of group hug/cry to the side of the stage.  It was all very ludicrous.  The cast members took their bows, and then, roughly two and a half hours after it began, it really was over.

While I have to give due credit to everyone who worked to put this production together, I cannot say that it is anywhere near the best productions that I have seen.  Although I'm glad to have been able to see it, it was a rather confused mess.  It has given me some hope, though.  In this bizarre world of reworked dramatic masterpieces, I await eagerly someone's performance of Arthur Miller's new classic, Death of a Saleswoman.