Gilder on Gielgud

The essay collection Interpreting Hamlet (see 2/8/15 post) provided yet another review of a past production.  This time it was Rosamond Gilder's introduction to her 1957 work entitled John Gielgud's Hamlet.  It is advertised as a "line-by-line record of a distinguished performance," that of Sir John Gielgud in the title role.  While the thought of reading another dated review with little hope of seeing the production live was not terribly enticing, the essay is terrific in what it says about Hamlet as work of art.

Gilder's opening line catches the reader immediately, much like the play she describes.  "For over three hundred and thirty years Hamlet has held the world in thrall."   From there, she continues with descriptions as accurate now as they were 58 years ago.

"A stage success when it was written, the 'Standing Room Only' sign records its drawing power today.  It triumphs over time and change because, more than any other single creation of man's mind, it is a living organism, complex and passionate, ugly and exalted, defying final analysis and permitting each succeeding generation to re-create it in its own image.  The theatre grapples with it continuously, dressing it in every conceivable garb, ancient, modern and imaginary.  Every actor, man or woman, lusts for it.  The scholars snatch it from the players and retire with it like quarrelsome bears into remote fortresses of words, definitions, factual and fantastic interpretations.  Children feed their love of beautiful sounds on its music and wise men spend their lives analyzing the meaning of a single phrase."

It is a beautiful description of the play, and I would say a fitting summary of this blog.  The mutability of Hamlet, for better or worse, is the recurring theme of many of the posts herein.  How is it that a play can be so transformed and so transformative?  How has the play survived?

"It survives because Hamlet himself has never yet been caught, because he springs from the pins with which the pedant would fix him on the dissecting board, breaks the mould in which the critic would cast him, and refuses to conform to any formula yet proposed by any one age or generation."

The remainder of the brief introduction describes both the play in general and Gielgud's particular performance in it.  Gilder discusses the editing of lines, omission of soliloquies and other staging concerns while relating them to the production she is reviewing.

This brief essay did two things well.  It captured John Gielgud's performance, making me wish that there were an easy way to travel back to 1957 to see it done live.  (Perhaps there is a video out there somewhere.)  Additionally, it provided a great summary of a great play, suitable for sharing with fellow Hamlet fans who might read this.

Coming to a Cinema Near You

Another Internet search, another lucky strike.  The announcement that Benedict Cumberbatch would play Hamlet in a production at the Barbican Theatre in London was big news.  It became one of the most in-demand tickets ever, and shows sold out nearly immediately--100,000 tickets gone in minutes.

Don't worry, Hamlet fans!  If you didn't manage to get tickets or wouldn't have been able to travel to London for the show anyway, there's still hope.  The production is being broadcast on cinema screens around the world, courtesy of National Theatre Live.  The show is set for an October 15th debut, with the possibility of encore presentations based on demand.  Check the NT Live website to find a cinema near you.  Tickets may be on sale in your area.

October 15th.  It may be seven months away, but it's never to early to begin inquiries.

Reviews of Hamlet

I've begun wading through the book Interpreting Hamlet, mentioned in a previous post (2/8/15).  Several of the early essays are reviews of different actors performing the title role on stage.  While these may have been interesting when they were current, I found them to be not so much now.  If I were acting the part myself, then it might be a different story.  Would I want to read up on how other actors had conceived the part, or would I want to go in fresh and not be influenced or run the risk of copycatting?

William Winter's review of Sir Henry Irving does include some commentary that caught my attention.  Winter notes that Hamlet "should be deduced from the play as it stands in its mature form...he must yet be presented with a certain vagueness."  He treats briefly the question of Hamlet's madness and love.  Is each real or feigned?  "The important thing," as he notes, "is to grasp Hamlet's experience as a whole, to absorb it into our knowledge, to bring it home to our own hearts...."

In George Bernard Shaw's review of Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson, he notes the following about the importance of the actor.

"It is wonderful how easily everything comes right when you have the right man with the right mind for it--how the story tells itself, how the characters come to life, how even the failures in the cast cannot confuse you, though they may disappoint you."

I will conclude with a quotation from William Winter's essay, which speaks to the ability of Hamlet--and analysis of the play--to withstand the tests of time.

"When the human soul and its relations to the universe are entirely understood, Hamlet will be entirely understood--and not till then."

A Different Tragedy

I suppose that they're a blessing and a curse of the Internet Age--the Orwellian Big Brother-esque targeted banner ads.You know the sort, no doubt.  You access a web page and shortly thereafter adverts from it begin to appear in the margins whenever you check your e-mail.  This was the case following my purchase of tickets for the 2015 Stratford Festival.  Up popped an ad--See King Lear in HD, one night only!  This ad was worth further investigation...and subsequent action.

The "one night only" was a Fathom Events big-screen broadcast of King Lear from the 2014 Stratford Festival.  The production starred Colm Feore in the title role.  Although I might have gone to the show anyway, knowing who would be Lear was the tipping point.  After all, I had seen him in several different stage and TV productions, including season 2 of Slings & Arrows (see 1/18/15 post).  As I was to discover, Stephen Ouimette, another cast member of S&A, played The Fool.

The production was fabulous all-around.  It was the first time that I had seen Lear done on stage (albeit filmed), and it certainly set the bar very high.  The acting and directing were superb.  The big screen film viewing, while not the same as seeing the play live, was an excellent way to see Stratford do Lear.  It was a great evening, courtesy of an annoying banner ad.

It also made me that much more excited for the 2015 Stratford season.  Could July come just a bit sooner?

Hamlet on 13th Street

I'm not even sure how I found this one.  It was another random Internet search, probably on "Hamlet 2015" or something similar.  Up came a return of Hamlet to New York City.  This production is courtesy of the Classic Stage Company on East 13th Street.  Peter Sarsgaard has the lead role.  It was a long wait for tickets to be released to the general public, but once they became available I snatched one quickly.

An early spring trip to a new-to-me theatre in NYC for Hamlet.  Very exciting indeed!