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.