Stratford Triple Play

I wondered last year what I might find to occupy the holiday break this year, having already completed all three seasons of Slings & Arrows.  The summer trip(s) to the Stratford Festival decided the question for me.  Available for pre-sale in the Festival Store were three of the 2015 Shakespearean offerings on DVD:  The Taming of The Shrew, The Adventures of Pericles, and Hamlet.  Knowing that Fathom Events was not airing the films on the big screen, I jumped at the opportunity to see (and, ultimately, to own) the collection.  They arrived mid-fall, and I saved them for the time off.  Several days into the break, the three have proven to be an excellent way to pass the winter holiday.

The three plays are typical of Stratford's offerings--tremendous productions, excellently acted.  While I had already seen Hamlet performed live, the other two were first-time viewings.  The three were well produced for the film broadcast.  Each film included a brief introduction to Stratford and a behind-the-scenes feature during the intermission.  It was just as if one were at the movies...minus the popcorn.

The Taming of the Shrew was first on the viewing list.  I had read the play in college, but I had never seen it performed in any format.  Deborah Hay as Kate and Ben Carlson as Petruchio were excellent.  The intermission feature divulged that the two are in a relationship off stage, which certainly adds another dimension to their interactions on stage.  Carlson opens the play as the drunken beggar Christopher Sly.  In this updated version, though, he is a drunken blogger; no offense taken by this author.  His portrayal of Petruchio in the remainder of the play was admittedly a bit tough to watch at times.  It certainly was well done, but the violence of the role is rough.  I will leave to the scholars discussions of the misogyny of the play and whether there is redemption at its end.  Suffice it to say, it's a thought-provoking and conversation-inducing work.  Bravo to Deborah Hay for undertaking to play Kate and succeeding mightily!

The Adventures of Pericles was a brand-new play for me.  I let myself come to it with no previous exposure, a new feeling.  After it was over, WOW!  This is a great performance of a great play.  Deborah Hay took on multiple major female roles in the play, including Thaisa and Marina.  It was interesting to see her portray both a mother and daughter and to do justice to both roles.  (When considering that she was playing Kate in Taming at the same time, again I bow to the mastery of repertory actors and actresses!)  Evan Buliung as Pericles was excellent--believable in every aspect.  The story was engaging throughout, with the brothel scene as another that was tough to watch.  The family reunion at the conclusion of the play brought a tear to the eye.

Hamlet was a repeat viewing of the play I had seen performed live in 2015.  I noticed the differences between a live performance and a filmed presentation.  Theatre audience members can allow their gazes to wander about the stage--up, down, keeping an eye on all of the cast members as they wish.  It's a much more open experience, and I can see how each of multiple viewings would provide something new.  Film audience members, in contrast, are locked into the shot presented on the screen.  The film, then, is very much the film director's vision.  While the film is no substitute for the live performance, I believe that Barry Avrich did a good job balancing wide angles and tight angles.  I could get the feel of the entire stage while also seeing the actors' faces up close.

The play was very much as I recalled it.  (I checked out my posted review afterward to make sure.)  I did take note of one item, though.  In a post-performance chat, director Antoni Cimolino had revealed that Ophelia was pregnant.  Knowing that before the DVD started, I looked for clues to this.  While there was not much of a "bump" evident through her formal gown, there was one significant tell.  Toward the end of her madness scene, clad in only an undergarment, Ophelia rubs her stomach before running from the room.  The film uses a tight shot to accentuate this gesture.  I had not picked up on this before.  I don't know whether it would have been so obvious on a second live viewing, but the film's close-up certainly drops the hint to the viewer.

In all, the Stratford HD series is an excellent acquisition for fans of both the Festival and the Bard.  It made me look forward to what the 2017 trip to Ontario will provide, both on stage and in the Store!

Repertory Redux (Part II)

Night two.  Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead.  Same set.  Same actors.  Same seat in the audience.  Ready, set, go!

Immediately evident was the terrific interplay between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  While they had faded into the background during Hamlet, the actors' talents were on display here.  The banter, the word games, the wonderful contrast between the bi-polarity of Rosencrantz and the steady analytic thoughtfulness of Guildenstern:  the chemistry between them was as good as I have seen.  The Player was also well portrayed, but R&G were the rightful stars of the show.  Fortunately, the rest of the cast faded into background, including a Hamlet even more grossly overplayed than the night before.

As this was only the second time I have seen R&G live, I compared it to the previous performance in Oswego.  (See 3/9/14 post.)  The blocking between the two evenings was not matched as identically as it had been.  It was close, but there were noticeable variations.  Also, this production had two intermissions as the original script had.  With one intermission already concluded, I found the second one to be unnecessary for the audience.  While it was needed to reset the stage for the ship scene, it made the play feel long.  It's too bad that the first break was not condensed as had been done in Oswego, an inventive way of keeping the action moving while holding to Stoppard's text.

The first two acts were enjoyable due to the plentiful witty banter.  The third act, aboard the pirate ship, was well staged, but this audience member was beginning to lose interest.  Part was the lack of connection to the characters.  I felt a bit sorry when R&G ceased to exist, but the emotion was not there for any others.  They had not done enough to engender any sympathy or empathy. Part of the waning interest level was the length, which was advertised as 2 hours and 30 minutes including 30 minutes of intermissions but which was actually without them.  Roughly three hours, after three plus the previous night, is a lot of theatre for an audience member (never mind the actors!).

At the end of two nights, I still must applaud the company.  It was an admirable if uneven effort, but kudos are deserved for the attempt.  Perhaps the opportunity to see these two plays will pass my way again...but hopefully not for a couple of years!

Repertory Redux (Part I)

A while back I was able to catch Hamlet and Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead in repertory on two consecutive evenings.  (See 3/2/14 and 3/9/14 posts.)  I commented at the time that it might have been a once-in-a-lifetime experience.  Fortunately, a second opportunity presented itself.  The Shakespeare Players of Rochester just completed a repertory presentation of the two works at MuCCC.  Life's simple pleasures--to watch Hamlet and its progeny, and to write about them.

The first night's performance was Hamlet.  I noted immediately the minimal stage set.  There was a three-tiered oval at stage left, with the top-level extending across upstage to stage right.  Some curtains hung at the back of the oval.  While occasional props made their way onto the floor, that was it.  For very little, the production functioned very well.

On the evening I attended, a large contingent from a local high school was in the audience.  The director of the play, Peter Scribner, came out before to give the students an introduction to the play.  He described the production as traditional staging and dress but with a "modern attitude."  Further, he noted in the playbill that the play was based on the First Folio text, with some Second Quarto lines included so that all lines in common with R&G were present.  That said, I found a couple oddities in the textual presentation.  Horatio's philosophy became "our philosophy."  Gertrude commented that the lady "protests" too much.  The "How all occasions" speech was included, albeit in a shortened form, whereas the last repertory presentation dropped it entirely.  I will admit that it was good to have as much textual overlap as possible between the two plays.

The acting...  There are times that I sit and watch Hamlet and think rather arrogantly, "I could do that."  Then I see an amateur production and realize that there is a massive gulf between it and one performed by a professional company.  This was one of those occasions.  No offense intended to the company.  They did an admirable job, made even more impressive with having to keep two different plays straight.  I did not find the acting in Hamlet to be believable at all, however.  The title role was grossly overplayed, devolving into slapstick when putting on the "antic disposition."  The irony in Hamlet delivering his pre-Mousetrap instructions to the actors was evident.  The portrayal drew laughs from the crowd, but it made me long for a more subtle performance.  Another interesting facet was Hamlet's gender identity.  I am not sure what was intended.  The role was played by a male, although in costume and make-up (including eye shadow) there was some apparent gender confusion.  It was a bit unnerving; perhaps this was the modern attitude that the director described.  The other characters ranged from annoying to bland.

The play-within-the-play included the dumb show.  Claudius and Gertrude stared directly at it, yet Claudius gave no reaction.  It was not until the latter depiction of his crime that he jumped up and called for light.  Oddly, this was when the theatre went black and then went into intermission.  It was an awkward transition, and I was curious about the treatment of the dumb show.  Fortunately, I was able to ask Mr. Scribner about this the next night.  He told me that his idea was to have Claudius watch the dumb show with a stone face.  The character's thought was, "How could anyone know?"  Part of the method in keeping the dumb show was because of its reference in R&G.  Mr. Scribner admitted that had it not been for that, he might have omitted it entirely.

Another question I had for Mr. Scribner concerned the second appearance of the ghost.  I asked if Gertrude was able to see the ghost, and he replied that she was not.  What, then, is the meaning of the second appearance, I asked.  Is the ghost truly present, or is it only in Hamlet's diseased wit?  Mr. Scribner replied that there had been several discussions about this during rehearsal.  His view is that the ghost reveals itself to whomever it wishes to see it.  The ghost does not wish Gertrude to see it, and therefore she does not.  I thought this to be a fair reply.

The subject of the soliloquies arose during our chat.  I commented about the speed with which they and other lines of dialogue were delivered.  The words flew off the tongues of the actors; in fact, the "To be or not to be" speech seemingly was over just as it had begun.  According to Mr. Scribner, this was done on purpose.  Elizabethan dialogue was delivered quickly, he said, and the design of this performance was to recreate a vintage performance and not Olivier or Branagh or Gibson or any other of the iconic modern re-tellings.  I can see both sides of this issue.  The text of the play had likely not been elevated in Shakespeare's time to the pedestal on which it sits now, and one should deliver dialogue as it was intended.  With it tossed off so trippingly, however, one can miss the beauty of the words.  I guess that's what reading is for.

The play climaxed with a rather unadventurous fight scene.  With the requisite characters dead on stage, Fortinbras entered to survey the carnage.  At least, I think it was Fortinbras; the costume was not terribly regal or warlike.  In any event, soldiers were bid to shoot and the evening ended, roughly three hours after it had begun.  Although my own enthusiasm was muted, I was very happy to hear the high school students excited by what they saw.  In fact, hearing one student comment that he could not wait to start reading the play in class brought a smile to my face.  Equally pleasing was the ten-minute drive home, a welcome contrast to the two-plus-hour ride through a blizzard when last I saw these plays together.  And a second night still to come!

Hearing Ophelia

The second Hamlet production from the 2016 First Niagara Rochester Fringe Festival was entitled Hearing Ophelia.  It was performed at the Lyric Theatre, which was formerly a Christian Science church.  The cabaret theatre, where this production took place, is a reclaimed Sunday school classroom.  The room is a semi-circle, with a small stage in front and a circular balcony above and at the rear of the seating area.  The perimeter of the room has small spaces that served as classrooms but now could function as smaller booth-type seating areas.  Throw in a grand piano near the stage and this was a space perfectly suited to this show; kudos to the designers!

The show description interested me from the outset.  It began, "Abandoned, mourning and mad.  Who is Shakespeare's Ophelia?  Who are the women who play her?"  The story of this show was that of a young composer.  Her task was to adapt Ophelia's songs for a contemporary production of Hamlet.  She had to make sense of the character, who transitions in the play from lovely and lucid through insanity to her own death.  The composer's job--to try to get inside Ophelia's head, to hear her voice.

The cast consisted of eleven young ladies--the composer and ten Ophelias.  Each Ophelia was clad in a white gown--interchangeable but different, as if each represented a slightly different facet of a complex persona.  As we entered the room, one Ophelia was lying prone on the stage, covered with flowers, simulating the dead Ophelia at her funeral.  The remaining Ophelias entered and circled the balcony to deliver together Gertrude's description of Ophelia's death.  From my seat, on the floor below the balcony, I was unable to see the entire cast above.  It made me wish I had chosen a spot more in the center of the room, but there is something rather eerie about hearing the voice above and not seeing the person.

Following that introduction, one of the Ophelias came downstairs to sing the first song, "How Should I Your True Love Know."  She began and it immediately brought chills.  This was not the typical staging of an insane Ophelia, singing poorly.  The eleven cast members were all music students with opera-quality voices.  The music was breathtaking, with each young lady adding to the production.

The songs included in the hour-long production were largely the songs from Hamlet.  There were traditional English-language versions.  There were German-language versions from Brahms and Wagner.  There was a French piece entitled La mort d'Ophelie by Berlioz.  The final song was "Spring" from Songs and Sonnets to Ophelia by Heggie.  Translations for the foreign-language versions were provided on the playbill, but I was not about to read them and miss seeing the live performance.  It reminded me of the opera music scene from the film, The Shawshank Redemption.  I didn't know exactly what each word meant, but the emotion was unmistakable.

One particularly striking scene occurred near the end.  The Ophelias each froze in a different expression, representing particular moods and instances of the character.  The composer, while singing, unfroze each; her own journey seemingly had led her to the words and meaning to give the character life.  The production concluded with a very fitting curtain call of all eleven actresses on stage together.  A well-deserved bow indeed!

Unfortunately, a couple of intoxicated patrons sitting near me carried on much of the night as if they were in a bar.  They also spent most of the evening drawing with crayons on the paper table cover.  At least they weren't driving home, as they loudly announced on their way out.  Perhaps they should have stayed home in the first place!

I must say that this production was one of the most impressive I have seen at the Fringe Festival.    Everything about it (except the drunken customers) combined for a first-rate piece of entertainment.  Bravo to the director, music director, and cast members on a job extremely well done!

Fringes of Hamlet

The 2016 First Niagara Rochester Fringe Festival brought with it more excursions into the world of Hamlet.  As scheduling would have it, two of this year's applicable offerings occurred on the same day.  It made for a pleasant evening twin bill and for a pair of posts.  You're reading the first in a very short series.

The first Hamlet offering was entitled Wm. Shaksper's Hamlet, performed at MuCCC.  This was the venue that hosted a 24-minute version of Hamlet as part of the 2014 Fringe Festival.  (See 10/12/14 post.)  A couple of years removed, we were treated to a new, not-quite-as-condensed version.

The premise of the 2016 production was an interesting one.  The Bard himself, one Wm. Shaksper (well, that's how he spells it), welcomed the crowd and engaged in banter with the audience before the show.  He introduced the production.  Due to time constraints, his masterwork would be performed in a much shortened version in the 50 or so minutes available.  Due to issues with the plague, the cast was considerably reduced as well, so each actor was forced to play multiple roles.  Due to some scurrilous behavior of two cast members, women (GASP!) were hired to perform on stage.  The Bard was not happy about it.  At least, though, we would have Richard Burbage in the title role.  Regrettably, though, Mr. Burbage was under the weather (read, drunk) and could not perform.  That led to a quick audition of three audience members, one of whom was chosen on the spot to play the Prince.  I passed up an opportunity to give it a whirl, even if an audience member sitting adjacent to me thought I should try.  (Why?  Did I look particularly morose?)  In any event, methinks it was predetermined and that the actress "hired" to be Hamlet was a plant.  I couldn't prove it, though.

One can imagine what followed.  It was every bit as ludicrous as expected from the advance billing.  Every speaking role managed to appear, although one of the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern pair was a hand puppet held by the other.  Which was which?  Does it matter?  Every scene was represented, even if only for one or two lines.  Because Hamlet was not a "professional" actor, our director wrote the character's lines on cards and handed them to the actress to read.  Of course, the cards fell on the floor and out of order, which led to the "To be or not to be" soliloquy appearing multiple times before its correct placement.  The other soliloquies were all there as well, for at least one line.  There were numerous quick costume changes, if one can call them such.  Basically, it was the sort of Hamlet that might be performed by children (albeit very cultured ones) in the basement play room on a rainy day.

When it was all over, with no blood spilt and an extra actress (one cut after the pre-performance auditions) "dead" on the floor, it came in just under the allotted time.  The advert for the show threatened, "Verily, you shall have a good time!"  Indeed, the audience seemed to comply.  It was an amusing if completely over-the-top performance, and it set the stage for the other Hamlet production (and blog post) to follow.

Hamlet Skewered

While perusing the DVD section at the local library, I noticed a Hamlet that I had not seen before.  This one was part of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 series.  I had seen advertisements for the episode on Amazon, but it was nothing on which I had thought to spend money.  Feeling adventuresome (and enjoying the free loan of a library), I decided to borrow the DVD and give it a view.

This version of Hamlet comes from a 1960 German TV production.  The title character is played by Maximilian Schell, in a starring turn contemporary with his Oscar-winning performance in Judgment at Nuremberg (which, ironically, I had watched the previous night).  None of the other actors were familiar to me.  The film was dubbed into English from its original German language.  Hamlet sounded very much like Schell himself, whom I knew to be bilingual (at least).  Claudius' dubbed voice was instantly recognizable as Ricardo Montalban, a fact confirmed by IMDb.

The film was advertised as dark and dreary, and it certainly fit that bill.  The set was very stark and minimal.  The costuming was very dark and traditional.  The acting was very stark and minimal.  The overall atmosphere definitely fits a Shakespearean tragedy, even if it is over-the-top depressing.

It's hard to tell how much of the original Shakespearean story is here.  According to IMDb, the film ran 152 minutes.  The MST3K version is 92 minutes, but that includes numerous interruptions.  I did note a few alterations.  The altercation between Hamlet and Ophelia occurred before the "To be or not to be" soliloquy, which was delivered in part while Hamlet lied prone on a staircase.  During the duel scene, it was made obvious that Osric is a part of the conspiracy against Hamlet.  The chalice was poisoned by addition of a tablet; the pearl itself was not poisoned.

Part of the charm of watching an MST3K film is supposed to be the running commentary.  In this case, I found the jokes to be lame and generally unfunny.  The commentators tried way too hard to poke fun at a Hamlet that probably could have drawn more laughs on its own.  There were only a couple of laugh out loud lines--"Trick or treat for nipples!" and "Hail Queen Dilbert's boss!"  Aside from those, I found the commentary to be increasingly distracting and annoying.  I ended up fast-forwarding through the extra segments in order to get back to Hamlet.

The series creators' purpose backfired here.  Instead of trashing the film for the sake of humor, it made me hope to find the film on video some day, maybe even in the original German and with subtitles.  (It seems to be unavailable, although audio versions are out there.)  I'm sure that it won't rate very near the top of film versions, but I would like to see it in its entirety, without the running commentary.  I'll keep an eye out for it.

Macbeth Mess

Following this summer's trip to Stratford, film versions of Macbeth jumped on the never ending to-view list.  I had seen Orson Welles' version on sale on the Stratford Festival gift shop.  I refrained, and when I saw a copy at the local public library, I decided to give it a shot.  I'm glad I saved my money.  I found the film to be a confused mess.

While the theatre release of the film was edited to 89 minutes, the Olive Films DVD release has restored the film to its intended running time of 107 minutes.  The presentation is lacking in any other extras, though; subtitles to help with the dialogue would have been a pleasant addition.

I don't have the film school background to discuss the technical aspects of the film.  They are treated well in the book, Studying Shakespeare on Film (see 11/9/2014 post).  In fact, there is an extended discussion of the film in the section of critical essays.

Had this film been a self-contained work, it actually might have been easier to follow.  Comparing it to the Shakespearean original is where the difficulty lies.  Spending one's time trying to ignore the juxtaposition of scenes, the creation of interactions, and the invention of characters leads the viewer astray here...or is it the film version itself that has gone awry?

For instance, Welles has created a character described as "a holy father."  The role is played by Alan Napier, better known to fans of 1960's TV as Alfred, butler at Wayne Manor, "stately home of Bruce Wayne and his youthful ward, Dick Grayson."  It was interesting to see him out of tuxedo and in braided pigtails; in fact, were it not for the instantly recognizable voice, I might not have known it was him.  The better question in this context, though, is "Who is he?"  Shakespeare's play did not have a "holy father."  Welles' character takes the place of an old man, a messenger, Ross, and maybe some other incidental roles.  One scene in which he leads the army in a religious service struck me as invented entirely by the director.

Other scenes were also Wellesian inventions.  Lady Macbeth at the home of Macduff's family prior to their slaughter?  Macbeth present at the slaughter of Macduff's family?  Macbeth discussing the health of a bedridden Lady Macbeth with her doctor at her bedside?  Husband and wife both present (in body at least) during the latter's sleepwalking scene, which was shifted to later in the action than it had appeared originally?  Lady Macbeth falling off a cliff to her death?  It was at this point, when Macbeth appeared wearing a tiara borrowed from the Statue of Liberty, that I gave up.  Having the weird sisters on screen to deliver the film's final line (from Act I of the play, no less) was a fitting close.  It was obvious that this was Orson Welles' Macbeth, not William Shakespeare's.

Welles' Macbeth pales in comparison to other versions I have seen.  This summer's live version at Stratford was far and away superior.  Its Wellesian predecessor was rather boring and not terribly believable.  Perhaps film students might be interested in its technical aspects, but this more-than-casual Shakespeare fan found it not so.  Viewing finished, I can check it off my list and move on.  As the weird holy man might say, "Amen."

"Shakespearean" Meltdown

The George Eastman Museum (GEM) has been hosting a series of Shakespearean films.  The latest offering I saw was the 1987 film King Lear, directed by Jean-Luc Godard.  The blurb promoting the work should have been the tip-off, when the word "plot" appeared in quotes.  I had to give it a shot, though.  I mean, how bad could it be?

One of the highlights of any GEM presentation is the introduction given by a member of the staff.  This one set the scene quite well.  We were told of the origination of the work, sponsored financially by Cannon Films, the cinematic powerhouse that was responsible for such "classics" (more air quotes) as Bloodsport and The Delta Force.  By the time the production on this work had concluded, even Menahem Goran, one of the producers (along with partner Yoram Globus), had distanced himself from it.  It was nice of him to give $2 million for this work.  Talk about a poor return on one's investment!

The film that followed had as much to do with Shakespeare as a fish has to do with a bicycle.  (At least the latter pair are both nouns.)  They shared perhaps one or two lines.  The "plot" centered on a post-Chernobyl descendant of William Shakespeare, William Shakespeare Junior the Fifth, trying to reconstruct his ancestor's work.  (It was amusing that this film referenced a major disaster repeatedly.)  Beyond that, though, it was indecipherable.  I could classify Godard's Lear as nothing more than a cinematic train wreck, but even a train wreck has a beginning, a middle, and an end.  This was just an awful, ninety-minute mess.  It's no wonder that the producer was not happy with the finished product.

While the acting was dreadful, with Mr. Godard's accented diction almost entirely incomprehensible (and why was he wearing A/V cables in his hair?), there were a couple of positives.  This fan of the classic Batman TV series did enjoy seeing Burgess Meredith, even if a Batman episode is considerably more plausible.  Also, what child of the 1980's could possibly complain about seeing Molly Ringwald on screen?  Certainly not this one!

"Devastatingly beautiful sketches of life and art..."  That's how this film was described, and I have to question that.  Readers, beware when you read something like that, or when the words "artistic" or "visionary" rear their ugly heads.  Those may be synonyms for "incoherent tripe," as they are with this film.  Stay away.  Stay far, far away.

Stratford SparkNotes (Parts I and II)

One of the other Shakespearean offerings in this year's Stratford Festival was actually not one of Shakespeare's plays, per se.  It was four of them condensed into two.  Breath of Kings, conceived and adapted by company member Graham Abbey, combined Richard II, Henry IV (Part I), Henry IV (Part II), and Henry V into two separate plays, each roughly two hours and forty-five minutes in length.  I was able to see the two plays on consecutive days, a perfect time frame for them.

The first part of Breath of Kings, subtitled Rebellion, encompassed Richard II and I Henry IV.  The play, performed at the Tom Patterson Theatre, was done in the round with minimal set.  In fact, there was no permanent set, only a stage covered with ground-up car tires to simulate wood chips.  Props were brought in and out as necessary, but much of the design was left to the imagination of the audience.  It was a stark contrast from the lavish Macbeth set at the Festival Theatre.  All told, though, I thought it worked quite well.  The cast did marvelously with very little, and the lack of a set did not detract from the play.  In fact, it helped considerably, as the cast members moved into the seating areas for the action.  I was seated on an aisle that was much traveled with actors moving in and out.

The second part of Breath of Kings, subtitled Redemption, continued the saga with II Henry IV and Henry V.  The set for this was even more minimal, with the rubber shavings removed.  The stage itself was designed with numerous removable panels, suitable for graves, battlements, and to display a battle field torn apart by war.  Actors again used the entire theatre, including seating areas.  At the end of the II Henry IV portion, Falstaff and his friends used one of the balcony areas to watch the newly-crowned Henry V parade past.  The four of them moved into the front row.  Falstaff commented, "These are our seats," and the four sat on the laps of the patrons.  That did not last long as the group headed to the stage to see Henry.  An intimate setting indeed!

The story is not for the casual observer.  Prior to seeing the play, I brushed up on plot synopses of the four source plays.  I am glad that I did!  On more than one occasion, I heard audience members complain of confusion.  (One member complained that the playbill did not provide her a synopsis.  I don't think I have ever seen a playbill that had one!)  Admittedly, it was tough to keep things straight, even with some familiarity of the plays.  There were many characters in the story.  The playbill provided a family tree, but many regal titles were similar.  Also, characters are called by multiple names--Hal, Harry, and Henry, for instance.  To add to the confusion, most of the cast were engaged in multiple roles, changing costumes many times over.  It's impressive that actors can do this so seemingly easily, a tribute to their talent.  Audience members certainly need to pay attention, however.

The acting was excellent!  The leads--Tom Rooney as Richard II, Graham Abbey as Henry IV, Araya Mengesha as Hal/Henry V, and Geraint Wyn Davies as Falstaff--were tremendous in their roles.  Being able to see the transitions of the Henrys from Prince to King helped to understand their characters.  The other members of the cast were equally good.  I was impressed with Sebastien Heins (Aumerle, Prince John, Mouldy, and Le Fer) and Johnathan Sousa (Hotspur and Prince Thomas), both making their Stratford debuts in multiple roles.  They have bright futures indeed.  These shows were successful, I believe, because of the efforts of cast members.

The story started off slowly in Rebellion.  I found the Richard II portion to drag a bit.  There is not much comedy to the story, and it was the one source play with which I was least familiar.  The I Henry IV portion was enjoyable and closed off the first production suitably, while enticing viewers to return for the second production.  Redemption started off enjoyably with II Henry IV and progressed to a rousing finish with Henry V.  The Henry V portion was interesting.  Shakespeare's narrator was kept in the play, providing a contrast to the previous three parts of the epic which were not narrated.  The Dauphin and Katherine were played by the same actress.  In fact, at one point she transitioned from one part to another by letting down her ponytail and removing her jacket to reveal a full-length gown.  Voila, she's her own sister!  (I can understand why audience members might be confused!)  This transition occurred before Act III, Scene iv, which followed entirely in untranslated French.  I picked up an occasional word, but I wonder how many audience members were bilingual.  The climax of the play was adrenaline-raising, and the denouement, introducing a young Henry VI playing with tin soldiers, set the scene for a future production (or a future DVD viewing).

Condensing these four Shakespearean plays into what amounts to one work is an interesting proposition.  While it may strike one as something akin to SparkNotes (which it is, to an extent), I believe that it does have validity in its own right.  It allows the audience members to see a complete story, to watch characters grow and mature, to see rulers and countries rise and fall.  It also has interested me to see the four plays, each on its own.  I gave The Hollow Crown a try once but never finished it.  Thanks to Breath of Kings, it's back on my to-do list.

A Macbeth Chat

If the Stratford Festival had nothing more than world-class productions, it would be well worth a trip.  The multitude of additional programming is a tremendous asset.  I knew when scheduling my trip that there would be a "Free Forum," but I had no idea who would be featured.  As luck (or fate) would have it, the conversation on the morning after Macbeth was with Ian Lake and Krystin Pellerin, the stars of the show.  I was there, notepad at the ready, to record some of their thoughts.

The actors were asked how they prepared for their roles.  Ms. Pellerin said that the role had been in her psyche since the audition.  She added that the two roles are a pair and that they evolve together.  Mr. Lake stated that he loves to do research before a role.  He stopped short of traveling to Scotland based on advice of his grandfather ("William Shakespeare didn't go to Scotland.  Why should you?").  He did read the play to prepare, especially important because the director, Antoni Cimolino, stresses the text in his productions.  Lake asked himself, "Where am I inside of this?  Where is the capacity for murder, greatness?"  Difficult questions, methinks, for a difficult role.

When asked about the difficulty of Shakespearean language, Mr. Lake commented that he would like to do the role again ten years later to see where he is with it.  (I, for one, would love to see it!)  He continued that the language is unique in this play.  He likened it to a flood of words, "vomited out."  The one time he is able to slow down and to think clearly about his actions, Lady Macbeth enters and pushes him forward.  Speaking of Lady Macbeth, her character hits the ground at full speed.  We (and she) are thrown in directly and have little chance to breathe.

What about the intimacy of small theatres?  Both actors like it.  Ms. Pellerin commented on the thrill of hearing an audience listening to their words.  Mr. Lake related two stories.  In a previous role, he threw a knife (a prop, I hope) inadvertently into the audience, leading to mixed reactions from the guests.  In his current role, he has noted that, while speaking of a tale "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury" he has heard the speech finished in whispers from the audience.  It reminded me of the "To be or not to be" speech from Hamlet.

Ms. Pellerin was asked about recovering from performances of Lady Macbeth.  There is a large space of time within the play when her character is not on stage.  What does she do?  She replied that she rests.  The role is a demanding one, and she commented that it is important to warm down, especially after the play is finished.  Anyone who has seen her performance can understand such comments.

Mr. Lake was asked why Macbeth shuts out his wife after Banquo's murder?  He replied that it is not a choice.  Macbeth doesn't plan it.  He believes that shame is a large part.  Macbeth is ashamed of his actions, and he doesn't want her to suffer as he does.  Excluding her is a sign of his care for and love of her.  Ultimately, this is a play about the pursuit of happiness...an interesting thought about a play so violent and emotionally draining.

Both actors were asked about the admirable qualities in their characters.  Mr. Lake began, stating that it is not an actor's job to judge a character's actions.  The job is to find humanity, regardless.  In the case of Macbeth, the actor must accept the character's villainy.  He journeys from hero to villain through a series of bad choices, but he keeps going.  His final battle against Macduff is his opportunity to fight with honor one more time.  Ms. Pellerin called her character strong, brave, and honest.  As an actress, she finds it satisfying to flesh out Lady Macbeth's weaknesses.  The character dashes the idea of human perfection.  With both characters we are able to understand more about the layers of humanity.

The discussion ended on a light note, with a question about the actors' feelings on cell phones in the audience.  Mr. Lake related a story about an occurrence during Macbeth.  A cell phone rang during Macbeth's speech at the end of Act II, Scene 1.  It fit too perfectly for him not to enjoy it and to use it to advantage.

I go, and it is done.  The bell invites me.
Hear it not, Duncan, for it is a knell
That summons thee to heaven or to hell.

In a different production, though, Mr. Lake had to break character in the middle of a speech to ask an audience member to shut off the vibration of a call.  It is truly a shame that such instances even occur and that people cannot be apart from their devices for any sustained length of time.  Ms. Pellerin added comments about candy wrappers to the discussion.  The worst is the person who thinks that opening the candy slowly will make it less of an intrusion.  Again, why cannot audience members sit for a play without food or drink in hand?  Whatever happened to respect and decency?

Many thanks to the Stratford Festival for including so much additional programming to a season.  A long-time festival goer in the audience commented to me prior to the forum that she was surprised at the light attendance.  The forums are not really a secret, and they are certainly worth the time!

P.S.  What else did we learn from the Forum?  In addition to his acting work, Ian Lake is a recording artist with a track on iTunes, entitled "This Isn't My Day."  Check it out.  It's very good!

Scottish Spectacle

This year's trip to the Stratford Festival began with an anticipated Bucket List entry:  Seeing Macbeth live on stage.  With such a build-up, would I be disappointed?  Not at all!  In fact, this rates as one of the best stage shows of any kind that I have seen.

I decided to move down from the Festival Theatre balcony this year to take a seat in the orchestra.  It was perfect--comfortable with excellent sight lines.  Having a seat immediately adjacent to one of the voms gave a sense of being right in the middle of the action.  I know where to look for a seat on my next visit.

The play was set in traditional eleventh-century Scotland.  The set was compact and well-proportioned.  It was designed as a forest, but not so much that it became difficult to imagine a castle when necessary.  Trees, torches, upper and lower chambers--for such a small stage, dare I say it was lavish?  The sisters' cauldron was placed over the opening in the stage so that items could be raised up from beneath to simulate levitation.  Set changes occurred almost instantly in some cases.  As Macbeth's henchmen attacked and killed Banquo and chased Fleance into the forest, there was a cut to black.  The lights came up and suddenly the stage was a banquet hall with table and benches.  Kudos to the stage hands who made this transition perfectly seamless!

The acting in this production was phenomenal.  Ian Lake as Macbeth and Krystin Pellerin as Lady Macbeth were particularly noteworthy.  They fit the roles, and the roles fit them.  Lady Macbeth was psychotic from the outset, giving the audience little time to prepare.  It made me wonder, as an aside, what her backstory must be.  What happened to Lady Macbeth in her life before the play that turned her into such a character?  Macbeth evolved from a likable hero to a loathsome villain, and Mr. Lake made it believable throughout.  We were unable to see the dagger that leads him to murder, unable to get into his head to understand.  At the dinner banquet, though, Banquo's ghost was visible to us, welcoming us into Macbeth's ever-deepening mental instability.

The three weird sisters were terrifically creepy.  Their costuming, manner of speech, and a set of contact lenses made them literally chill-inducing.  Their final appearance in the play (no spoiler here) was one that will stay with me for a long time.

The only criticism that I could levy is one of volume.  While most of the dialogue was perfectly audible, some of Banquo's lines disappeared into the ether.  I was only four rows back from the stage; I wonder how the lines sounded in the balcony.

The play moved at a brisk pace.  It never felt long, and the 150 minute running time flew by.  I wonder how the actors recover from such a quick and moving production.  It took this audience member many minutes, and I was only watching!  To all involved in this production, I can give only one word.  Bravo!

Before He Was Shakespeare...

...he was Bill.  That is the premise of a new historical fiction (stress on the latter) movie, less about Hamlet than about its author.  The film was on the big screen courtesy of Fathom Events, and it is available (as of this typing) on cable as an on-demand offering.  Its DVD release is planned for later this spring.

Caution:  Some spoilers lie ahead.

We are taken back in time to Elizabethan England.  The island is under siege from King Phil-lip II, the King of Spain.  His armada having failed due to the vagaries of weather, he is looking for other ways to overtake England and to return it to the Catholics.  The King captures an Elizabethan spy, and soon a conference between the two powers to discuss the spy's return is to take place.  How best to use the meeting to remove the Queen?  Philip decides that a play's the thing.

This is where our hero, Bill, comes in.  Ousted from the band, Mortal Coil, due to his unpopular single-string lute soloing, he tries his hand at writing.  His attempt at musical comedy falls apart, and he turns for guidance to celebrated playwright, Christopher Marlowe.  Through a funny series of misadventures, the play ends up as the venue for Phillip's takeover of England.   Marlowe heads off to his eternal reward, the plot is thwarted, and Bill, I mean, William saves the day and begins a promising career as a playwright.  And everyone forgets about the spy whose capture started this whole thing.

In the vein of Mel Brooks or the Monty Python gang, this is a genuinely funny and enjoyable film.  Certainly one should not trust it too much for historical veracity, but for entertainment, it fits the bill.  (Apologies for the awful pun.)

King Christian of Jutland

Back after a brief break...

An off-hand comment by my brother led to another acquisition and this post.  (Thanks, Nick!)  It was an innocuous enough question:  "Have you seen the Hamlet with Christian Bale?"  A negative reply on my part and a quick Internet search on his and voila--the 1994 film Royal Deceit, starring Gabriel Byrne, Helen Mirren, and Christian Bale.

The film is in the Hamlet motif, but it is not exactly the Shakespearean story.  Rather, it is based on the Hamlet source material found in the tale by Saxo Grammaticus.  Many of the plot elements are very similar, but the dialogue lacks the Bard's iambic pentameter.

The story opens quickly.  The king of Jutland and his eldest son have been slain, purportedly by two of the king's subjects.  A la Macbeth, the two subjects have themselves been killed in order to conceal the crime committed not by them but by the king's brother, Fenge.  The king's other son, Amled, has been visited by the ghost of his father.  Hearing the truth, he seems to have gone mad, but it's just a ruse concocted in order to trap his uncle.  As viewers, we don't see much of the above action occurring.  It is all told to us via a narrator, whose words smooth over the rough plot points and keep the film brief (85 minutes).

Fenge becomes king by acclamation because the rightful heir to the throne, Amled, is mentally incapacitated.  A flashback during the election scene shows us how the death of the king transpired and the true treachery of Fenge.  As the new king, Fenge takes up with the queen (and his brother's wife), Geruth.

In an attempt to discover what Amled knows, Fenge sets a young maiden upon him.  Instead of informing, though, she and Amled conspire to keep Fenge in the dark.  Fenge sends one of his henchmen to spy on Amled, but all the henchman gets for his trouble is a log to the head.  Later, the henchman makes a second attempt, concealing himself beneath Geruth's bed.  Amled finds "the rat," stabs him to death and tosses him into the royal pigs' trough, where the henchmen "is eaten."

Fenge has no choice but to send Amled to England, where he shall (and does) regain his wits.  Fenge sends Amled with two escorts who carry orders for his friend, the Duke of Lindsey, to kill Amled.  Amled is wise to the plot and leaves some items in storage for his return.  In transit to England, he switches the orders so that the escorts are put to death instead.  It is in England where the plot of the story takes a different turn from the Shakepearean story.  Lindsey and a neighboring tribe, Ossmia, are at war.  After a sneak attack by Ossmia, Amled leads the Duke's troops into battle.  He becomes a war hero, tricking Ossmia into retreat and then stabbing their leader to death in a duel.  As his reward for meritorious service, Amled is given the hand of the Duke's daughter.

Amled returns to Jutland and, Banquo-esque, wanders into his own funeral feast.  A verbal confrontation with Fenge and some more machinations lead to the ultimate resolution.  This is not a wavering Hamlet.  Amled incapacitates Fenge's henchmen, stabs Fenge after a brief (and unsatisfying) fight, and then burns down the hall in which they all lie.  Amled, his wife, and his mother all live happily ever after.

Royal Deceit is an interesting alternate perspective on the Hamlet story.  It allows the viewer to see whence Shakespeare's work came and what changes he made when crafting his play and turning it into a tragedy.  I found that the absence of Shakespearean language actually gave me a greater appreciation for it.  The film itself was reasonably well done, although the visual and sound effects at times were tacky.  Overall, this is worthwhile viewing for Hamlet fans.

An Even Briefer Hamlet

Some discard items appeared at another local library.  One of the items drew my attention.  It was a two-CD set entitled Shakespeare:  His Life & Work.  I was able to pick it up free of charge.  (Thanks, Kathy!)

The work is a 150-minute biography and retrospective of Shakespeare's work.  Interspersed within the oral biography is a chronological treatment of Shakespeare's works, performed by Judi Dench and Timothy West.  As frequent guests of this site might guess, immediately I skipped to the fourth track on the second disc.  That is the Hamlet excerpt.  The biography sets the scene for Shakespeare writing the play.  While he was working on it in 1601, his father, John, died.  The inference is that the death of Shakespeare's father impacted his contemporary work.  There follows a very condensed plot summary.  The producers included one complete soliloquy as representative of the play.  Guess which.

A brief Hamlet (4:30), and an equally brief post.  The length of the set does give me incentive to undertake the remainder at some future point.

Hamlet Lives...Briefly

A local library offloading its supply of old LP's led to a find for the Hamlet collection.  The acquisition is a 1961 work entitled "Living Shakespeare:  Hamlet."  It is a strange piece.  As the editor, Bernard Grebanier, states in the written introduction to the LP, "Indeed, many advantages accrue from listening to this play."  With that sentiment, I can agree.  One too often misses the beauty of Shakespeare's language when it is buried underneath layers of stage action and directorial license.

The oddity here, though, is the inability of the listener to listen to Shakespeare's words.  The play has been drastically edited to fit onto one double-sided LP.  The running time for the entire work is approximately 60 minutes.  That is barely enough time to get the gist of the story, which is why Mr. Grebanier advises the listener to read the entire work prior to listening.  (A full written text of the play accompanies the LP.)  The plot here has been reduced to the main action of the story, with all subplots and many side characters removed.  A narrator serves occasionally to fill the gaps with voice-overs of what was eliminated.

The sound quality of the recording was good.  As one might expect of a disc of that age, there were occasional skips.  It was in excellent condition otherwise, and it did justice to Michael Redgrave in the title role.  His was the one name that I recognized, having seen him in the film, The Dam Busters.  Hearing him on the LP made me wish that it were a fuller, video presentation of the play.

The LP came with a script to follow the words.  Problematically, in places it did not match the action on the recording.  For instance, there is an extended stage direction describing the dumb show, which is not presented at all.  At least the script provided something to hold my attention while listening to the words.  It was strange, though, to read a stage direction, "They play" while hearing the metallic clanging of rapiers.

I suppose that this might be useful in a classroom setting, but I wonder why anyone might choose this instead of a legitimate, full version of the play.  Well intentioned, it is just a bizarre and rather pointless work.

The Bleak Midwinter

While watching one of the special feature interviews on the DVD of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, the director mentioned one of his other works, entitled In the Bleak Midwinter.  It sounded interesting enough to warrant further investigation.  Searches of DVD copies of that title yielded nothing.  Then I discovered that the film was released under a different title.  Thus, it became A Midwinter's Tale.  Copies were available for purchase online, so I ordered one.  The title is produced on demand by Warner Archive.  Fortunately, the DVD-R edition plays just as a normal DVD would.

The film itself is a charming comedy about a troupe producing a version of Hamlet.  The director is an out-of-work actor.  His sister's church is closing, so the venture is intended to save it.  There is no money available, so the play becomes a profit-sharing venture among the principals.  It is set to open on Christmas Eve.  What could possibly go wrong?

The actors who are enlisted are the best of a bad lot.  An early scene shows the open auditions.  A ventriloquist and dummy, an actress with finger puppets, an actor unable to do anything but a badly humpbacked Scottish king--they are some who do not make the cut.  Those who do bring their own issues:  alcohol, family troubles, sexual identity issues, depression, myopia.  Add to that a slightly deranged designer named Faj.  (It might be spelled with a soft "g" at the end instead.)  It is a motley assortment.

During the auditions, the actor chosen to play Laertes (and numerous other roles) gives his ideas on Hamlet.

"Hamlet isn't just Hamlet....  Hamlet is me.  Hamlet is Bosnia.  Hamlet is this desk.  Hamlet is the air.  Hamlet is my grandmother.  Hamlet is everything you've ever thought about sex, about geology...in a very loose sense, of course."

Of course.

During the course of the rehearsals, the actors go from not knowing much of each other to becoming, as "Ophelia" puts it, a family.  They make it to opening night, although not without considerable difficulties and the loss of their star.  A recurring theme is Noel Coward's "Why Must the Show Go On?"  When the curtain rises, though, all is right with the world.  The audience, at least the ones who are not cardboard cutouts designed by Faj, cheer wildly.  In fact, it's the most raucous fencing scene I have seen.  It led me to wonder if original Globe productions might have elicited oohs and aahs.

It was not all that bleak of a winter in these parts.  The worst weather day was the one that found me holed up watching Branagh do Hamlet.  As spring seems about to burst through, this Christmas tale was a pleasant way to spend an evening and a welcome addition to the collection.  It may not be an easy title to find, but for a Hamlet fan, it's worth the time and effort.

A Seussical Hamlet

This week's entry is an example of a Google search gone crazy, with happy consequences.  As I was polishing up the entry on Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet (see 2/22/16 post), I needed an image of the DVD cover for the end of the post.  I searched "Branagh Hamlet DVD" and then headed to the returned images.  The desired shot came up near the top, but another image further down piqued my curiosity.  It appeared to be a movie poster with the title Green Eggs and Hamlet.  My first thought--WTF?

The link from the image led me to the page for Rock's Eye Productions.  The first offering of the self-described "small, low budget video Production Company" was the aforementioned Green Eggs and Hamlet.  The film is described on the website.  Made for $4000, it covers the Shakespearean work "of almost the same name, but the annoying iambic pentameter has been replaced by a more accessible Dr. Seuss style rhyme."  The film also introduces a brand new character:  SamIamlet.  (Well, nothing much rhymes with Hamlet, I guess.)  The description was enough to entice me to purchase the DVD.

This is by no means a major Hollywood studio production.  In fact, if one considers Branagh's version that led me to it, this is the exact opposite--short, edited, very low budget.  According to the closing credits, it was filmed at various locations in California, including Cal Tech, the director's back yard, SamIamlet's driveway, and "some beach somewhere."  The video quality is rough, and during "The Mousetrap" the audio becomes indecipherable over wind and the musical score.  The production style actually makes this a very charming production, though.  Amateur, yes, but considerable fun.

What about the film itself?  It's actually quite a hoot.  Almost the entire plot of Hamlet is treated in the 77-minute work.  Those well-versed in Shakespeare's original will recognize everything here, even if some of the usual action has been adapted.  For instance, the weapon that knocks Polonius from his treetop perch (replacing the traditional arras) is an airborne can of Spam.  Those unfamiliar with Hamlet also will be able to follow the action and to appreciate the story.  The bonus is that not only is this Hamlet, it's also the Dr. Seuss book, Green Eggs and Ham.  Could you, would you, in a box?  Could you, would you, with a fox?  Maybe in a moat?  Perhaps with a goat?  One might think that these two seminal works of literature could not possibly fit together.  As this film proves, such doubters would be wrong!

Then, there's the dialogue.  Turning Hamlet into a sing-songy rhyme actually seems to work!  Considering that the source material was metrical and at times rhymed, the writers had some help from the playwright.  Some of the rhyme here is, as the viewer is warned on the DVD case, overdone.  See if you can finish this line from Gertrude:  "Hamlet has been quite felonius, for you see...."  Many of the lines are laugh out loud funny.  Take this exchange, from the chamber scene:  "Hamlet, there's no need to shout.  (Insert line from Cleavon Little a la Blazing Saddles.)"  Or this one, courtesy of Claudius and Hamlet at the play:  "What do you call this piece of crap?  The name of it is 'The Mousetrap.'"

Ophelia's madness scene represented a terrific comic reversal.  As her original song was reasonably rhymed, what to do here?  She wandered the stage mumbling lines that did not rhyme at all, which led Claudius to ask, "What the hell was that?"

The duel scene was completely ludicrous.  Instead of sword and rapier, Hamlet and Laertes squared off first with baguettes and then with giant wooden spoons.  Laertes had a trick up his sleeve, though.  As Hamlet chastised him, "'Tis not a spoon you wretched dork!  You have stabbed me with a spork."  With so many bodies lying on stage, all that remained was for Fortinbras and his "Fokken Fearless Forces" to enter amid the end credits.  Be sure not to shut down the DVD player at this point, though.  In a tribute to the credits of Airplane and The Naked Gun series, more jokes abound.

To summarize the post this week,
I will conclude with tongue in cheek.
The title made me look askance, but I did give this film a glance.
Made for just a little money, the end result is truly funny.
Full of laughs and humor wry, you really must give it a try.
It's worth the dollars and time you'll spend.
Green Eggs and Hamlet I recommend!

P.S.  Still wondering what Google was thinking?  On the cover of the DVD case is one review:  "Very Imaginative and very funny"--Kenneth Branagh.

P.P.S.  Hamlet made this morning's New York Times Crossword.  The clue, "Happy Malcontent," was actually the answer in the grid.  The answer to the clue is hidden within the clue/answer itself.  Clever!

Hamlet Quotables

Two of the Special Features accompanying Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet on DVD are a promotional video from the 1996 Cannes Film Festival and a featurette entitled To Be on Camera:  A History with Hamlet.  The former is a short introduction to the film.  The latter is less a history of film versions of Hamlet than it is a history of this particular film version.  It includes behind-the-scenes footage and interviews, some of which is repeated from the DVD film introduction.

Within both features are several quotes relating to Hamlet in general.  Some of them are collected below.

• "There's so many interpretations of what it could be...."  (Billy Crystal)
• "It is constantly fascinating.  It is constantly capable of rediscovery."  (Lord Richard Attenborough)
• "There is so much there."  (Kate Winslet)
• "You can play it in a million ways."  (Sir John Gielgud)
• "There will never ever be anything remotely like it."  (Richard Briers)
• The role of Hamlet is "a hoop through which every actor must sooner or later jump."  (Kenneth Branagh)

The Eternity Edition

A day of vacation coincided with a winter storm.  With no reason to venture outdoors, it became the perfect day to enjoy "The Eternity Edition" of Hamlet.  At least, that's how Kenneth Branagh described his version in the DVD introduction.  This was only the second time I had seen the full film, the first being shortly after its VHS release.  (That gives the reader an idea of how long ago that was!)

Branagh proudly relates what sets his production apart from others.  It includes the entire text of Shakespeare's work.  Never mind that the play likely was never performed that way on stage.  On film, it can (and does) work.  In a home video presentation, it's even better.  The viewer can take breaks when necessary, and the film itself is presented in two parts (to switch from one disc to another).

While the length of the film (four hours) may be intimidating, hearing the entire text is a novel treat.  For as many times as I have seen Hamlet, I found myself hearing lines that were completely unfamiliar (a hobbyhorse?).  It became apparent which lines directors typically will delete.  It's a shame, because it really does add considerable depth to hear everything.

Even with all of Shakespeare's text included, I did notice a couple of obvious alterations.  "Your" philosophy became "our" philosophy; not a major change.  There was a placement issue with several soliloquies.  Hamlet's "witching time" soliloquy was moved to preface Claudius' soliloquy directly, and then Hamlet's "Now might I do it" speech fell in its usual place.  It was a lot of speechifying in a row.  Any other changes to the text that might have been there were not blatant.

Branagh's cast was worthy of considerable name-dropping.  As he described, if he was going to do this film once, he was going to do it up on a large scale.  The set and cinematography were incredibly lavish.  It was obvious that Branagh spared no expense.  The interior set, with the black and white tile floor and hall of mirrors, was gorgeous, and shooting it in 70mm allowed for a great visual field.  Blenheim Palace made for a great exterior presentation, even if it is an English palace and not a Danish one.  Costumes, late 19th century vintage, were also very lavish, with special note for the impeccable military dress.

The action of the film did provide some contrasts to Shakespeare's original.  When Hamlet's love letter to the beautified Ophelia is presented to Claudius and Gertrude, it is read by its recipient, not her father.  The nunnery scene, particularly well done, included a noise which tipped Hamlet that Claudius and Polonius were spying on him.  An added scene in which an hysterical Ophelia sees her father's body helped to flesh out her attachment to him, often left lacking.  Ophelia's madness scene included a straitjacket and a hose bath, more indicative of an updated time period than Shakespeare's original.  She presented all of her flowers to Laertes, more illustrative of a complete break with reality than if she had moved from Laertes to Gertrude and Claudius.

"The Mousetrap" was well staged, and the dumb show made sense.  I was reminded of J. Dover Wilson's discussion of the scene.  How it is that Claudius can miss the dumb show and not object until the second portrayal of his murderous act?  The issue was addressed here very nicely.  He was too busy eating and cooing with Gertrude to notice.  Plus, the dumb show was just a brief flicker, so short that his ignoring it is entirely plausible.

For all of the positives of this film, there was one particular flop--the "How all occasions" soliloquy.  It is far too obvious that Hamlet was standing in front of a green screen with the background added later.  The entire speech is delivered in a yelling tone of voice.  The idea may be that Hamlet is trying to be heard over the Norwegian troops in the background, but it diminishes any emotion.  In addition, the speech is delivered while the camera is pulled back and the musical score picks up.  If a soliloquy is supposed to be a light into the mind of the character, how does one get that when the character is being removed from view?  By the time the scene ends, Hamlet is little more than a speck on the screen.  Then the film cuts to the intermission.  As a buildup to a bathroom break, I suppose it works.  As a vital part of the play, though, it failed.

The duel scene was a typical fencing match, set amidst an atypical violent takeover of the palace by the Norwegian army.  It would have been nice to see a full-fledged sword fight, but at least the scene had been set previously with numerous shots of fencing practice.  Osric may have been in on the plot.  The Lord definitely was.  He helped Laertes to unbate and to poison his sword.  Laertes took a spill from the upper balcony (ouch), and Claudius was run through with a sword thrown javelin-like by Hamlet.  Claudius also was hit by the chandelier as Hamlet used it to swing down from the balcony.  The film ended with Fortinbras on the throne, Hamlet in a casket, and a statue of the former King Hamlet in pieces.

"The Eternity Edition," in its monolithic glory, was over.  The DVD does include a few special features, which may merit future postings.  There is one feature, though, that may have to wait for some time.  There is a commentary to the film; four hours of Kenneth Branagh and Shakespearean scholar Russell Jackson talking over the film.  That one, which might actually feel like eternity, will have to wait for another day off and another snow storm.

Muir on Hamlet

Sauntering into Barnes & Noble with a gift card is a dangerous thing.  I knew already the book that I wanted, but it never hurts to have a look around the place, especially the used book section.  This particular trip ended with a second purchase, a 1963 study written by Kenneth Muir and entitled Shakespeare:  Hamlet.  It is the thirteenth volume of a larger series, Studies in English Literature.  For a used copy, it was in great shape.  At a mere 61 pages, I knew it would be a quick read.  At a mere $3.00, it didn't break my bank.  (The original price tag from Edward Arnold Publishers in the U.K., still attached, listed the price as 1 pound 95.  I guess it's an import!)

The purpose of the particular work and the series is to provide "aids to reflection."  The assumption is that one has already read Hamlet carefully.  This work, then, can avoid having to retell the tale and instead can move directly to discussing it.  Its brevity notwithstanding, this work does indeed pack a good, helpful discussion into its few pages.

Muir opens with an introduction recapping the historical development of the text through quartos and folio.  He also recounts several different interpretations of Hamlet.  He agrees with C.S. Lewis, who commented that critics tend to describe not Hamlet, but "themselves or their own pet theories."  Thus, Coleridge ascribes his own weaknesses to Hamlet.  Pacifists see Hamlet as a pacifist, Freudians use him to diagnose a complex.  Even Lewis is not immune, though, as he looks at Hamlet from the view of an amateur theologian.

Muir questions objective attempts to discuss Hamlet.  Uses of the imagery in the text itself can be equally problematic.  For instance, one might pick a particular theme, such as Caroline Spurgeon's discussion of sickness imagery.  Care must be taken to include all references within the play, even those that may disagree with the theory.  Simply ignoring evidence is not valid.  In addition, the imagery cannot be taken out of the context of the overall work.  Hamlet is a much more complex play than one isolated set of images would suggest.

The bulk of Muir's work is a discussion of the relationships and interactions in the play.  He takes the play out of sequence, which actually works quite nicely.  In this manner, he can address each relationship and interaction in whole rather than interrupted by other relationships.  This style allows the reader to follow the discussion clearly.  While breaking the order might be confusing to one who is unfamiliar with the play, considering the fundamental assumption upon which the book operates, it is entirely appropriate here.

Hamlet's interactions with the Ghost, Ophelia, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, and the players are described in turn.  A discussion of the "To be or not to be" soliloquy provides an interesting thought.  Usual theories of the speech relating to suicide tend to take the speech out of its context.  Muir contends that the speech really is Hamlet weighing whether or not to kill Claudius pending the outcome of "The Mousetrap."  He makes a good case for it.  Following it is a discussion of the chapel scene, when Hamlet chooses not to kill Claudius, even though he has the opportunity.

A treatment of Polonius and the chamber scene is next.  Muir asserts that "[until] this scene Gertrude seems to be unaware that she has done anything wrong."  I don't really buy that Gertrude was a naive innocent.  Later, Muir agrees with other critics who believe that the Ghost is invisible to Gertrude "because she has betrayed him."  She's betrayed him, yet she's unaware that she has done so?  That doesn't seem to follow.

The remaining sections include Hamlet's relationships with Fortinbras, Horatio, and Laertes.  Osric garners a mention, although his purpose is described as practical; he is there to allow stagehands to close the stage trap that was Ophelia's grave.

Muir concludes with general thoughts under the title, "The Heart of the Mystery."  He reminds the audience that Hamlet is "neither a novel nor a psychological case-book, but a play...."  It was intended as a script, not a book "for reading or close analysis."  Perhaps that is why Muir keeps his discussion so pithy.  People sitting at a play do not have the voluminous interpretative issues of critics, and maybe they shouldn't.  Maybe it would be more worthwhile for people to enjoy the work for what it is--a piece of drama--and quit trying to put more into it than perhaps was intended by the playwright.  Ultimately, "Hamlet is a character of extraordinary complexity, and...no simple formula will serve to pluck out the heart of his mystery."

Conversing with Plummer

A supplement to the DVD release of Hamlet at Elsinore is a conversation between the star, Christopher Plummer, and NPR critic David Edelstein.  The chat took place in 2011 as part of the Sarasota Film Festival.  Although it put me to sleep (literally) on my first attempt, I did give it a second try.  While it is not the most interesting conversation I've ever heard, some of the discussion surrounding Hamlet is worth sharing.

According to Christopher Plummer, anger and rage propel a good acting career.  As he puts it, an actor has "to know how to blaze."  He claims to have tried this consciously with his portrayal of Hamlet.  Hamlet may be a gentle, introspective, intellectual, philosophical young prince, but he also has to blaze.  Plummer adds that it was also a conscious decision on his part to be out of joint with the other actors, using different speech register and behavior.  David Edelstein calls Plummer's Hamlet the "most frightening" Hamlet that he had ever seen.  The comment is meant as a compliment, even if this author may have found the production frightening for other reasons.  Later, Edelstein calls Plummer's performance the "best at conveying thought and self consciousness."  Um, sure.  To each his own.

One of the advertised draws of the production is the use of Elsinore as the setting.  Plummer was not sold on this, though.  He found it to be too rigid and formal, and it made him uncomfortable.  In his opinion, a castle in Jutland, with waves crashing against the base of the structure, would have been more suitable.

Much of the rest of the conversation as it pertained to Hamlet included name-dropping and excessive superlatives.  Ernest Milton, a German actor named Fector, Edmund Kean, Jean Louis Barrault, and John Barrymore all garner mentions for their previous portrayals of Hamlet.  From this production, Michael Caine is the "sweetest, most loyal doting Horatio."  Plummer declared Robert Shaw to be the "best king I've ever seen," and the most competitive and most loyal actor.  Alec Clunes, who portrayed Polonius, was "one of the best Shakespearean actors there ever was."  After a while, I was beginning to wonder if there were any second-rate actors out there and if either of the gentlemen had actually watched the DVD release of this performance!

The rest of the conversation dwelt upon Plummer's life and career.  It really was not much beyond bland anecdotes and hero-worship, which is perhaps part of the reason that it put me out so quickly on the first pass.  One line from Christopher Plummer, though, does summarize very nicely why so many people, author included, continue to enjoy Hamlet.

"What an exciting part!  No other part like it in the world."

Scotland on the Thames

A recent trip to Record Archive yielded a great catch.  In the used DVD section was a copy of Macbeth starring Sir Ian McKellen and Dame Judi Dench.  It was the RSC production that was broadcast by Thames Television in 1978.  I had been on the lookout for a performance of Macbeth, so I grabbed this one immediately.  Having watched it now...Wow.

The DVD includes both an introduction to the play and a discussion of the production led by Sir Ian McKellen.  He includes considerable information that clarifies and expands the experience.  He discusses the staging of the film, which was done "on the cheap."  There was no set.  Depth was given through the use of lighting and smoke.  Costuming was whatever could be found in the RSC wardrobe department.

When I heard those comments before the play, it made me a bit wary.  There was no reason for concern, though.  The production was a wonder.  It was a marked contrast to the recent film version of Macbeth starring Michael Fassbender (see 12/20/2015 post).  The latter, while very stylish, was less enjoyable than this simple stage version.  (For this play, perhaps the word "enjoyable" is an odd choice.)  I hardly noticed the lack of a set here because I was spellbound by the tremendous acting.

In the introduction, Sir Ian describes the play as a horror.  He recounted incidents of schoolchildren screaming while watching the film.  I could understand that.  Sir Ian's portrayal of Macbeth is one of the most realistic stage portrayals of any character that I have seen.  When Macbeth goes into hysteric fits while seeing Banquo's ghost, it is as if the actor is having a seizure.  Additionally, the ghost is not visible to anyone but Macbeth, which heightens the tension.  It is a difficult scene to watch.  Equally captivating is Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking scene.  It's scary enough to see her, but the scream she lets loose is beyond frightening.  These are two great examples of actors getting into their roles!

I did notice some differences between Fassbender's version and this one.  I'll admit that I do not have a solid grasp of Shakespeare's original text, but it was noteworthy that Macduff did not die in this production nor did Fleance reappear at the end.  It seemed to me a much more straightforward rendering of Shakespeare's work.

In the discussion of the production, Sir Ian describes three problems with Macbeth.  The first is that of setting; is the play really about Scotland?  Fassbender's film, with its lush cinematography, made it very clear where the story occurred.  This production, with no set, could take place anywhere.  As Sir Ian states, the play is less about nationalities than it is about human nature.

Another problem with the play is the fifth act.  Just when one would expect Macbeth's power to reach its peak, numerous changes of scene can mute the impact.  In this production, Macbeth remained center stage while other characters delivered their lines around him.  He did not leave the stage.  (This was difficult to notice due to the editing of the television production.)  I've seen such staging in productions of Hamlet, but here it seemed to fit the play quite well.

The third problem has to do with the witches.  Are they really magicians or just Scottish ladies casting spells?  That one seems to be left unresolved.  Macbeth certainly believes their magic.  Then again, when he visits them he takes a potion which may have been some sort of a hallucinogen.  Additionally, we see neither a floating dagger nor Banquo's ghost.  Is this magic, then, or the product of a diseased wit?  It's difficult to tell, which makes the story and the production appealing.

What would a post here be without some reference to Hamlet?  Sir Ian throws in a brief remark which resonated very nicely.  He commented that no one could claim to know Hamlet in its entirety by seeing or knowing only one version of it.  To know the play truly is to see it multiple times, in multiple productions, and to rediscover it.  For one lucky enough to have a DVD version of the play, it could be viewed multiple times.  I agree wholeheartedly with Sir Ian's appraisal.  No matter how many times I have seen Hamlet, each new production or new resource brings with it a new bit of knowledge, a new discovery.  It can indeed become a life-long interest.

Sir Ian summarizes Shakespeare in general and Macbeth in particular near the end of the discussion.  Shakespeare's works describe what human nature should be.  While each playgoer may interpret the play individually, there is always a call on one's humanity.  In this production of Macbeth, we see characters with their frailties intact, torn by complicated moral inquiries.  It was a captivating presentation.

BBC B&W Hamlet

A day free from work gave me the chance to watch some Shakespeare.  This time it was the 1964 version of Hamlet starring Christopher Plummer.  The oddly named Hamlet At Elsinore (as opposed to "Hamlet At Disney World" or "Hamlet At The Supermarket"?) was filmed in Elsinore, hence the subtle name.  While the BBC DVD release dates to 2011, the original premiere dates to the 1964 public television broadcast on NET.

My first impression was, "Wow, this looks dated."  While black and white can look sleek and vibrant, that is not the case here.  It looks old.  The benefits of using Elsinore were negated by the poor cinematography.  Additionally, the DVD transfer was created from inferior film stock that has not been restored.  The picture is marred by constant spots, periodic vertical black lines, and occasional ripples.  The monoaural sound varies in volume throughout.  I suppose that the draw here should be the release of a previously unavailable production, but some clean-up of the film before release would have helped.

The cast is worthy of name-dropping.  Christopher Plummer is Hamlet.  Robert Shaw is Claudius.  Michael Caine is Horatio.  Donald Sutherland is Fortinbras.  With such names, one might expect a stellar performance.  That is not quite what one gets here, though.

Things did not start well.  The action of the play begins in earnest with Claudius addressing the court.  No "Who's there?"  The entire patrol scene that opens Hamlet was gone.  Hmmm.  The strangeness continued.  Hamlet's first spoken line is, "I shall in all my best obey you madam."  It became apparent what was happening here--director Philip Saville was exercising considerable license.

This version is another example of artistic rearrangement.  Dialogue did not seem to be shifted from one character to another; rather, it was removed.  To fit a 166-minute running time, things have to be cut.  That is understandable.  What was done here, though, was odd.  Things one expects to see were gone, and things one expects not to see were there.  The aforementioned edits were made, and yet Fortinbras was left in.  Such unbalanced editing continued throughout the film.  There was no interaction between Laertes and Ophelia following Polonius' death and Laertes' return.  In fact, Laertes' return was not announced at all.  Suddenly, he was back plotting with Claudius.  Ophelia gave no one flowers; it was the shortest madness scene that I can recall.  There was no second gravedigger, but Osric was there in all of his water-fly glory.

There was no ghost shown on screen.  We heard a voice only.  When the ghost orders Hamlet and mates to swear upon the sword, evidently only Hamlet heard him.  When the ghost appeared in Gertrude's chamber, again it was only voice.

Hamlet's soliloquies were jumbled.  "Too, too solid flesh" was in its usual place.  "To be or not to be" was moved to follow Hamlet repeating "Except my life" to Polonius.  The speech itself was bizarrely choreographed; it was removed from any temporal setting.  Was Hamlet in the castle?  Was he beneath it in a tomb?  Was he on an upper floor?  The answer to all questions is yes...and no.  He moved from one setting to another with no regard for reality.  The speech led into the nunnery scene.  Hamlet catches Polonius and Claudius spying on him through a window, which leads him to ask Ophelia where her father is.  It was clumsily staged.  The "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy followed after a while.  The "How all occasions" speech, typically dropped, was left in place.

"The Mousetrap" was another example of odd staging.  Usually, the dumb show is removed to save time.  In this production, the actual play was removed.  It was all dumb show.  The actors did not speak.  When Gertrude accused the lady of protesting too much, it made no sense.  How could the lady protest at all when she never uttered a line?

The chapel scene was well shot.  Claudius was on his knees at ground level while Hamlet was above on a balcony.  It made sense, which was ironic considering how little of the rest of this production did.

Ophelia's madness scene, described previously, was much shortened.  There was another strange scene placement.  When Claudius delivers the line about sorrows coming not as single spies, it is when he and Gertrude are in bed about to make love.  I don't recall that in Shakespeare's original, and its presence here did not improve the production.

The climax scene was a rather typical fencing duel.  The first pass was quick, the second was a bit more protracted, and the whole thing was fairly standard.  The usual deaths occurred in the usual ways.  Fortinbras arrived on the scene and began to speak.  He should have remained mute.  What was his accent?  Was it Scottish?  Was it English?  Was it Arnold Schwarzenegger?  Perhaps that's how Norwegians speak, but I found the attempt laughable.  As cannons fired at Fortinbras' request, the film ended.

The DVD jacket describes this as a "truly unique and thrilling production."  In my opinion, that is half correct.  While not terribly thrilling, it is indeed unique (which may not be a compliment).  Described as a "must own for fans of the Bard," I will agree that die-hard fans like myself would want it.  I cannot recommend it to the general viewer, though.  It's just not the draw that it might have been.