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.

A Graphic Hamlet

For the second time, a Christmas present from my brother has become the subject of a post.  The first instance was the book, Stay, Illusion (see 2/2/14 post).  This time it's the No Fear Shakespeare Graphic Novel of Hamlet, published by Spark Notes.  I'll admit that I had walked by the work many times, picked it up a few times, but never purchased it.  Leave it to him to get me an Hamlet item I didn't own, without even a suggestion.  (Thanks, Nick!)

The idea of buying anything Spark Notes might be seen as heretical to some.  Why would one not just buy the real play?  As a high school teacher, I watch on a daily basis students reading condensed versions of books rather than the actual books themselves.  (I can't blame them entirely.  I never had much use for The Scarlet Letter, either.)  In fact, before I sat down to type this I had to endure an argument over the first name of Fortinbras' uncle as students studied (if one could call it that) for a test.  So what would this self-avowed Hamlet nut think about a notes version of the play?

It actually is a well-done treatment.  The language is updated into contemporary English to make it more sensible to a modern reader.  The advantage is being able to understand the plot without having to resort to an interpreter.  If the purpose of the work is for the reader to understand the plot of Hamlet, it succeeds.  The story is condensed in parts, but the bulk of the plot is here.  Considering that the audience is likely the student encountering the play for the first time (and being tested on it), then I certainly can see a value in making the play accessible.

The graphic aspect of the book also helps considerably.  A difficulty in reading a play is that it is not designed to be read.  It is designed to be performed or to be watched.  Turning Hamlet into a graphic novel allows it to be both read and seen.  This helps the reader to follow the action, from a literal perspective and a visual perspective.  Granted, the artistic presentation is not exactly gallery-quality, but the art fits the word and the word fits the art.

The downside to this interpretation of Hamlet is that Shakespeare's poetry and meter are altered if not removed.  Much of the beauty of the play is the written/spoken word.  Here, soliloquies and dialogue are changed into versions that do not flow as lyrically the original.  One would hope that the reader, engaged by the story, would seek out a copy of Shakespeare's original to read or find a live version to watch.

The graphic novel of Hamlet turned out to be a very enjoyable (and quick) read.  I noted that the publisher has a similar version of Macbeth.  I plan to pick that one up in advance of the Stratford production this summer.  It couldn't hurt to brush up a bit!

Focus on Gertrude

The essay "The Character of Hamlet's Mother" by Carolyn Heilbrun appears in the Bloom anthology.  (Its original publication was in Shakespeare Quarterly in 1957.)  Helibrun takes an in-depth look at Gertrude, alleging that the character "has not received the specific critical attention it deserves."  What follows is an interesting discussion.

Heilbrun agrees with the critics who see Gertrude as vital to the action of Hamlet.  In the essay, she cites Bradley, Granville-Barker, and Dover Wilson.  The traditional reading of the character is that Gertrude is "frail"; that is, she is weak and lacks both depth and vigorous intelligence.  She is seen as "well-meaning but shallow and feminine."  By that last descriptor, critics define Gertrude as "incapable of any sustained rational process, superficial and flighty."  Heilbrun is opposed to that summation.

Heilbrun uses Shakespeare's text to analyze Gertrude.  She notes that Gertrude's lines are "concise and pithy in speech, with a talent for seeing the essence of every situation presented before her eyes."  Heilbrun describes numerous instances of this in Hamlet.

• Gertrude's opening speech to Hamlet about his excessive grief
• Her welcome to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
• Her chiding of a verbose Polonius as he describes Hamlet's madness
• Her comments to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and to Ophelia in Act III
• Her commentary on "The Mousetrap"
• Her description of Ophelia's death, longer than her usual out of kindness toward Laertes
• Her words during the duel

It is the chamber scene with Hamlet that shows us Gertrude's true fault, according to Heilbrun.  It is not her superficiality; it is her lust.  Hamlet accuses her, and Gertrude admits it openly.  This is no weak woman who fell victim to her brother-in-law's charm.  She is a strong and passionate woman who allowed her sin to get the better of her.  This flaw is central to the action of the plot.  It allowed Claudius to slip into the throne of Denmark, thereby stealing it from the rightful heir, Hamlet.  "Gertrude's flaw of lust made Claudius' ambition possible, for without taking advantage of the Queen's desire still to be married, he could not have been king."

The essay gave me pause to reflect on the various interpretations of Gertrude that I have encountered.  They have ranged from excessively old to seemingly too young, from ineffectual to powerful, from innocent to conspiratorial.  Even her death scene, which I was discussing with a student shortly before typing this, has been all over the interpretive map.  Is she entirely unaware of the poison in the cup?  Does she drink to prevent her son from being poisoned?  Does she drink in order to commit suicide?  Does she drink from the wrong cup and then merely pretend to be dead?  (That one was a directorial gaffe, methinks.)  All considered, Gertrude is an important character, perhaps much maligned, perhaps misunderstood, but certainly not to be ignored.

Paul Gross Speaks

One of the special features included in the Slings & Arrows Season 3 DVD set is a 2006 interview with Paul Gross.  Although the third season was devoted to King Lear, the interview ranges back to Season 1 and Gross's experiences with Hamlet.  This was an added bonus to an already excellent season!

The first question posed to Gross was how the role of Hamlet informs an actor's work.  He comments that it is inevitable that the role will influence what the actor does.  Anyone doing Hamlet will be interesting, he says, because the "part is undoable," and the corollary to that is that the actor cannot fail.  As Gross comments later in the interview, an actor "can do anything with Hamlet and it's pretty much OK."  (That is not a blank check, though.  More later.)  The role marks the actor.  Gross relates a comment by Joseph Ziegler, who directed Gross in the role at Stratford.  Ziegler divides an actor's career into "pre-Hamlet" and "post-Hamlet."

The interview continued with a discussion of why Shakespeare still works in modern time.  Gross describes Shakespeare himself as part of Elizabethan "pop culture."  The Bard's writing was at times high-end and at times bottom-end.  Shakespeare would pull from wherever in order to make human qualities get out from the stage.  The problem, though, lies in modernizing to too great an extent.  One cannot take a classic play and throw in "Madonna tunes or Coca Cola cans."  It's a very fine line.  If the modernizing "doesn't support the text or the text doesn't suggest it, it's stupid."  I wanted to applaud this statement.  Everyone who directs a so-called modern adaptation of a Shakespearean play should take note!  Gross recounts a production of Richard III that included the line, "A tank, a tank.  My kingdom for a tank."  Ugh.

Gross does not take a stuffy conservative ideal, however.  He does not see the Bard's words as unalterable holy tablets.  He believes that even Shakespeare would have adapted his own words, and a director who will not change the text "should be fired."  That said, though, such alterations have to be sensible and in service to the play.  His final comment on this topic is a thing of beauty.

"There are a lot of purists about Shakespeare and I think they're kind of wrong because I don't think he was.  And on the other hand, if you're doing stuff that's just stupid then it's just stupid."

Additional topics of conversation include the connection between the arts and commerce (You can't leave without exiting through the gift shop) and setting the series in a theatre (It's an employment comedy).  All told, it was a short interview, but an interesting one nonetheless.