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!
