A chance visit to the University of Buffalo's Center for the Arts (CFA)
website led to another
Hamlet excursion. While purchasing tickets for the David Byrne concert at the venue, I discovered that the university's Department of Theatre and Dance was producing
Hamlet for the stage. Another ticket purchase later, it would lead to a second trip to UB in one week.
The performance took place in the Drama Theatre. While I have been to the CFA numerous times, it was my first visit to that particular room. It is an excellent space--small (compared to the Mainstage), with comfortable stadium seating and great sight lines. I was in the center section, Row B, and it did not feel too close to the action, which sometimes can be an issue. I was able to see the entire stage, a proscenium with a rounded apron, without any difficulty.
The set consisted of one large piece: a two-level welded metal lattice-type frame. It generally resembled a castle, with the upper level serving as parapets. Underneath was the castle's interior, including two thrones with design similar to the castle. The latticework allowed actors to climb to the upper level, but the design also led to some confusion during the play. Actors hung their coats on the lattice of a "solid" wall. Actors passed through archways while others walked around the walls,
a la TV's
Police Squad. At one point, Hamlet crawled through the wall to enter the interior and then exited through the arch. A more consistent pattern of use would have helped. Rounding out the permanent set were two six-tier chandeliers which may have been cast off from previous productions. While other chairs and stools were brought onto stage as necessary, the set remained relatively barren.
The play opened with Barnardo and Francisco, soon joined by Marcellus and Horatio, atop the castle. All four roles were cast with females. Although I have seen instances with similar casting decisions, placing an actress in the role of Horatio still does not resonate. In this case, the role was decidedly male, forcing a relatively easy suspension of disbelief. The ghost was introduced as a giant shadow cast on stage by an actor standing in front of a light behind the audience. I liked the effect.
The action moved to the interior of the castle as we were introduced to the members of the royal court. All were clad in modern dress, mostly formal. There was no discussion of Fortinbras or Norway, a fairly standard edition. A more glaring issue, however, was casting a female as Polonius. The believability factor was much less in this case than in that of Horatio. Polonius was clad in a female pantsuit and heels. On occasion, she teased her hair. Was this a male role? The portrayal was not easily believed as such. This problem persisted throughout the performance.
Hamlet's introductory dialogue did not bode well for what was to come. It struck me as forced; words without art. The actor was hitting the words, but the feeling behind them was not apparent. The emotion did not come across to this audience member as real. On the positive side, though, Hamlet was the correct age for the story (as were his contemporaries). I was willing to give the actor more time to get into the part.
Hamlet's meeting with the ghost led to one of the first oddities with blocking. Whereas in the text Hamlet runs away from his friends to follow the ghost, here his friends climbed down from the castle to get away from him. A corporeal ghost, clad in robe, chains, and chain mail, appeared. When the discussion was complete, the ghost traded places with Hamlet's friends. Its "Swear it!" commands came while it was seated on the throne, a nice bit of directorial design.
The first act continued reasonably if unemotionally. Hamlet's costume, formal from the waist up and goth from the waist down, did not display much of an antic disposition. The players (an entire troupe of females, dressed as clowns
sans make-up) were not allowed to play much. The first player's speech about Priam was badly mauled; Polonius' claims of its length were undeserved. There were no red face and tears, which destroyed the sense of Hamlet's "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy that followed. The delivery took care of what was left of the speech, making it entirely unbelievable.
Tension between Claudius and Gertrude was visible during their subsequent interaction. Upon delivering the line "I shall obey you," Gertrude pulled away, displaying obvious anger. She was much more sympathetic toward Ophelia. It was a sign that her loyalties lied more on the side of her son than her husband.
The "To be or not to be" soliloquy was delivered fairly well. Upon spying "the fair Ophelia," a strange flashback occurred. The two characters did a short bit of slow dancing, complete with musical accompaniment. It was a rather awkward display of their former feelings for each other. Ophelia was well-played in the nunnery scene as piteous, obviously controlled by her father/mother.
"The Mousetrap" scene showed a Hamlet who blamed Polonius for destroying the relationship with Ophelia. Questionable editing led to the removal of Shakespeare's more colorful bits of dialogue in this scene--no capon, chameleon's dish, or witticisms about Caesar and Brutus. There was no dumb show. For some reason, Polonius sat with Ophelia during the play and Hamlet sat nearby on the floor. Gertrude and Claudius were visibly affected by the play. Gertrude was upset by the player queen's speech and confused by the poisoning, while Claudius was angered.
Notable issues with dialogue began to creep into the performance. For example, this exchange.
Ophelia: "You are as good as a chorus, my lord."
Hamlet: "As woman's love."
The problems continued in the "by and by" interchange (which lacked any camels, weasels, or whales), with a halting "fool me" thrown in the middle. With the "witching time of night" soliloquy, the first act came to a close.
The second act began with Claudius in a new formal suit and Polonius in a rain coat. The latter's choice of attire was not addressed, but surely it was not raining indoors. When Claudius began his soliloquy, the delivery elicited at least one laugh from the gallery. The speech was not presented believably, and it was noticed. Hamlet's retort was presented on the same stage level, engendering the question of how each does not hear the other.
At this point, the proverbial wheels began to fall off. Polonius died (welcome but poorly blocked), and Hamlet directed his "cruel to be kind" line at the corpse. Shortly thereafter, a shortened "How all occasions" soliloquy appeared. Why? All references to Fortinbras, the basis for this speech, had been removed. If one is trying to edit the play for length, then this speech should go. It was delivered terribly. Hamlet stumbled over the words several times, apparently having forgotten his lines. He climbed up to the top of the castle mid-speech and then climbed back down. He screamed his monologue for no apparent reason. It was painful to watch.
Ophelia, the unsung hero of the performance, delivered a very good madness scene. The actress was believable, even shedding real tears. She also showed off an excellent singing voice. Her flowers were actual flowers, albeit artificial ones. It was a nice touch.
The funeral scene was poorly done. All of the humorous dialogue between the two gravediggers was excised for time constraints. The pair acted their scene on the upper level, which could have worked. Hamlet and Horatio were with them. Unfortunately, the entire funeral party was on stage level. Where, then, were Hamlet and Horatio, exactly? Watching from the clouds? Things worsened when Ophelia was placed on a bench as a grave. Hamlet jumped down from the top to confront Laertes and the two fought. Was everyone inside the grave? The scene closed with Laertes carrying Ophelia's body offstage. Why? Yorick's skull sat at the edge of the upper level, watching the remainder of the action. It was another subtle yet fitting effect.
The duel scene continued the downhill slide. Osric was cast with no hat and no humor. Laertes visibly poisoned his foil on stage, yet every other cast member seemed not to notice. There was no pearl to drop into the cup; we were left to imagine one. The duel itself was laughable, literally, as Hamlet tried to fend off Laertes with his leather coat. Claudius died after a phantom and bloodless slash to his throat that was very much off target. Liquid (water?) in the poisoned cup was thrown on his face, eliciting more laughs from the audience. Eventually, everyone had died, the lights went down and the play was over, roughly two hours after it had begun.
Reflecting upon the evening, I wonder about the purpose of the production. The Director's Note in the playbill included a reference to sharing the play "with our young audiences...." (Additional viewings were scheduled solely for school audiences.) Fellow audience members commented before the play about it being required viewing for students enrolled in various UB courses. One student noted that his course had no books; the only requirement was attendance at (and tests on) the plays, much cheaper than the alternative. Two patrons near me left at intermission, after one asked the other, "Do you have your ticket stub?" I would like to believe that the cast and crew were sincere in their intentions, but the finished product, with questionable blocking and editing and very uneven delivery, leaves questions. Was this intended as serious theatre or merely as a school requirement? Regardless, I must give credit to the cast and crew for making the attempt. While certain aspects of the play were noteworthy, greater overall care would have made this a much better, more believable, production.
