Understanding Hamlet

During last year's trip to the Stratford Festival, I picked up a new book for the Hamlet library.  This one is entitled Understanding Hamlet:  A Study Guide by Robert Renwick.  The 2015 work is advertised as "intended for readers wishing to deepen their comprehension and appreciation of what is arguably Shakespeare's greatest play....  The book is ideal for students, teachers and theatregoers."  As a member (at least in a figurative sense) of each of the three categories, I decided to give it a try.  (Plus, the book was inexpensive and autographed by the author!)

The book opens with an "Introduction to Hamlet."  This section presents a Sparknotes-style treatment of the play.  It comprises a list of characters, notes on setting and source material, and a brief summary and analysis.  Those are followed by a thorough synopsis and commentary of the play.  I found that section to be particularly useful, even though I am well versed in the play.  It is a balanced, straightforward rendering of the plot, including interesting asides from the author.  For instance, Renwick notes the oddity of Hamlet's first meeting with Horatio, even though the latter has been in Denmark for the funeral and wedding.  The author identifies the poison used to murder Old Hamlet as henbane, similar to the Folger edition note regarding hebona (hebanon).

Renwick labels seven soliloquies from Hamlet, including the short "O all you host of heaven" speech in I, v.  In a note on the "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy, he questions the value for Hamlet of having the players reenact the murder of his father.  Later, he describes Hamlet's "limited degree of self-understanding" displayed in the "To be or not to be" soliloquy.

In describing "The Mousetrap," Renwick asserts that the exchanges between Player King and Queen may have been part of the additional lines that Hamlet inserted into the text.  Regarding Hamlet's subsequent departure for England, he questions Hamlet's willingness to undertake a voyage that obviously will delay his revenge plot.  Later, Renwick ascribes a lapse of logic to Claudius and Laertes' conspiracy.  "It fails to occur to either of them," he notes, "that a death caused by poison would hardly appear accidental."

In his discussion of the duel, Renwick calls the preliminary apologetic exchange between Hamlet and Laertes "blatantly hypocritical."  Each knows that he is lying; Hamlet about his insanity and Laertes about settling the matter honorably.  Renwick describes the poisoned pearl used by Claudius as "actually hollow and contains poison," an interesting notion.

The second part of the book contains four extended essays about Hamlet.  The first, "A Fetch of Warrant:  The Indirect Method in Hamlet," discusses the numerous uses of indirection and their degrees of success.  Polonius, Claudius, Gertrude, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, and Hamlet all employ indirect methods so "By indirections to find directions out."  Based on his analyses of each instance, Renwick concludes that indirect methods have failed.  As he puts it, "Direct action could hardly have produced worse results."

The second essay, "Mighty Opposites:  The Virtues of Claudius, The Vices of Hamlet," compares the two characters contrary to the manner in which one typically might.  Perhaps Claudius is not entirely the contemptuous villain nor Hamlet entirely the sympathetic victim as one might think.  The extended analysis leads to the conclusion that both Hamlet and Claudius possess defects in character.  Hamlet is "mean-spirited and lacking will-power," while Claudius is "overly egocentric and deficient in conscience."

"Defying Augury:  God, Fate, Free Will, and Chance in Hamlet" looks at various forces guiding the characters, especially Hamlet himself.  Impulsiveness in the Prince yields both positive and negative consequences, generally falling on the latter option.  "[His] failure to turn chance occurrences to full advantage led to his death.  Although he avenged his father's murder, too many other lives were lost as well."

The final essay, "Frailty, is Woman thy True Name?" looks at the play's female characters.  Renwick concludes that Gertrude and Ophelia "displayed considerable strength of character throughout the play."  While they might have displayed momentary weaknesses, their overall behavior does not match Hamlet's characterization of frailty.

Understanding Hamlet is a very creditable addition to the Hamlet library.  Certainly it should prove helpful to a student undertaking a study of the play for the first time.  For the veteran, there also is considerable merit in its summaries and analyses.  I recommend it for anyone interested in learning more about Hamlet.

Manga Hamlet

My brother managed to find another Christmas gift among the Hamlet books I don't own.  His offering:  Hamlet from the Manga Shakespeare series.  The work, adapted by Richard Appignanesi and illustrated by Emma Vieceli, had caught my eye on more than one occasion.  My brother finally added it to my personal library.  (Thanks!)

The book was published in 2007.  On the first page, the scene is set for this particular telling of Hamlet, ten years in the future.  The correctness of the prediction is rather unsettling.

The year is 2017.  Global climate change has devastated the Earth.  This is now a cyberworld in constant dread of war.  Prince Hamlet of Denmark has come home to face an uncertain future...

A graphic novel presentation of Hamlet has the benefit of being able to present action more visually than simply reading a play.  (See 1/17/16 post for another graphic novel treatment.)  It allows the play to come to life on the printed page.  The artwork here largely is in black and white except for several color pages to introduce the cast.  At times it was difficult to interpret the fine points of the drawings, especially as they related to the play's futuristic context.  Most of the art is easy to understand, though, and it should not present issues to a reader coming to Hamlet for the first time.

In order to have a work of reasonable length (approximately 195 pages here), significant editing had to take place.  As a result, much of Shakespeare's language is lost.  Soliloquies are presented in  reduced form or in the case of "How all occasions..." omitted entirely.  The book does a good job of keeping the bulk of the action of the play.  There also is a plot summary at the end of the book for readers who need an additional bit of comprehension help.

As with the other graphic novel treatment of Hamlet reviewed previously, this one does well with bringing the story to an audience that may be unfamiliar with the play.  Hopefully the brief telling would lead the novice reader to view a live version of the play.  For the more dedicated fan, the work still has merit.  It is a fun read!  Manga Shakespeare presents yet one more interesting version of Hamlet, again demonstrating the adaptability of the play.

Ladies' Night

I was able to catch one of the Shakespearean offerings of the 2017 Key Bank Rochester Fringe Festival.  The short play, When Shakespeare's Ladies Meet, was produced by Aspie Works and performed at MuCCC.  The show was an enjoyable "What if?" in the world created by Shakespeare.

The premise of the play is a meeting of six of Shakespeare's leading ladies:  Portia, Cleopatra, Juliet, Katharine, Ophelia, and Desdemona.  They meet in Juliet's garden, where the ladies try to give relationship advice to the star-struck Juliet.  They all have experience in that area, and not all of it pleasant, as any reader of Shakespeare's work would know.  They learn, however, that Juliet is not entirely naive and has some advice of her own to share.

The set consisted of several pieces of patio furniture to simulate Juliet's garden.  All greenery was left to the imagination of the audience member.  The costumes were modern and ranged from dresses to suits.  All of the ladies had one common apparel item.  Each was attired in Converse Chuck Taylor sneakers.  That was a conscious decision by the director, borrowed, as he mentioned in his statement in the playbill, from a production of The Taming of the Shrew.

The script included many lines from Shakespeare's works, as well as plenty of title dropping.  It was as if the playwright had proceeded with the object of including as much allusion as possible.  I caught many of the references, but I wondered how much someone less familiar with the Bard would  understand.  The play provided minimal background within and relied on audience members bringing a working knowledge with them.  Not knowing the ladies' back stories would have detracted from the experience.  Seeing their interactions as each questioned the behavior of the others did make for entertaining theatre.

The play was as a woman's love--brief.  In fact, the advertised 45-minute running time was overestimated by 15 minutes.  Aside from 30 minutes of allusions, there was not much of a plot.  The play was advertised as "a little homage and parody...all in the name of fun."  On that count, it succeeded.  Anyone looking for more than that might have been disappointed, but Juliet borrowed a portion of Puck's closing from A Midsummer Night's Dream to apologize and to send the audience home happy.  It was an enjoyable, albeit quick, night at the theatre.

An Enjoyable Scandal

The final play in this summer's Stratford visit was also my first trip to the Avon Theatre:  Sheridan's The School for Scandal.  Happy accident it was that I chose this one; it fit into my travel schedule and it starred Geraint Wyn Davies, another of my favorite Stratford actors.  It ended up third on the summer's list of four, behind Tartuffe and Timon of Athens and ahead of The Changeling.

The play began humorously, with Geraint Wyn Davies entering the stage chuckling about something dumb he had seen on his cell phone.  He delivered an introduction which ended with the usual admonitions to the audience about silencing their devices.  It was a clever way to convey the warnings in the guise of the script, and a sign that a play that premiered in 1777 could be kept modern.  A reference to Steve Bannon surfaced during the play, and the cell phone reappeared at the play's end.

All was not modern, however.  The set and costumes were lavishly in-period.  The clothing--powdered wigs, large dresses, formal coats and outfits--was beautiful, a perfect fit for this eighteenth-century piece.  The set was sumptuous and efficiently designed, allowing for easy transitions between home sitting room and tavern.  Bravo to the designers and crew for their masterful efforts!

The cast was top-notch, as I have come to expect of Stratford.  Geraint Wyn Davies was excellent as Sir Peter Teazle, displaying genuine emotion in his performance.  Whether it was sputtering speechlessness or red-faced laughter, he solidified his position as a certain Stratford draw.  Several members of the cast had appeared in the other plays I had seen on the trip.  Tom Rooney turned the comic double, as Tartuffe the night previous and Sir Benjamin Backbite in this work.  Joseph Ziegler, also Timon of Athens, was Sir Oliver Surface.  Both were tremendous in their roles, and they caused me again to tip my hat to actors who can keep multiple major roles straight from one day to the next--impressive indeed!

Two other actors deserve note.  Sebastien Heins as likeable lout Charles Surface and Johnathan Sousa as his drinking buddy Careless were excellent in their second year as members of the Stratford company.  I was able to see both in their debut performances in last year's Breath of Kings production.  It was great to see them this year, both in this work and in their other roles (Heins in Timon and Sousa in Tartuffe).  The tavern auction scene was a comedic highlight of TSFS.  Both have bright futures.  Here's to many more years on Stratford's stages!

The play was enjoyable, although I will admit that it seemed to drag a bit in the first half.  The story, with its numerous sub-plots and intrigues, does get convoluted, and some of it was lost in translation.  The comedy was unmistakable, however, and the dramatic irony was humorous.  For a play set in the eighteenth century, a story about gossip and scandal is every bit relevant today and allowed the play to keep the audience engaged.

And so concludes 2017's Stratford excursion.  Hopefully 2018 will prove to be as enjoyable an experience!

Tartuffe

OK.  There is no connection to Shakespeare in this post.  It's neither Hamlet nor a different Shakespearean play nor a Shakespearean co-author.  Again, my blog, my rules.  (I did change the blog subtitle to something more inclusive.)

The highlight of my trip to Stratford was the presentation of Moliere's Tartuffe.  Last season I was able to see The Hypochondriac at Stratford.  It was terrific and terrifically entertaining, and I jumped at the chance to see Tartuffe this year.  When purchasing tickets and keeping all performances within my trip window, it turned out that I would be there for opening night.  Tickets were scarce and I was farther back than I would have chosen otherwise (and seated behind a large head, as it turned out), but no matter.  Sometimes one has to make sacrifices!

The stage set in the Festival Theatre was not overly lavish, but it fit the production well.  Moliere was transported into a modern setting, and so the set included a furnished bar area upstage and a furnished den area downstage.  Multiple doors led offstage, and the stairs upstage led to the second floor of the family home.

The entire cast for this production was tremendous.  Tom Rooney in the title role and Graham Abbey as Orgon were notables.  Tartuffe was particularly slimy and conniving.  Clad in black cassock (except for a brief disrobing scene that included a moonshot for part of the audience) with long hair and an Eastern European accent, Rooney's portrayal was hilarious.  Abbey as the paterfamilias was the perfect foil for Tartuffe.  Torn between his family and his religious mentor, his fits of stuttering comic bluster were well-played indeed!  Also noteworthy was Anusree Roy as Dorine.  She stole nearly every scene in which she was present, displaying a sensible attitude that contrasted beautifully with Orgon and Tartuffe.

The script for the play was a modern translation by Ranjit Bolt.  I was struck immediately by the rhyme scheme.  Though it is a French play, the rhyming was maintained in translation, which seems to me to be quite an achievement.  At times it felt forced, but that added to the humor.  For this particular production, Moliere's text was modernized even further.  Several contemporary references to the current political climate in the United States appeared.  Here were characters speaking of "fake news," "alternative facts," and even "covfefe," all the while keeping them in rhyme and meter.

The action of the play was hilarious and kept me laughing throughout the evening.  Sight gags were aplenty.  A large, hollow divan and a bean bag chair were used to conceal a spying Orgon, the latter less stealthy but funnier.  A facial moisturizer mask was laughably disturbing (or disturbingly laughable).  One memorable scene was likely unplanned.  As Tartuffe's manservant exited through the bar, he clinked together the bottles of wine he carried.  Two of the bottles hit a bit too hard and broken glass and wine ended up on the stage.  Dorine and Elmire entered and reacted to the mess, using it for comedy while managing to clean it up and not break character or the play's flow.

Bravo to Chris Abraham and the cast for a wonderful evening of theatre!  Tartuffe sits firmly atop this year's four-pack of plays.

TV Star Will

Summer 2017 brought the story of William Shakespeare to TV, courtesy of TNT.  The TV series Will told the story of a young William Shakespeare and his journey to dramatic prominence.  The ten-episode run provided much enjoyment for this Shakespeare fan.

The series was an historical fiction telling the story of young Will's early years.  As one of the on-demand additional features notes, Shakespeare may be the most famous person about whom we know the least.  The story, while including numerous real-life characters, is largely invented in the specifics.

The story opens as Will leaves Stratford and his family and heads to London to find fame and fortune through work.  He ends up joining James Burbage's company as a playwright and actor.  During the course of the series, he pens several plays that a Shakespearean fan may recognize:  one about King Edward, Two Gentlemen of Verona, a mash-up of Midsummer Night's Dream and Romeo and Juliet, and Richard III.

Will meets Christopher Marlowe, another famous playwright about whom we know relatively little.  Marlowe's struggle to break writer's block is detailed as he works on, and eventually completes, Doctor Faustus.  Was Marlowe homosexual?  Was he a spy for the Queen?  Did he make a pact with the devil?  All of these questions arise as we learn more about his character.

Much time is given to the conflict between the Catholic Church and Queen Elizabeth.  Richard Topcliffe, an actual historical figure, plays a major role in the series, as does Fr. Robert Southwell, S.J.  Will and Southwell, related as cousins in the series, compete for Alice Burbage, daughter of James.  The early career of Richard Burbage is detailed as he hones his craft on stage, working to become the famous actor we know through history.

While critical response to the show has been mixed, I enjoyed the ten-episode season.  I found the acting to be quite good, especially Laurie Davidson as Will and Jamie Campbell Bower as Marlowe.  (I did not recognize Bower, not having seen any of his previous work.  I discovered in one of the on-demand additional features that he fronts a rock band, Counterfeit.  They're on YouTube, and they're pretty solid!)   The plot was a creative attempt to elucidate history.  It held my interest and led me to try to learn more about the historical characters presented.  The action is very graphic, with violence as a constant presence.  Death and disembowelment are presented in full view of the audience; not for the faint of heart (or stomach).  The script, while adeptly written, did seem a bit forced at times, especially in some of the numerous attempts to include famous Shakespearean lines in normal dialogue.

As I type this, the fate of Will is unresolved.  Due to high production costs and low ratings, it seems unlikely that it will receive a second season.  It was an enjoyable summertime TV diversion and a good attempt to bring Shakespeare and his world to a wider audience.  Hopefully next summer will provide a return to London to see what Will writes next.

A Stratford Changeling

The first of the four plays on my Stratford schedule this year was The Changeling by Thomas Middleton (a reputed Shakespearean co-author) and William Rowley.  Of all of the plays I have seen at the festival, this was the first that left me disappointed.  It sits firmly in the fourth spot for 2017's trip.

I knew nothing of the play prior to seeing it, other than a friend's description of it as interesting and creepy.  The brief description of it in the Stratford Festival guide sounded interesting indeed.  When tickets became available late last year, it fit into the time frame with the other plays that I wished to see.  Plus, the cast included Ben Carlson, one of my favorite Stratford actors.  I decided to give it a shot.

Like many offerings at the Tom Patterson Theatre, there was not much of a set.  The action took place in Spain at the end of the Spanish Civil War.  To illustrate the setting, there were four large arches decorated in a Moorish Alhambra-type pattern.  So as not to hinder sight lines, the sides of the arches consisted of only the exposed steel beams.  There was still some interference, but it was not much.  (The head of the gentleman seated in front of me was about as much of an impediment.)  The other noteworthy set piece was a giant puppet of Francisco Franco that appeared during a parade sequence.  It fit (just barely) beneath the arches.

The story consisted of two plots.  The main plot revolved around a love triangle and an arranged marriage.  The female lead, played by Mikaela Davies, hires her father's servant, played by Ben Carlson, to take care of her fiance so that she may be wed to another.  The arrangement is ended, but the resolution leads to further difficulties.  The secondary plot had something to do with seduction in an asylum for mental patients.  Neither story worked.  The main plot was bland, and I found myself not caring at all about any of the characters.  Carlson's role was supposed to be a villain, but he was too boring for that.  Davies' lead was the second most annoying of the characters.  I didn't find her to be believable at all.  The secondary plot was entirely irrelevant and could have been excised without missing a beat.  It did, however, yield the most annoying character of the evening:  Antonio, the servant pretending to be a mental patient, played by Gareth Potter.  His manner of speech while pretending to be disturbed was incredibly grating.  I could not tell if the portrayal was intended to be serious or slapstick; either way, it failed badly.

According to the Director's Notes in the playbill, the action propels the characters "to a devastating conclusion."  Hardly.  It was more a whimper than a bang.  When the play was over, I was just glad to be rid of it.

Every member of the cast of The Changeling also performed in Timon of Athens, which I saw the next day.  The contrast was staggering.  The latter work, which may have been co-written by Middleton, was considerably better; the performances were believable and sympathetic.  The actors seemed to care about their roles, and this sincerity was evident in their work.  It was a complete change from the previous day, and it was proof that even a great cast cannot save a poor, poorly-directed story.