This post began with a text message. My brother was on a shopping excursion and saw an advertisement for a local production of Hamlet. Knowing well my affection for the subject (and having contributed materially to several posts over the years), he sent a picture of the play poster. I did some research into the production. This particular Hamlet was staged by the Open Road Theatre. They are a local community theatre company, dedicated to "re-imagined casting which is all inclusive for the benefit of everyone." Curiously, the play was given a subtitle: "To Be or Not To Be--Our Authentic Self." I had no previous experience with their productions, and the quoted characteristics left me apprehensive. I thought immediately of the Othello I had seen and fled recently (see 5/16/24 post). Hamlet was performed at MuCCC, a small comfortable theatre with which I have plenty of experience. Taking another of my brother's text messages entirely out of context, "Sometimes ya gotta pull the trigger..." I decided to go for it.
MuCCC is a black box theatre with four rows of seating. As I had learned from previous visits, rows one and two are great--comfortable and terrific sight lines. Rows three and four...not so much. Fortunately I was in my "usual" spot: second row, stage right. The set consisted of four stage cubes and four blank canvas flat panels on the back wall. The former served numerous purposes, and this became a problem later in the production as too much time was expended setting and resetting the cubes for scene changes. The panels broke up the back wall, but I did not notice them serving much of a "scenic environment" as the playbill had described. Other props were carried in and out as needed.
The costuming was designed to depict Elsinore in 1599. The pieces looked great and certainly conveyed the desired period. Also, the costumes never changed. Hamlet was never shown with his doublet all unbraced or demonstrating any effects of madness. Only Ophelia changed outfit during the course of the show.
The play was advertised as "an estimated 2 hours and 20 minutes." With that running time, numerous cuts would have to be made. This requires the director to decide what to remove. In this case, there were some questionable choices. The Fortinbras subplot and Hamlet's "How all occasions" soliloquy were left in, although the soliloquy was much shortened. The dumb show was left in. Much of Polonius' witty dialogue was removed.
Additionally, there were a couple of questionable casting decisions. Horatio was recast as a woman, I think. The character's male name was kept, but the costuming was female. (At least the name was not re-imagined as Horatia!) Equally poor was changing Rosencrantz to a female character, I think. The costume was that of a male character, but it seemed that the role was supposed to be female. Whatever the point of these alterations, they did not work.
Given that this is a community production and that cast members are not professional actors, one has to cut them some slack. Among the various roles, Hamlet and Polonius stood out. Hamlet first appeared with eyes rolling at Claudius' proclamations. Throughout, Hamlet was restrained and believable. It was an enjoyable performance. Polonius was the highlight of the show. The actor, with over 100 productions to his credit, showed that he was well-versed in his craft. He was a joy to watch! Regrettably, much of his dialogue was cut in order to fit the running time. The remaining acting performances did not have much to recommend them.
The first half of the production moved quickly with good pace. The players' arrival was a bad omen, though. The performances were especially dreadful. The "Rugged Pyrrhus" speech, traditionally spoken by First Player, was split between the Player King and Player Queen. It was entirely unbelievable, done as some sort of ham-handed slapstick that just rankled. This destroyed the "Rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy that followed. Hamlet's reference to the player being brought to tears fell apart, given that the player showed no sincere emotion at all. It was a very poor directorial choice. Greater consideration should have been given to the admonitions about overacting that Hamlet gives to the players.
The second half of the play had little dramatic flow. It opened with the "To be or not to be" soliloquy. Ophelia was sitting on stage; did Hamlet know that? It was unclear, as he delivered his speech to a portrait of his father hanging on the wall. A glaring mistake occurred after Polonius was dispatched. As Hamlet was being questioned about the disposal of the body, the usual lines to Claudius about Heaven and Hell were spoken. The rest of the dialogue, including the comment about nosing Polonius under the stairs was omitted. So where was Polonius? Was the body ever found? This, too, was never clarified.
Things moved quickly in the remainder of the half, as if the cast were trying consciously to get done within the advertised time limit. (Part of this may have been due to the failure of the climate control system in the theatre, which led the room to get more uncomfortably hot as the evening progressed.) Removing the Fortinbras subplot would have helped as it added nothing to the performance. (And why was Fortinbras a princess?) Instead, what was left of the second half was largely edited to keep the plot points while losing the joy of Shakespeare's words. The duel scene was tame and unbelievable, and everyone died as expected. The Horatio character let loose with a tremendously loud and totally unnecessary scream while cradling the body of Hamlet. Thank God the rest was silence!
It is admirable that community theatre companies continue to perform the works of Shakespeare many hundreds of years after they were written. This presents a quandary for a director, however. Is the play being produced as a work of its own time, of the time in which it is being performed, or something else? The choice influences the presentation. What is the stress--the plot? The words? If one is intent on just telling a story, then there is no need to adhere to Shakespeare. If one is performing Shakespeare's play, then one should actually use Shakespeare's play, especially the words. This performance, admirable as it may have been in intent, failed in the execution.
