National Debacle

After months of anticipation, October 15 finally arrived.  The National Theatre's broadcast of Hamlet starring Benedict Cumberbatch was shown on the big screen through Fathom Events and NT Live.  In the case of the summer trip to Stratford, the time spent waiting was well rewarded.  Unfortunately, this experience was entirely the opposite.  It was an utter disaster.

It did not take long to realize that something was seriously rotten.  The play opened with Hamlet sitting in what appeared to be his bedroom, listening to a vinyl LP on his phonograph.  There was a knock at the door.  Hamlet:  "Who's there?  Nay, answer me.  Stand and unfold yourself."  Horatio entered, and the two friends chatted.

That simple opening said much about this production.  I have no problem with updating Hamlet to fit a different historical context.  I have seen (and written about) modern presentations that have been done quite well.  Also, I understand that editing is necessary, especially as the print version of Hamlet was probably never performed as such during Shakespeare's day.  What happened here, though, was different.  Scenes were rewritten and lines were given to different players to speak.  That is intolerable.  It smacks of arrogance on the part of the director, in this case Lyndsey Turner.  It's as if the director has decided that Shakespeare did not know what he was doing and she could do it much better.  As this production displayed, it was not even close.

The set consisted of a large castle hall.  It was well-arranged and well-decorated.  The problem was that it was the only set.  We were supposed to believe that the second floor of the set was castle parapets, even though the decoration had not changed.  When we returned after the interval for Act II, the castle had been filled with dirt, as if a front-loader had delivered fill during the intermission.  Why?  This was never explained.

What was the time period of the play?  I still don't know.  Initially I would have guessed early to mid- 1900's.  The were candles on the table, but there was also electricity.  At one point there was an office on stage, with furniture and Bakelite rotary telephones.  The music had a Jazz Age feel.  Later, though, Hamlet appeared in a David Bowie Ziggy Stardust T-shirt.  1970's?  By the time it was all over, I no longer knew or cared.

An additional irritation was the revision of the text.  Again, editing is one thing, but rewriting the language is another.  Stubbornness was "unholy," not "impious."  One did "heed"" and did not "reck" his reed.  It became "our" philosophy, not Horatio's alone.  Ophelia was not "beautified" at all.  Hamlet was "hot" and not "fat" and scant of breath.  A "union" became a "jewel."  To what purpose is changing the words?  While some alterations maintained the meter, other instances were a bit more ham-fisted.

I cannot say much about the acting.  There was nothing terribly impressive about any of it.  None of the characters was sympathetic.  Perhaps this was due to the excessive shifting of roles and redistributing of lines.  Hamlet tried far too hard to play an antic disposition.  Polonius was neither shifty nor foppish, but just plain bland.  Laertes came off as a sort of East African warlord, which did not fit the demographic of the rest of his family.

The editing was schizophrenic.  Scenes morphed in and out of other scenes with no apparent regard for exits and entrances.  Hamlet's "too, too solid flesh" soliloquy was delivered while the court was seated around a large banquet table.  There was a freeze-frame, the rest of the cast was put into shadow and slow-motion, and Hamlet spoke in the foreground.  Polonius burst onto a later scene declaring that he would be brief, but the editing provided no background to his speech.

When first we saw Hamlet pretending to be mad, it was in the costume of a toy soldier.  Why?  (This was a question throughout the evening.  That and WTF?)  As he repeated "except my life, except my life..." he feigned suicide by hanging with the drum strap around his neck.  Cut, in the middle of the line, to the "To be or not to be" soliloquy, with Hamlet sitting on a table.  The soliloquy ended upon the arrival of ambassadors from Norway.  The nunnery scene appeared later, just before the arrival of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  Hamlet took Polonius' line about the arrival of the players, and then the troupe arrived.  We were treated to some invented dialogue, evidently to replace the line about "mobled queen," which was not good.  In the midst of the player's speech about Priam, the "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy appeared, couched in another freeze-frame.  "What's Hecuba to him or he to her?"  Unfreeze, cue the players and then "The play's the thing...."

Next we saw Hamlet instructing the player about speaking the speech according to instruction.  (If only the director had followed this advice!)  One of the player's lines was something about a "smiling, damned villain."  Hamlet and Horatio had a short interlude, during which Horatio presented Hamlet with a painted plate displaying Claudius' image.  I don't know where that scene falls in the original play.  Then it was time for "The Mousetrap."  As Hamlet spoke of chameleon's dishes and promise-crammed air, Gertrude blurted out "These words are not mine."  I was about to yell at the screen, "No, they're Claudius's words!" but I was able to restrain myself.  There was no dumb show (save the entire production).  Hamlet took the role of Lucianus, speaking his lines and killing Gonzago.  "Smiling damned villain" reappeared.  There was a need for light and then Hamlet declared, "Tis now the witching time of night."  Um, methinks there was a word missing.

I applaud the director for the framing of the chapel scene, even if there was no chapel.  Claudius was on ground level, on his knees, praying.  Hamlet entered above on the second floor overlook.  It explains why Hamlet can deliver a soliloquy without Claudius hearing.  I recall reading that suggestion once and thought it made good sense.  Here, it was well-played!  That led to the chamber scene (with no bed).  Hamlet and Gertrude actually did garner some slight sympathy in this scene.  It was one of the most realistic interludes of the evening.  But then the scene was over, Hamlet dragged Polonius away, multiple people ran or crawled across stage looking for him, Ophelia ended up on stage screaming with her hands covered in Polonius's blood, cue an explosion of leaves and Act I was over.

As Act II began, my first thought was "Why is the castle full of dirt?  Was there a landslide?"  Fortinbras appeared, and Hamlet delivered the "How all occasions" soliloquy.  It seemed edited, but as it is not one that appears in every production, it could have been my own unfamiliarity with seeing it performed.  Ophelia's madness scene was dreadful, largely due to entirely unsympathetic acting and, again, to invented dialogue.  Laertes reappeared, all emotion and bluster.  Letters were delivered.  Somewhere in there was a mention of a character named Matthias.  I don't know who that is.  We moved to Ophelia's burial.  The second gravedigger was female, in a business suit and heels, carrying a portfolio/clipboard.  Who was she?  I'm not sure.  Yorick was there, but there was no mention of Alexander or bungholes.  Hamlet and Laertes scuffled.  Claudius and Laertes plotted at graveside Hamlet's demise, including preparing a chalice "of the like."  Osric, or Voltemand (the same actress, at least) invited Hamlet to the duel; as she was a female character, there was no hat.

Finally, the duel arrived.  Hamlet was in a white fencing vest.  The rest of the cast was in black.  (Subtle.)  The first two passes of the fight were lame.  Then a mess erupted.  Hamlet was nicked with the poisoned foil.  He and Laertes brawled.  Just as Hamlet was about to wound Laertes there was another freeze-frame, completely destroying the moment.  The cast members started some sort of dance of death as shadows played on the walls.  Unfreeze.  Laertes was stabbed.  Then Gertrude decided to drink.  (Had she forgetten her cue?)  She dropped dead, Horatio declared that the drink was poisoned, the usual suspects died and the rest was silence...until Fortinbras arrived to claim his rights of memory.  He advised someone (who?) to take up the body (only one?) and then sent Horatio to bid the soldiers to shoot.  As Horatio climbed the dirt mountain upstage, the screen faded to black.

Thus, the most foul murder of Shakespeare's classic was ended.  To say it left a sour taste is to understate things.  The only saving grace--I did not have to fly to London to see the production.  It was $15 and three hours, spent.

Bloom's Hamlet

Another collection of essays on Hamlet has been added to the collection on my bookshelves.  This one is a secondhand copy of Bloom's Shakespeare Through the Ages:  Hamlet, edited by Harold Bloom and Brett Foster.  It is an anthology reminiscent of Hamlet:  Enter Critic, mentioned in this blog long ago.  (See 7/29/13 post and others.)  This one will be suitable for keeping on my desk at work and perusing during the few fleeting free moments of the school day.  Look for the occasional post to appear here as the material warrants.

Ghostly Fringe

The First Niagara Rochester Fringe Festival has become an annual tradition in Upstate NY.  Another tradition has been at least one show worthy of a blog post.  This year was no exception.  Amidst the concerts and comedy was a theatrical presentation entitled HamletGhosts.  A production of the NYC-based company, The Brewing Dept., here's the description of the show, taken from the Fringe Festival Guide.

"Through a series of vignettes mixing Shakespeare with Lady Gaga, Yahoo Answers and personal narratives, audiences witness the guts of Hamlet without any of the plot."

It's an interesting idea.  Show a play without actually showing the play.  At the end of the seventy-minute show, though, this audience member was left wondering, "What was that?"

The show began with an actress dressed as a clown introducing the remaining cast members.  She became the de facto tour guide of the production, moving in and out of scenes and in and out of the audience, as the case warranted.  A schizophrenic scene followed, questioning the value of Hamlet and finding answers on Yahoo.  With that, we were off and running.

The rest of the production was an often unrecognizable mish-mash.  There was just enough Hamlet to justify the title.  The play was five acts in length.  There were occasional snippets of dialogue borrowed from Hamlet's soliloquies.  Ophelia proclaimed Hamlet's madness...and caressed the blogger's right arm by way of example.  Mel Gibson appeared; at least, his voice did as the audio from the chamber scene in the Zeffirelli film was played while a cast member lip-synced.  The duel scene of Act V was reenacted, albeit very loosely.  The play closed with dead bodies strewn about the stage and our tour guide lamenting the end of the performance.

Mixed into the obvious Hamlet allusions were numerous oddities.  There was plentiful discussion of death, especially suicide.  There were stories of Twitter meltdowns and open readings of depressive diary entries.  There were dance numbers set to contemporary pop music.  There was cross-dressing and soft-core (fully clothed) erotica.  One scene involved a shirtless cast member recounting his sexual discovery and coming out.  In what had to be the most bizarre inclusion of all, a fish hat-wearing cast member gave directions on how to clean a fish while using audience members to assist her.

The Fringe Festival is touted as a celebration of creativity.  This show was certainly creative and unique.  Somewhat endearing in its outright weirdness, it was an interesting, albeit not terribly enjoyable diversion.

P.S.  Fortunately, I was able to exorcise the ghosts immediately after the show.  Live and loud rock music courtesy of The Ginger Faye Bakers was the perfect remedy to scare them away!

Zombie Hamlet

There are certain things one would consider buying only when there is a gift card involved.  (Thanks, Kathy!)  That was the case with this post.  With money to kill at Amazon, I searched through the DVD section for Hamlet.  What surfaced--way down the list--was a relatively recent something called Zombie Hamlet.  With free money in hand, I figured it had to be worth a shot.  Surprisingly, it turned out to be a lot of fun!

The film is less an adaptation of Hamlet than a film about someone making a (very loose) film adaptation of Hamlet.  It follows the latest venture from director Osric Taylor.  The title:  Hamlet, Son of Richmond.  It's a version of Hamlet set during the Civil War.  Aside:  As a Civil War buff, this combination of Hamlet and the Confederacy grabbed me immediately.  Seriously, I think it actually has potential....

The film hits obstacles from the outset.  The budget is reduced significantly.  While scouting locations in Louisiana, all financial backing is pulled.  A reclusive author and owner of the plantation that becomes the film set offers to pay for the film.  There's a catch.  Osric has to add zombies.  They're hot in the current film-making climate, after all.  When Osric objects, the Louisiana District Attorney responds, "Who'd even pay to see a movie about Shakespeare?"  The zombies stay and suddenly it's Hamlet meets Ken Burns meets The Walking Dead, starring the second worst actor who could be cast in a Shakespearean role (right behind Hulk Hogan).  Then the financier dies.  What to do?  It must be seen to be believed.

What follows is a story of bodies alive, dead and undead; carnal, bloody and unnatural acts; and voodoo loan sharks.  This is no highbrow movie by any stretch.  It is an entertaining ninety-minute diversion, though.  The casual slaughter of Shakespeare's masterpiece ("To not to be or to not not to be...") is good for plenty of laughs.  In the end, even the mindlessness of social media and viral video plays a part.  As the curtain falls, Osric is off to his next several projects, including Romeo and Ghoul-iet.  (Yes, really.)  If that's not enough, the worst actor who could be cast in a Shakespearean role gets his chance as Vampire Macbeth.  To quote that Martin Sheen classic, Acapulco Now, "The horror, the horror!"

Dreyfuss Dialogues

The final interview among the Special Features included in the DVD release of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead was with Richard Dreyfuss, the Player King.  As with this post, it began quickly, with the moderator wasting no time in asking what Dreyfuss thought the play was about.  The actor was at a loss.  First, he compared it to a scene from The Honeymooners, when Ralph doesn't think that question will ever be asked.  Then Dreyfuss quoted comedian Buddy Hackett, "It all depend how you look at it."  Next he answered that the play represents the experience of Hamlet all turned around.  Ultimately, though, he admitted that the play is beyond his own intellectual capabilities to understand it.

The next question, "What drew you to the film?" was a bit safer.  Dreyfuss replied that he took the part because it was a role from Tom Stoppard.  Later, Dreyfuss called working with Tom Stoppard intimidating.  For a first-time film director, Stoppard was very certain of everything, very quietly sure.  Another reason Dreyfuss took the role was that it was a role he never believed he would be asked to play.  He went on to say that he did not really prepare for the role.  If anything, he went to Donald Wolfit.  I had to look up that reference.  Wolfit was a British actor of stage and film who played King Lear, among many roles.

The interviewer drew a parallel between Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead and Groundhog Day, the 1993 film in which Bill Murray is forced to relive February 2.  He asked Dreyfuss if the characters having to relive Hamlet is what makes the Player so world-weary.  Dreyfuss agreed in part, stating that the Player does know more than the others.  This helps to inform the sense of irony in the play.  Dreyfuss suggested a revision to the film.  He would have liked to see it end exactly where it began, in order to play up the cyclical sense of the action.  Perhaps, though, this was only because admittedly he didn't understand the play in total, but only moment by moment.

Dreyfuss commented repeatedly how much he enjoyed his role.  He loved the Player doing Priam standing on a table.  He called it thrilling and another way of acting different from what he had done.  He was not intimidated by it, though.  In fact, he regretted not doing more Shakespeare in his career.  Dreyfuss discussed later a brief two-and-a-half week stint directing Hamlet.  He discounted his effort as becoming the director that he hated, with line readings and posed action.

For an actor who repeated that he did not understand the play, Dreyfuss posed a very interesting observation about R & G and Hamlet.  He called the former a fulfillment of his own idea about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  He believes that they are not slimebags but rather pigeons or "schmoos," trapped in an accident of fate.  When they arrive at Elsinore, the first person they meet is Claudius.  It is he who tells them that Hamlet is mad.  He's the King of Denmark, so he must know what he's talking about.  This initial conversation colors their later perceptions of Hamlet.  What would have happened if they had not met Claudius first?

When asked to name his favorite role, Dreyfuss replied, "Hamlet."  (The interviewer meant one of Dreyfuss's own film roles.)  When asked what part he yearns to play, Dreyfuss's answer was the same:  "Hamlet."  He didn't know why he never took the role.  He did say that he would like to produce Hamlet for radio.  (I don't know if that ever happened.  I found that he did direct a stage version in 1994 at the Old Repertory Theatre in Birmingham.)

Dreyfuss's admiration for Hamlet is evident.  He admitted that there are probably six or eight guys who love the play more than he does.  He stated that he finds greatness, mystery, wackiness in every line.  If he were on a desert island, Hamlet would be the play he would take with him.  I agree with him on that one and on a comment toward the end of the discussion that could be my new philosophy.

"If I could just wake up and go to Barnes & Noble and go home and read my books, I would be fine."

Who wouldn't?  Indeed, who wouldn't?

Stratford Preview

Because it's never too early to begin planning for summer vacation...

Stratford has announced their 2016 season.  This season's trip to see Hamlet may have started an annual tradition!  There are several items of interest, including a Scottish headliner.  Check the link here for the full lineup.

Roth Riffs

Tim Roth's interview was the third one I viewed in the Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead DVD set.  (See 7/5/15 post.)  While it was not restricted solely to the film and wandered into Roth's career, the R&G tidbits were certainly interesting enough.

Roth opens with the story of how he got the role of Guildenstern.  He met with Tom Stoppard and Gary Oldman.  Roth and Oldman had worked together previously (which could be why they seemed to get on so well together in R&G).  Roth refused to read for the part, an example of a general practice for him.  (Apparently Oldman would not read for his part either.)  Things went well in the meeting, but Stoppard was not sold on Roth.  It was between Roth and Daniel Day-Lewis, who was playing Hamlet at the National Theatre in London.  On the night that Stoppard went to see Day-Lewis perform, the actor had a nervous breakdown during the performance.  In the first scene, when the Ghost appeared, Day-Lewis saw the ghost of his own father.  Day-Lewis had to take care of the personal issues, so he became unavailable for the role of Guildenstern.  Roth got the part.

Roth is asked why it is that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are confused by the other characters.  He attributes this as a device created by Stoppard.  He denies the assumption that this practice can be traced back to Shakespeare's time.  In R&G, perhaps it's because they have complicated names.  Maybe it is due also to the relative lack of concern accorded them by the other characters.  In this work, Roth considers them to be two sides of the same coin.

Roth relates his thoughts on the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  He thinks that the end for them is not quite the end.  They won't get to die, but they'll be trapped in reliving the play, trying to figure things out and to get it right.

Near the end of the interview, Roth tells the interviewer that he might like to do more Shakespeare.  In fact, he and Oldman inquired about recreating their roles in Franco Zeffirelli's Hamlet starring Mel Gibson, complete with the same costumes.  They were not hired.  Considering the sloppy manner in which the roles were handled in that film, perhaps it was a blessing in disguise.