A Prequel to Hamlet

In the playbill for the Stratford production of Hamlet (cf. 11/17/2013 post), I came across a reference to the novel Gertrude and Claudius by John Updike.  I made a note to find the book.  While I was familiar with Updike, it was only passingly so.  In junior year of high school, I drew his name for an English term paper.  In a bit of self-absorbed rebellion, I managed to write the paper without reading much of his work.  I noted in Updike a seeming preoccupation with sex, a point I raised in the paper.  Now, roughly twenty years later, it was time to return to the author's work.

The novel is a prequel to the action of Hamlet.  It uses historical sources for the legend to develop the back stories of Gertrude, Claudius, Hamlet (Senior) and the rest.  Reading it from start to finish in little more than a day, I found it to be an excellent work that sets the stage for Shakespeare's play.

The novel opens in Elsinore, the castle of Rorik and the late Ona, parents of Gerutha.  It would be best to pause to mention an issue with the characters' names.  Updike gives an explanation as to the origin of the various spellings of the names of the characters in the novel, namely the historical sources of the story.  He does not explain why he chose to make it confusing for the reader, though.  Gerutha becomes Geruthe and then Gertrude.  Horwendil, Gerutha's first husband becomes Horvendile.  For some unknown reason after his death, he is called Hamlet, as is his son (who began life as Amleth and then became Hamblet), a complication that confuses even Gertrude.  Feng, brother to Horwendil, becomes Fengon and then Claudius when he takes the Danish crown.  (Taking a new name upon coronation makes some sense at least.)  Corambus, Horwendil's Lord Chamberlain becomes Corambis and takes the name Polonius upon Claudius' accession to the throne.  Confused?  You would not be alone.  To make matters easier, I will use only the Shakespearean names in this post (except Horwendil, which distinguishes that character from his son).

Back to the action.  We are introduced to Gertrude at the age of 19 (or 17, it varies).  She is betrothed to Horwendil, a hard drinker who manages to pass out prior to consummation of the wedding night.  We meet his brother, Claudius, a worldly and wily politician.  Polonius is on the scene very early as Lord Chamberlain to Rorik and later to Horwendil.  He has two children, Laertes and Ophelia, by his late wife.  He serves also as confidant to Gertrude, a role that leads to later complications.  Shortly after marriage and on the day Fortinbras is killed by Horwendil, Gertrude gives birth to Hamlet.  We discover that the sickly lad befriends Yorick during his childhood years.  The young Hamlet is described as fond of actors and of self-oration.

The relationship between Horwendil and Gertrude is strained and cold, and Gertrude looks for and takes comfort from Claudius.  Their relationship proceeds from that of in-laws to that of lovers, a situation helped along by a conniving Polonius, who provides them a "love nest."  The secret is spilled to Horwendil by Claudius' valet.  Horwendil confronts Claudius and resolves to banish him and to execute Polonius for conspiracy and Gertrude for adultery.  Polonius, as one might expect, overhears the entire exchange while eavesdropping.  He volunteers to Claudius the information regarding Horwendil's afternoon nap in the orchard, as well as a way to sneak into and out of the area unnoticed.  After a hurried trip to his own manor to retrieve some poison, Claudius murders his brother in order to save Polonius, Gertrude and himself from punishment for their treachery.

With Horwendil dead, seemingly of a scorpion's sting, Claudius is free to propose to Gertrude, who accepts.  We begin to learn about Hamlet's advances on Ophelia.  Although Hamlet is 30 and Ophelia 17, Gertrude justifies that by comparing the age discrepancy at her first marriage.  Gertrude states that she fears Hamlet, and Claudius decides it would be best to keep Hamlet around to strengthen his own regal position.  The story ends shortly after the wedding ceremony, as Claudius permits Laertes to return to Paris but asks Hamlet, who has managed to spend ten years at Wittenberg, to stay with the family at Elsinore.

What I found most interesting in the novel is the way that Updike foreshadows the action in Shakespeare's play.  Some of this is done with literary allusions.  Early in the story there is a reference to Gertrude "protesting too much."  A later line, "There's a shape in things, fiddle and fuss however we will around the edges," reminded me immediately of Hamlet's line about divinity (V, ii, 11).  Polonius uses his "Neither a borrower" line on Gertrude, and references are made to "reechy" kisses and something being "rotten."  There is a discussion of nunneries, of Hamlet playing the ghost, and even of Claudius' oration in "iambic cadences," as if that were a normal manner of speaking.

Other characters make fleeting appearances in the action of the story.  Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are introduced, but presumably as the fathers to Hamlet's university friends of the same names.  Reynaldo is mentioned as Polonius' spy in Paris, and Cornelius and Voltemand get a nod as they head to Norway to speak to the king.

There is a repeated use of the word subtle, as well as its negative.  Various character behaviors are described as such.  One item that is not subtle is Updike's sexual fascination.  Within the first 11 pages we are treated to "untamed raven hair between parted white thighs."  There are even more glowing references, which I leave for readers to find for themselves.

The description of Claudius in the closing lines of the novel chill the reader, who knows undoubtedly what is to come:  "He had gotten away with it.  All would be well."

Hamlet at Stratford (Ontario)

In 2008, Hamlet brought me to the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Ontario.  It was my second trip to Stratford, the first having been entirely forgettable.  This one was much the opposite, resulting in the best stage production of Hamlet that I had seen to that point (and to the point of typing this post).

I noted first the intimacy of the Festival Theatre and the excellent sight lines.  The fact that I was in the front row of the balcony might have had something to do with that.  In looking through the playbill, I noticed that the production was set in 1910, during the Edwardian Era.  That was a new twist in the productions I'd seen.  I will admit, though, that I was apprehensive; the previous production I had seen at Stratford had been modernized and it did not work.  This time, though, it was well played.

Several things stand out five years later.  Ben Carlson's performance as Hamlet was excellent.  He was engaging, in the role, even if he was older than college age.  It was a convincing, even exciting portrayal.  The wit that is not always evident in Hamlet was on display here.  I found myself laughing during a tragedy.  (Is that allowed?)  The final scene, when Hamlet and Horatio say farewell, was particularly powerful.

The costuming and staging, especially in the modern context, were interesting.  The cast were attired in suits, high collars, some tweeds and sweaters.  There was a military influence evident in the wardrobe.  Other more modern influences appeared on stage--rifles and, in the scene between Laertes and Claudius, a pool table.  Modernity aside, though, the climactic sword fight remained a sword fight.

Although it was a long production, it did not feel that way.  I don't recall any obvious deletions to the text, although there must have been some to keep the play to a running timg of approximately three hours.

One other item that still remains with me was the trapdoor and lift in the stage.  It allowed for, among other things, an actual grave for Ophelia.  I believe it was the first time that I had seen this done live on stage, and it made for a much more realistic cemetery sequence.  (As an aside, the Festival Theatre offered a backstage and below stage tour, which I took the following morning.  I was able to see the trapdoor and lift up close.  If you should have the chance someday to make the trip, stay for the tour!)

This performance of Hamlet ranks highly in my canon, and it has become the benchmark by which I measure other productions.  Perhaps that is unfair for the others, but not for this performance, which well deserves the honor.

Hamlet Hallucinates?

Previous posts describe portrayals of the ghost of Hamlet's father as voice-overs and not as visual apparitions.  (See 7/28/13 and 8/3/13.)  A logical offshoot of this could be a question:  Is Hamlet actually visited by a ghost or is it merely a hallucination indicative of a sick mind?  W. W. Greg takes the latter viewpoint in his article "Hamlet's Hallucination" (Modern Language Review, XII (October 1917), 393-421).  An abridged version of Greg's hypothesis is found in Hamlet:  Enter Critic.  (See post of 7/29/13.)

Greg's hypothesis hinges "upon two considerations:  the elaborate external evidence for the reality of the Ghost, and the fact that the Ghost reveals to Hamlet true information which he could not otherwise have acquired."

Greg spends considerable time reviewing an oft overlooked portion of the "play within a play," namely the dumb-show that precedes it.  Why does the king not blanch when he sees his crime acted out in the prologue?  What is different about the main action of The Mousetrap that causes him to rise?  It is a question much ignored, but it is one that Greg finds crucial to understanding the character of Hamlet.

Greg furthers his hypothesis by analyzing the language used by the ghost.  He compares the ghost's speeches to those of Hamlet and Gertrude, and he notes also that Gertrude is unable to see the ghost when it appears to Hamlet in her chamber.  He concludes that the ghost fits better as "but a figment of Hamlet's brain" rather than as a genuine revelation.

Greg commends Shakespeare as "not only a skilful craftsman, but likewise a considerable master of innuendo."  He ends his article by offering one more observation, this one of the play's length.  He alleges that Shakespeare, a "practical dramatist," wrote the play not only to be acted but also to be read privately.  This knowledge may have influenced his treatment of the theme as well.

Greg's hypothesis is a provocative one.  It is not one that I had considered previously, but it is well presented and supported.  Certainly, it gives this blogger pause to rethink the placement of the ghost in this play and the way that it is presented by the director.

A Hamlet Reduction

Many years ago I was given a copy of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged).  No, it is not what you may be thinking.  It is the acting script of the play performed by the Reduced Shakespeare Company.  The goal of the three-actor troupe is to perform all of Shakespeare's plays in one evening.  That noble aim devolves into absurdity by the end of the performance, but it is indeed a success.

While each of Shakespeare's plays receives at least a mention, the largest portion of the evening is saved for Hamlet.  In fact, it comprises the entire second act of The Complete Works.  Somehow the three actors manage to include the memorable characters, scenes, lines and even soliloquies in the (very) abridged version.  That is not all.  There is even a thorough presentation of Freudian psychoanalysis as it applies to Ophelia in the "nunnery" scene, complete with audience participation.

The original version of the play is from 1987.  In 2011, the writers revised it as The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged) [revised].  The new edition has updated jokes, bringing it into the age of the Internet, the i-device and Lulu, the "bratty character" on General Hospital.

Although I have been unable to see The Complete Works performed live on stage, there is a commercially available video version of the original edition.  Through the wonders of technology, the 88-minute performance is posted (as of this typing) on YouTube for all to see.  The link is below.  If only the Hamlet portion interests you, start watching at the 52-minute mark.  It would be a shame to skip the first act, though.  You would miss Titus Andronicus as a celebrity cooking show, the Histories as an American football game and Othello as a rap.  Laughs abound.  If you have the time and inclination, The Complete Works is worth a view.

Misunderstanding Hamlet

One essay in the book Hamlet:  Enter Critic (See post on July 29, 2013) is entitled "A New Way of Misunderstanding Hamlet."  It is a piece written by Thomas M. Kettle in 1918.  Kettle's title comes from his assertion that Shakespeare has been so over-analyzed as to be "mummified into an orthodoxy."  Kettle then proceeds to analyze Hamlet himself, adding (purposely and ironically) to the misunderstanding he decries.  A few items from the essay are particularly noteworthy.

Kettle states early in the essay that the best way to restore Shakespeare to freshness is a "prolonged bath of oblivion."  He suggests that Shakespeare's works should be lost for 150 years so that future generations may come to them fresh.  He adds:

"Failing that [Shakespeare] must be excluded from all school and university courses, and forbidden under heavy penalties to any one not having attained his majority."

This writer can only hope that no one in education who might read the quote considers taking it seriously.

Later, Kettle explains his concept of misunderstanding Hamlet.  Each person studying Hamlet understands different "sub-meaning and personal colour," which may be entirely different from what the playwright intended.

"What each of us does is to construct a private understanding of Hamlet (which is certain to be a misunderstanding) out of materials furnished conjointly by ourselves, Shakespeare, a cloud of critics, and the actor who happens to be concrete before our eyes at the moment...."

One other noteworthy element of Kettle's essay is his harsh criticism of Horatio.  While many have misunderstood Horatio favorably, Kettle characterizes him as nothing more than a "wandering ineptitude."  It is a vitriolic yet thought-provoking hypothesis.

It is this humble blogger's hope that readers of the blog will continue to enjoy the misunderstandings of the play presented herein and perhaps even to formulate their own.

Hamlet at University Revisited

Following my post of 14 October 2013, I was able to borrow a video copy of the 2003 production of Hamlet at the University of Rochester.  (Thank you Nigel!)  After an encore presentation, I learned that my memory did not betray me in this instance.  The performance was every bit as good as I recalled it being.  Now that I have seen it anew, I can be a bit more descriptive.

The cast was a diverse one.  Narada Campbell, as Claudius, was reminiscent of a young Live and Let Die-era Yaphet Kotto.  Polonius was a very young version of the character, not the grey and wrinkly portrayal that is typical.  Ophelia was stunningly emotional, and her screaming fit over the death of her father leads to a (much needed) injection of sedative.  The players were mostly a female group, with one young boy to round out the company.  Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were cast as perky, pigtailed co-eds.  Noshir Dalal as Hamlet was no less remarkable in a repeat viewing, although I will say he is a very angry and emotional Hamlet.

The wardrobe is present day, with denim, suits, cargo pants and even some flannel on the gravediggers.  It was not out of place; in fact it worked quite well.

The armoire was the major set piece, and it did get plenty of use.  The drawers were storage spaces for clothing, tools and dead bodies.  One even doubled as a stage for the dumb show (performed with dolls) preceding The Mousetrap.  As mentioned previously, the wardrobe portion was indeed a bedroom during The Mousetrap and a brightly lit altarpiece during Claudius' soliloquy.  It also served as an initial entry point for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and a dressing room for a towel-clad Horatio.  While Gertrude was recounting the drowning of Ophelia, the wardrobe opened to provide a visual of the scene to match Gertrude's narration.  In the final scene, Fortinbras arrived through it, and Hamlet's body and Horatio are shut into it.  The armoire remains the most ingenious piece of staging I have seen.

The text, while edited to fit into the time slot, did not display any of the obvious cuts that other productions have shown.  It was a full production with very subtle omissions.  (Honestly, I could not spot anything that was glaringly missing.)  That said, there are plenty of updates for a modern setting.  In a bit of foreshadowing, Laertes carries his fencing foils with him to France.  (His satchel full of condoms is one additional piece of luggage.)  Personal music devices, a laptop and cell phones all appear.  In fact, the cell phone's inadvertent ring becomes the plot device that betrays Polonius and Claudius hiding behind the arras during the "nunnery" scene.  In one major change, Hamlet's sword is replaced with a gun, which ultimately becomes the tool used to dispatch Polonius.  Hamlet's letters to a dressing (and momentarily bare) Horatio and to Claudius arrive via UPS.  The climactic sword fight remains, although it is adapted as a fencing duel.

Now that I've had the opportunity to see this production twice I can put it to rest, its place secure in the upper reaches of my Hamlet canon.

Hamlet at University

The first full version of Hamlet that I saw onstage was produced by the International Theatre Program at the University of Rochester in their 2002-2003 season.  Now, ten years later, I'm finally getting around to writing about it.  At least I have a souvenir playbill (and the Internet) to help my memory.

As noted in the playbill, the version of Hamlet as performed here was taken from Harold Jenkins' 1982 Arden edition.  I will admit that my level of scholarship has not led me into the different folios and quartos of the play and the relative merits thereof.  The company stated that the Arden version was "best suited to the aims of [the] student actors and scholars, and director" and that's good enough for me.  They adapted the text to fit in a running time of roughly three hours.

Ten years notwithstanding, several elements still stand out from that performance.  First was the young man who played the role of Hamlet, Noshir Dalal.  It was, I seem to recall, his first major stage role.  After seeing him, I found that very difficult to believe, which is perhaps why it has stayed with me this long.  He did an excellent job, never showing any hint of being a "rookie."  His personal web page shows that he has continued in the acting profession and has appeared in numerous stage, television and film productions.

One notable set element was a large armoire that stood at the back of the stage.  I remember that it served several functions.  At one point, it served as a bed.  The actors stood in front of it, and it was as if we the audience were looking down on the bed from above (a mirror on the ceiling, perhaps?).  During Claudius' soliloquy in III, iii, the inside of the wardrobe may have been lit to serve as a church window.

One minor textual adaptation has also remained in my memory.  As Laertes was attempting to leave for France, his suitcase became unlatched while talking with Ophelia.  Out of it fell a large number of condoms.  The shock value of the scene, undoubtedly modernized (and perhaps not unreasonably so) for the benefit of and amusement of the college audience, certainly served its purpose.

Truly this is one version of the production that I enjoy being able to revisit many years later in this blog.  Finding photographs of the performance on the International Theatre Program website has allowed the nostalgia to wax even more, and it has provided evidence of the many uses for that armoire.  It has given me suitable incentive to see if a video of the play that was advertised ten years ago might still be available.  This is one production I would like very much to be able to watch again.