Hamlet Skewered

While perusing the DVD section at the local library, I noticed a Hamlet that I had not seen before.  This one was part of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 series.  I had seen advertisements for the episode on Amazon, but it was nothing on which I had thought to spend money.  Feeling adventuresome (and enjoying the free loan of a library), I decided to borrow the DVD and give it a view.

This version of Hamlet comes from a 1960 German TV production.  The title character is played by Maximilian Schell, in a starring turn contemporary with his Oscar-winning performance in Judgment at Nuremberg (which, ironically, I had watched the previous night).  None of the other actors were familiar to me.  The film was dubbed into English from its original German language.  Hamlet sounded very much like Schell himself, whom I knew to be bilingual (at least).  Claudius' dubbed voice was instantly recognizable as Ricardo Montalban, a fact confirmed by IMDb.

The film was advertised as dark and dreary, and it certainly fit that bill.  The set was very stark and minimal.  The costuming was very dark and traditional.  The acting was very stark and minimal.  The overall atmosphere definitely fits a Shakespearean tragedy, even if it is over-the-top depressing.

It's hard to tell how much of the original Shakespearean story is here.  According to IMDb, the film ran 152 minutes.  The MST3K version is 92 minutes, but that includes numerous interruptions.  I did note a few alterations.  The altercation between Hamlet and Ophelia occurred before the "To be or not to be" soliloquy, which was delivered in part while Hamlet lied prone on a staircase.  During the duel scene, it was made obvious that Osric is a part of the conspiracy against Hamlet.  The chalice was poisoned by addition of a tablet; the pearl itself was not poisoned.

Part of the charm of watching an MST3K film is supposed to be the running commentary.  In this case, I found the jokes to be lame and generally unfunny.  The commentators tried way too hard to poke fun at a Hamlet that probably could have drawn more laughs on its own.  There were only a couple of laugh out loud lines--"Trick or treat for nipples!" and "Hail Queen Dilbert's boss!"  Aside from those, I found the commentary to be increasingly distracting and annoying.  I ended up fast-forwarding through the extra segments in order to get back to Hamlet.

The series creators' purpose backfired here.  Instead of trashing the film for the sake of humor, it made me hope to find the film on video some day, maybe even in the original German and with subtitles.  (It seems to be unavailable, although audio versions are out there.)  I'm sure that it won't rate very near the top of film versions, but I would like to see it in its entirety, without the running commentary.  I'll keep an eye out for it.

Macbeth Mess

Following this summer's trip to Stratford, film versions of Macbeth jumped on the never ending to-view list.  I had seen Orson Welles' version on sale on the Stratford Festival gift shop.  I refrained, and when I saw a copy at the local public library, I decided to give it a shot.  I'm glad I saved my money.  I found the film to be a confused mess.

While the theatre release of the film was edited to 89 minutes, the Olive Films DVD release has restored the film to its intended running time of 107 minutes.  The presentation is lacking in any other extras, though; subtitles to help with the dialogue would have been a pleasant addition.

I don't have the film school background to discuss the technical aspects of the film.  They are treated well in the book, Studying Shakespeare on Film (see 11/9/2014 post).  In fact, there is an extended discussion of the film in the section of critical essays.

Had this film been a self-contained work, it actually might have been easier to follow.  Comparing it to the Shakespearean original is where the difficulty lies.  Spending one's time trying to ignore the juxtaposition of scenes, the creation of interactions, and the invention of characters leads the viewer astray here...or is it the film version itself that has gone awry?

For instance, Welles has created a character described as "a holy father."  The role is played by Alan Napier, better known to fans of 1960's TV as Alfred, butler at Wayne Manor, "stately home of Bruce Wayne and his youthful ward, Dick Grayson."  It was interesting to see him out of tuxedo and in braided pigtails; in fact, were it not for the instantly recognizable voice, I might not have known it was him.  The better question in this context, though, is "Who is he?"  Shakespeare's play did not have a "holy father."  Welles' character takes the place of an old man, a messenger, Ross, and maybe some other incidental roles.  One scene in which he leads the army in a religious service struck me as invented entirely by the director.

Other scenes were also Wellesian inventions.  Lady Macbeth at the home of Macduff's family prior to their slaughter?  Macbeth present at the slaughter of Macduff's family?  Macbeth discussing the health of a bedridden Lady Macbeth with her doctor at her bedside?  Husband and wife both present (in body at least) during the latter's sleepwalking scene, which was shifted to later in the action than it had appeared originally?  Lady Macbeth falling off a cliff to her death?  It was at this point, when Macbeth appeared wearing a tiara borrowed from the Statue of Liberty, that I gave up.  Having the weird sisters on screen to deliver the film's final line (from Act I of the play, no less) was a fitting close.  It was obvious that this was Orson Welles' Macbeth, not William Shakespeare's.

Welles' Macbeth pales in comparison to other versions I have seen.  This summer's live version at Stratford was far and away superior.  Its Wellesian predecessor was rather boring and not terribly believable.  Perhaps film students might be interested in its technical aspects, but this more-than-casual Shakespeare fan found it not so.  Viewing finished, I can check it off my list and move on.  As the weird holy man might say, "Amen."

"Shakespearean" Meltdown

The George Eastman Museum (GEM) has been hosting a series of Shakespearean films.  The latest offering I saw was the 1987 film King Lear, directed by Jean-Luc Godard.  The blurb promoting the work should have been the tip-off, when the word "plot" appeared in quotes.  I had to give it a shot, though.  I mean, how bad could it be?

One of the highlights of any GEM presentation is the introduction given by a member of the staff.  This one set the scene quite well.  We were told of the origination of the work, sponsored financially by Cannon Films, the cinematic powerhouse that was responsible for such "classics" (more air quotes) as Bloodsport and The Delta Force.  By the time the production on this work had concluded, even Menahem Goran, one of the producers (along with partner Yoram Globus), had distanced himself from it.  It was nice of him to give $2 million for this work.  Talk about a poor return on one's investment!

The film that followed had as much to do with Shakespeare as a fish has to do with a bicycle.  (At least the latter pair are both nouns.)  They shared perhaps one or two lines.  The "plot" centered on a post-Chernobyl descendant of William Shakespeare, William Shakespeare Junior the Fifth, trying to reconstruct his ancestor's work.  (It was amusing that this film referenced a major disaster repeatedly.)  Beyond that, though, it was indecipherable.  I could classify Godard's Lear as nothing more than a cinematic train wreck, but even a train wreck has a beginning, a middle, and an end.  This was just an awful, ninety-minute mess.  It's no wonder that the producer was not happy with the finished product.

While the acting was dreadful, with Mr. Godard's accented diction almost entirely incomprehensible (and why was he wearing A/V cables in his hair?), there were a couple of positives.  This fan of the classic Batman TV series did enjoy seeing Burgess Meredith, even if a Batman episode is considerably more plausible.  Also, what child of the 1980's could possibly complain about seeing Molly Ringwald on screen?  Certainly not this one!

"Devastatingly beautiful sketches of life and art..."  That's how this film was described, and I have to question that.  Readers, beware when you read something like that, or when the words "artistic" or "visionary" rear their ugly heads.  Those may be synonyms for "incoherent tripe," as they are with this film.  Stay away.  Stay far, far away.

Stratford SparkNotes (Parts I and II)

One of the other Shakespearean offerings in this year's Stratford Festival was actually not one of Shakespeare's plays, per se.  It was four of them condensed into two.  Breath of Kings, conceived and adapted by company member Graham Abbey, combined Richard II, Henry IV (Part I), Henry IV (Part II), and Henry V into two separate plays, each roughly two hours and forty-five minutes in length.  I was able to see the two plays on consecutive days, a perfect time frame for them.

The first part of Breath of Kings, subtitled Rebellion, encompassed Richard II and I Henry IV.  The play, performed at the Tom Patterson Theatre, was done in the round with minimal set.  In fact, there was no permanent set, only a stage covered with ground-up car tires to simulate wood chips.  Props were brought in and out as necessary, but much of the design was left to the imagination of the audience.  It was a stark contrast from the lavish Macbeth set at the Festival Theatre.  All told, though, I thought it worked quite well.  The cast did marvelously with very little, and the lack of a set did not detract from the play.  In fact, it helped considerably, as the cast members moved into the seating areas for the action.  I was seated on an aisle that was much traveled with actors moving in and out.

The second part of Breath of Kings, subtitled Redemption, continued the saga with II Henry IV and Henry V.  The set for this was even more minimal, with the rubber shavings removed.  The stage itself was designed with numerous removable panels, suitable for graves, battlements, and to display a battle field torn apart by war.  Actors again used the entire theatre, including seating areas.  At the end of the II Henry IV portion, Falstaff and his friends used one of the balcony areas to watch the newly-crowned Henry V parade past.  The four of them moved into the front row.  Falstaff commented, "These are our seats," and the four sat on the laps of the patrons.  That did not last long as the group headed to the stage to see Henry.  An intimate setting indeed!

The story is not for the casual observer.  Prior to seeing the play, I brushed up on plot synopses of the four source plays.  I am glad that I did!  On more than one occasion, I heard audience members complain of confusion.  (One member complained that the playbill did not provide her a synopsis.  I don't think I have ever seen a playbill that had one!)  Admittedly, it was tough to keep things straight, even with some familiarity of the plays.  There were many characters in the story.  The playbill provided a family tree, but many regal titles were similar.  Also, characters are called by multiple names--Hal, Harry, and Henry, for instance.  To add to the confusion, most of the cast were engaged in multiple roles, changing costumes many times over.  It's impressive that actors can do this so seemingly easily, a tribute to their talent.  Audience members certainly need to pay attention, however.

The acting was excellent!  The leads--Tom Rooney as Richard II, Graham Abbey as Henry IV, Araya Mengesha as Hal/Henry V, and Geraint Wyn Davies as Falstaff--were tremendous in their roles.  Being able to see the transitions of the Henrys from Prince to King helped to understand their characters.  The other members of the cast were equally good.  I was impressed with Sebastien Heins (Aumerle, Prince John, Mouldy, and Le Fer) and Johnathan Sousa (Hotspur and Prince Thomas), both making their Stratford debuts in multiple roles.  They have bright futures indeed.  These shows were successful, I believe, because of the efforts of cast members.

The story started off slowly in Rebellion.  I found the Richard II portion to drag a bit.  There is not much comedy to the story, and it was the one source play with which I was least familiar.  The I Henry IV portion was enjoyable and closed off the first production suitably, while enticing viewers to return for the second production.  Redemption started off enjoyably with II Henry IV and progressed to a rousing finish with Henry V.  The Henry V portion was interesting.  Shakespeare's narrator was kept in the play, providing a contrast to the previous three parts of the epic which were not narrated.  The Dauphin and Katherine were played by the same actress.  In fact, at one point she transitioned from one part to another by letting down her ponytail and removing her jacket to reveal a full-length gown.  Voila, she's her own sister!  (I can understand why audience members might be confused!)  This transition occurred before Act III, Scene iv, which followed entirely in untranslated French.  I picked up an occasional word, but I wonder how many audience members were bilingual.  The climax of the play was adrenaline-raising, and the denouement, introducing a young Henry VI playing with tin soldiers, set the scene for a future production (or a future DVD viewing).

Condensing these four Shakespearean plays into what amounts to one work is an interesting proposition.  While it may strike one as something akin to SparkNotes (which it is, to an extent), I believe that it does have validity in its own right.  It allows the audience members to see a complete story, to watch characters grow and mature, to see rulers and countries rise and fall.  It also has interested me to see the four plays, each on its own.  I gave The Hollow Crown a try once but never finished it.  Thanks to Breath of Kings, it's back on my to-do list.

A Macbeth Chat

If the Stratford Festival had nothing more than world-class productions, it would be well worth a trip.  The multitude of additional programming is a tremendous asset.  I knew when scheduling my trip that there would be a "Free Forum," but I had no idea who would be featured.  As luck (or fate) would have it, the conversation on the morning after Macbeth was with Ian Lake and Krystin Pellerin, the stars of the show.  I was there, notepad at the ready, to record some of their thoughts.

The actors were asked how they prepared for their roles.  Ms. Pellerin said that the role had been in her psyche since the audition.  She added that the two roles are a pair and that they evolve together.  Mr. Lake stated that he loves to do research before a role.  He stopped short of traveling to Scotland based on advice of his grandfather ("William Shakespeare didn't go to Scotland.  Why should you?").  He did read the play to prepare, especially important because the director, Antoni Cimolino, stresses the text in his productions.  Lake asked himself, "Where am I inside of this?  Where is the capacity for murder, greatness?"  Difficult questions, methinks, for a difficult role.

When asked about the difficulty of Shakespearean language, Mr. Lake commented that he would like to do the role again ten years later to see where he is with it.  (I, for one, would love to see it!)  He continued that the language is unique in this play.  He likened it to a flood of words, "vomited out."  The one time he is able to slow down and to think clearly about his actions, Lady Macbeth enters and pushes him forward.  Speaking of Lady Macbeth, her character hits the ground at full speed.  We (and she) are thrown in directly and have little chance to breathe.

What about the intimacy of small theatres?  Both actors like it.  Ms. Pellerin commented on the thrill of hearing an audience listening to their words.  Mr. Lake related two stories.  In a previous role, he threw a knife (a prop, I hope) inadvertently into the audience, leading to mixed reactions from the guests.  In his current role, he has noted that, while speaking of a tale "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury" he has heard the speech finished in whispers from the audience.  It reminded me of the "To be or not to be" speech from Hamlet.

Ms. Pellerin was asked about recovering from performances of Lady Macbeth.  There is a large space of time within the play when her character is not on stage.  What does she do?  She replied that she rests.  The role is a demanding one, and she commented that it is important to warm down, especially after the play is finished.  Anyone who has seen her performance can understand such comments.

Mr. Lake was asked why Macbeth shuts out his wife after Banquo's murder?  He replied that it is not a choice.  Macbeth doesn't plan it.  He believes that shame is a large part.  Macbeth is ashamed of his actions, and he doesn't want her to suffer as he does.  Excluding her is a sign of his care for and love of her.  Ultimately, this is a play about the pursuit of happiness...an interesting thought about a play so violent and emotionally draining.

Both actors were asked about the admirable qualities in their characters.  Mr. Lake began, stating that it is not an actor's job to judge a character's actions.  The job is to find humanity, regardless.  In the case of Macbeth, the actor must accept the character's villainy.  He journeys from hero to villain through a series of bad choices, but he keeps going.  His final battle against Macduff is his opportunity to fight with honor one more time.  Ms. Pellerin called her character strong, brave, and honest.  As an actress, she finds it satisfying to flesh out Lady Macbeth's weaknesses.  The character dashes the idea of human perfection.  With both characters we are able to understand more about the layers of humanity.

The discussion ended on a light note, with a question about the actors' feelings on cell phones in the audience.  Mr. Lake related a story about an occurrence during Macbeth.  A cell phone rang during Macbeth's speech at the end of Act II, Scene 1.  It fit too perfectly for him not to enjoy it and to use it to advantage.

I go, and it is done.  The bell invites me.
Hear it not, Duncan, for it is a knell
That summons thee to heaven or to hell.

In a different production, though, Mr. Lake had to break character in the middle of a speech to ask an audience member to shut off the vibration of a call.  It is truly a shame that such instances even occur and that people cannot be apart from their devices for any sustained length of time.  Ms. Pellerin added comments about candy wrappers to the discussion.  The worst is the person who thinks that opening the candy slowly will make it less of an intrusion.  Again, why cannot audience members sit for a play without food or drink in hand?  Whatever happened to respect and decency?

Many thanks to the Stratford Festival for including so much additional programming to a season.  A long-time festival goer in the audience commented to me prior to the forum that she was surprised at the light attendance.  The forums are not really a secret, and they are certainly worth the time!

P.S.  What else did we learn from the Forum?  In addition to his acting work, Ian Lake is a recording artist with a track on iTunes, entitled "This Isn't My Day."  Check it out.  It's very good!

Scottish Spectacle

This year's trip to the Stratford Festival began with an anticipated Bucket List entry:  Seeing Macbeth live on stage.  With such a build-up, would I be disappointed?  Not at all!  In fact, this rates as one of the best stage shows of any kind that I have seen.

I decided to move down from the Festival Theatre balcony this year to take a seat in the orchestra.  It was perfect--comfortable with excellent sight lines.  Having a seat immediately adjacent to one of the voms gave a sense of being right in the middle of the action.  I know where to look for a seat on my next visit.

The play was set in traditional eleventh-century Scotland.  The set was compact and well-proportioned.  It was designed as a forest, but not so much that it became difficult to imagine a castle when necessary.  Trees, torches, upper and lower chambers--for such a small stage, dare I say it was lavish?  The sisters' cauldron was placed over the opening in the stage so that items could be raised up from beneath to simulate levitation.  Set changes occurred almost instantly in some cases.  As Macbeth's henchmen attacked and killed Banquo and chased Fleance into the forest, there was a cut to black.  The lights came up and suddenly the stage was a banquet hall with table and benches.  Kudos to the stage hands who made this transition perfectly seamless!

The acting in this production was phenomenal.  Ian Lake as Macbeth and Krystin Pellerin as Lady Macbeth were particularly noteworthy.  They fit the roles, and the roles fit them.  Lady Macbeth was psychotic from the outset, giving the audience little time to prepare.  It made me wonder, as an aside, what her backstory must be.  What happened to Lady Macbeth in her life before the play that turned her into such a character?  Macbeth evolved from a likable hero to a loathsome villain, and Mr. Lake made it believable throughout.  We were unable to see the dagger that leads him to murder, unable to get into his head to understand.  At the dinner banquet, though, Banquo's ghost was visible to us, welcoming us into Macbeth's ever-deepening mental instability.

The three weird sisters were terrifically creepy.  Their costuming, manner of speech, and a set of contact lenses made them literally chill-inducing.  Their final appearance in the play (no spoiler here) was one that will stay with me for a long time.

The only criticism that I could levy is one of volume.  While most of the dialogue was perfectly audible, some of Banquo's lines disappeared into the ether.  I was only four rows back from the stage; I wonder how the lines sounded in the balcony.

The play moved at a brisk pace.  It never felt long, and the 150 minute running time flew by.  I wonder how the actors recover from such a quick and moving production.  It took this audience member many minutes, and I was only watching!  To all involved in this production, I can give only one word.  Bravo!

Before He Was Shakespeare...

...he was Bill.  That is the premise of a new historical fiction (stress on the latter) movie, less about Hamlet than about its author.  The film was on the big screen courtesy of Fathom Events, and it is available (as of this typing) on cable as an on-demand offering.  Its DVD release is planned for later this spring.

Caution:  Some spoilers lie ahead.

We are taken back in time to Elizabethan England.  The island is under siege from King Phil-lip II, the King of Spain.  His armada having failed due to the vagaries of weather, he is looking for other ways to overtake England and to return it to the Catholics.  The King captures an Elizabethan spy, and soon a conference between the two powers to discuss the spy's return is to take place.  How best to use the meeting to remove the Queen?  Philip decides that a play's the thing.

This is where our hero, Bill, comes in.  Ousted from the band, Mortal Coil, due to his unpopular single-string lute soloing, he tries his hand at writing.  His attempt at musical comedy falls apart, and he turns for guidance to celebrated playwright, Christopher Marlowe.  Through a funny series of misadventures, the play ends up as the venue for Phillip's takeover of England.   Marlowe heads off to his eternal reward, the plot is thwarted, and Bill, I mean, William saves the day and begins a promising career as a playwright.  And everyone forgets about the spy whose capture started this whole thing.

In the vein of Mel Brooks or the Monty Python gang, this is a genuinely funny and enjoyable film.  Certainly one should not trust it too much for historical veracity, but for entertainment, it fits the bill.  (Apologies for the awful pun.)