P.C. Hamlet

Recently I was pointed in the direction of an article entitled "The Modern Major Remodelling of the Gilbert and Sullivan Operas."  It appears in the February 2018 issue of New Theatre Quarterly (see citation below).  The author, Prof. Alan Fischler, was the inspiration for this blogging venture 177 posts ago.  It is only fitting that his new article is the subject of one of these posts...and that it intersects with the underlying theme of this blog.

The article describes the effects of political correctness on several of Gilbert and Sullivan's operas.  Included are discussions of Princess Ida, which mocks women's education, and The Mikado, which mocks the Japanese.  Prof. Fischler also describes Utopia, Limited, which "as an opera is not very good" (42), but recently has increased in popularity due to its anti-colonialist and anti-capitalist stance.  The article is an interesting and thought-provoking analysis of the ways in which modern sensibilities force reinterpretation of historical works and the validity of this revisionist behavior.

While Gilbert and Sullivan are outside of both the focus of this blog and the blogger's bailiwick, I had to smile when a reference to Hamlet appeared in the article.  It appears that cultural sensitivity (or hyper-sensitivity) is not a new phenomenon.  In 1907, The Mikado was banned in England out of fear that it would offend visiting Prince Fushimi of Japan.  Opposition to this measure rose on numerous fronts, including in the Houses of Parliament.  The following newspaper extract describes such one response.

"Mr Vincent Kennedy, M.P., has given notice that he will ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the play of Hamlet the King of Denmark is portrayed as a murderer; and whether, in view of the fact that Denmark is a friendly power, and this reference to the King is liable to cause offence in Denmark, he will ask the Lord Chamberlain to prohibit the production of this play; and whether he intends to bring in legislation to define and limit the powers of the Lord Chamberlain"  (Baily, 417).

Common sense prevailed and performances of Hamlet were not interrupted.  It was six weeks, however, before the Home Secretary would announce in the House of Commons that the ban on The Mikado was "unconditionally withdrawn" (Baily, 419).


Citations

Baily, Leslie.  The Gilbert and Sullivan Book.  Revised ed.  New York:  Coward-McCann, Inc., 1957.

Fischler, Alan. “The Modern Major Remodelling of the Gilbert and Sullivan Operas.” New Theatre Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1, 2018, pp. 35–46., doi:10.1017/S0266464X17000665.

Hamlet at UB

A chance visit to the University of Buffalo's Center for the Arts (CFA) website led to another Hamlet excursion.  While purchasing tickets for the David Byrne concert at the venue, I discovered that the university's Department of Theatre and Dance was producing Hamlet for the stage.  Another ticket purchase later, it would lead to a second trip to UB in one week.

The performance took place in the Drama Theatre.  While I have been to the CFA numerous times, it was my first visit to that particular room.  It is an excellent space--small (compared to the Mainstage), with comfortable stadium seating and great sight lines.  I was in the center section, Row B, and it did not feel too close to the action, which sometimes can be an issue.  I was able to see the entire stage, a proscenium with a rounded apron, without any difficulty.

The set consisted of one large piece:  a two-level welded metal lattice-type frame.  It generally resembled a castle, with the upper level serving as parapets.  Underneath was the castle's interior, including two thrones with design similar to the castle.  The latticework allowed actors to climb to the upper level, but the design also led to some confusion during the play.  Actors hung their coats on the lattice of a "solid" wall.  Actors passed through archways while others walked around the walls, a la TV's Police Squad.  At one point, Hamlet crawled through the wall to enter the interior and then exited through the arch.  A more consistent pattern of use would have helped.  Rounding out the permanent set were two six-tier chandeliers which may have been cast off from previous productions.  While other chairs and stools were brought onto stage as necessary, the set remained relatively barren.

The play opened with Barnardo and Francisco, soon joined by Marcellus and Horatio, atop the castle.  All four roles were cast with females.  Although I have seen instances with similar casting decisions, placing an actress in the role of Horatio still does not resonate.  In this case, the role was decidedly male, forcing a relatively easy suspension of disbelief.  The ghost was introduced as a giant shadow cast on stage by an actor standing in front of a light behind the audience.  I liked the effect.

The action moved to the interior of the castle as we were introduced to the members of the royal court.  All were clad in modern dress, mostly formal.  There was no discussion of Fortinbras or Norway, a fairly standard edition.  A more glaring issue, however, was casting a female as Polonius.  The believability factor was much less in this case than in that of Horatio.  Polonius was clad in a female pantsuit and heels.  On occasion, she teased her hair.  Was this a male role?  The portrayal was not easily believed as such.  This problem persisted throughout the performance.

Hamlet's introductory dialogue did not bode well for what was to come.  It struck me as forced; words without art.  The actor was hitting the words, but the feeling behind them was not apparent.  The emotion did not come across to this audience member as real.  On the positive side, though, Hamlet was the correct age for the story (as were his contemporaries).  I was willing to give the actor more time to get into the part.

Hamlet's meeting with the ghost led to one of the first oddities with blocking.  Whereas in the text Hamlet runs away from his friends to follow the ghost, here his friends climbed down from the castle to get away from him.  A corporeal ghost, clad in robe, chains, and chain mail, appeared.  When the discussion was complete, the ghost traded places with Hamlet's friends.  Its "Swear it!" commands came while it was seated on the throne, a nice bit of directorial design.

The first act continued reasonably if unemotionally.  Hamlet's costume, formal from the waist up and goth from the waist down, did not display much of an antic disposition.  The players (an entire troupe of females, dressed as clowns sans make-up) were not allowed to play much.  The first player's speech about Priam was badly mauled; Polonius' claims of its length were undeserved.  There were no red face and tears, which destroyed the sense of Hamlet's "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquy that followed.  The delivery took care of what was left of the speech, making it entirely unbelievable.

Tension between Claudius and Gertrude was visible during their subsequent interaction.  Upon delivering the line "I shall obey you," Gertrude pulled away, displaying obvious anger.  She was much more sympathetic toward Ophelia.  It was a sign that her loyalties lied more on the side of her son than her husband.

The "To be or not to be" soliloquy was delivered fairly well.  Upon spying "the fair Ophelia," a strange flashback occurred.  The two characters did a short bit of slow dancing, complete with musical accompaniment.  It was a rather awkward display of their former feelings for each other.  Ophelia was well-played in the nunnery scene as piteous, obviously controlled by her father/mother.

"The Mousetrap" scene showed a Hamlet who blamed Polonius for destroying the relationship with Ophelia.  Questionable editing led to the removal of Shakespeare's more colorful bits of dialogue in this scene--no capon, chameleon's dish, or witticisms about Caesar and Brutus.  There was no dumb show.  For some reason, Polonius sat with Ophelia during the play and Hamlet sat nearby on the floor.  Gertrude and Claudius were visibly affected by the play.  Gertrude was upset by the player queen's speech and confused by the poisoning, while Claudius was angered.

Notable issues with dialogue began to creep into the performance.  For example, this exchange.

Ophelia:  "You are as good as a chorus, my lord."
Hamlet:  "As woman's love."

The problems continued in the "by and by" interchange (which lacked any camels, weasels, or whales), with a halting "fool me" thrown in the middle.  With the "witching time of night" soliloquy, the first act came to a close.

The second act began with Claudius in a new formal suit and Polonius in a rain coat.  The latter's choice of attire was not addressed, but surely it was not raining indoors.  When Claudius began his soliloquy, the delivery elicited at least one laugh from the gallery.  The speech was not presented believably, and it was noticed.  Hamlet's retort was presented on the same stage level, engendering the question of how each does not hear the other.

At this point, the proverbial wheels began to fall off.  Polonius died (welcome but poorly blocked), and Hamlet directed his "cruel to be kind" line at the corpse.  Shortly thereafter, a shortened "How all occasions" soliloquy appeared.  Why?  All references to Fortinbras, the basis for this speech, had been removed.  If one is trying to edit the play for length, then this speech should go.  It was delivered terribly.  Hamlet stumbled over the words several times, apparently having forgotten his lines.  He climbed up to the top of the castle mid-speech and then climbed back down.  He screamed his monologue for no apparent reason.  It was painful to watch.

Ophelia, the unsung hero of the performance, delivered a very good madness scene.  The actress was believable, even shedding real tears.  She also showed off an excellent singing voice.  Her flowers were actual flowers, albeit artificial ones.  It was a nice touch.

The funeral scene was poorly done.  All of the humorous dialogue between the two gravediggers was excised for time constraints.  The pair acted their scene on the upper level, which could have worked.  Hamlet and Horatio were with them.  Unfortunately, the entire funeral party was on stage level.  Where, then, were Hamlet and Horatio, exactly?  Watching from the clouds?  Things worsened when Ophelia was placed on a bench as a grave.  Hamlet jumped down from the top to confront Laertes and the two fought.  Was everyone inside the grave?  The scene closed with Laertes carrying Ophelia's body offstage.  Why?  Yorick's skull sat at the edge of the upper level, watching the remainder of the action.  It was another subtle yet fitting effect.

The duel scene continued the downhill slide.  Osric was cast with no hat and no humor.  Laertes visibly poisoned his foil on stage, yet every other cast member seemed not to notice.  There was no pearl to drop into the cup; we were left to imagine one.  The duel itself was laughable, literally, as Hamlet tried to fend off Laertes with his leather coat.  Claudius died after a phantom and bloodless slash to his throat that was very much off target.  Liquid (water?) in the poisoned cup was thrown on his face, eliciting more laughs from the audience.  Eventually, everyone had died, the lights went down and the play was over, roughly two hours after it had begun.

Reflecting upon the evening, I wonder about the purpose of the production.  The Director's Note in the playbill included a reference to sharing the play "with our young audiences...."  (Additional viewings were scheduled solely for school audiences.)  Fellow audience members commented before the play about it being required viewing for students enrolled in various UB courses.  One student noted that his course had no books; the only requirement was attendance at (and tests on) the plays, much cheaper than the alternative.  Two patrons near me left at intermission, after one asked the other, "Do you have your ticket stub?"  I would like to believe that the cast and crew were sincere in their intentions, but the finished product, with questionable blocking and editing and very uneven delivery, leaves questions.  Was this intended as serious theatre or merely as a school requirement?  Regardless, I must give credit to the cast and crew for making the attempt.  While certain aspects of the play were noteworthy, greater overall care would have made this a much better, more believable, production.

 

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.