Hamlet gets the sh!t kicked out of him
Fri, 8 Oct 2004, 05:19 amcrgwllms1 post in thread
Hamlet gets the sh!t kicked out of him
Fri, 8 Oct 2004, 05:19 amThe publicity for Hoopla's production of Hamlet ('Hamlet on speed', 'sped up and slimmed down') gave me the impression they'd be racing through the text; that there was potentially a lot of madcap comedy as three actors play all the roles, not unlike the Complete Works Of Shakespeare that was remounted a few years ago with Glynn Nicholas playing every moment for gags.
Well, actually, I wasn't really expecting such an extreme of absurd comedy (even though director Claire Hooper is extremely adept at performing in that style). But I was surprised to realise that in this 90 minute version, the pace was not so frantic that proper weight and solemnity wasn't given where it was due; and nor was the editing so severe that I felt anything was really missing. What it was was totally EFFICIENT. And extremely theatrical; relying totally on the skill of the performers to present characters, and of the director to create strong imagery and steer the unfolding of the story.
I have to admit a preference for this style of theatre: not relying on sets, costumes or props to any great extent, and therefore able to effect scene and character changes extremely rapidly, even cinematically. It also gives a lot of credit to the ability of the audience to follow and fill in the gaps with their own intelligence and imagination. Coupled with the fact that Shakespeare's language is laden with imagery and is inherently descriptive of time and place, this production was able to trim away all the non-essential elements, and yet still had time to depict images I would not have expected from a live theatre production. (It is a common technique in film versions to cut large passages of descriptive text where it can be shown in a few visual images; especially for reported action that occurs away from the current setting.... here, a few brief filmic images in dumb-show portrayed beautifully the development of the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia, and the incident of her death, without a word needing to be said.)
There was a bit of foyer debate as to whether this would have been totally clear to someone who had NO prior knowledge of the story and characters; to someone familiar with the play, a simple reference could transfer enough meaning to put us immediately in the picture...but some wondered if an initiate would not have been confused by some images and character changes. I tend to think that it WAS clear enough...the essentials were all there, and if you didn't know there was usually a gravedigger scene, for instance, you'd still figure out Hamlet was arriving at a funeral. (Alas, poor Yorick...I deleted him, Horatio.) But I also doubt whether anybody likely to attend would really have NO prior knowledge, and so this version is really aimed at people who will recognise and appreciate what's missing as well as what's there.
Notable moments that really kept the pace moving (without seeming to overspeed) were the overlap of speeches: Hamlet and his father's ghost played by the one actor; Claudius' praying interwoven with Hamlet's reaction; Rosencrantz and Guildernstern combined into the one character; the play-within-a-play occuring simultaneously with Claudius' reaction to it and Hamlet's conclusions.
So far I've only spoken of the direction and editing, which I found quite remarkable; but suffice to say it could not have worked so seamlessly without competent and focussed acting. Although a shorter play in total, each actor really had a massive responsibility to portray every character, with rarely time to rest. And the director gives credit to the cast for their assistance in shaping and revising the initial edit of the script.
Tim Minchen's Hamlet was immediate, intelligent, and real, brooding with a great sense of petulant humour that really captured the young prince out of his emotional depth. Doubling as his father's ghost gave a real edge to his madness and an authenticity to the older Hamlet...I'm surprised I've not seen this done before because it was very effective.
Renee Neuman-Storen swung easily between Ophelia, Gertrude, Laertes, and Ros&Guil. Her token adjustments of clothing were hardly necessary as it was all conveyed physically and vocally.
Dan Luxton - as Claudius, Polonius, Horatio, and the leader of the Players - was equally adept at changing roles, and distinguished between them easily.
The simple staging was very effective, turning the Rechabites into theatre-in-the-round, and framing it in see-thru curtains which combined with the lighting to sometimes obscure the action in a dramatic way, or allowed characters to hide from and avoid each other while still in full view...allowing the most mobile 'Arras' scene I've seen, which again, was wonderfully effective.
My main (only) disappointment with the show is that it has done away with jobs for about 15 other actors...and also I'm going to be fairly impatient now with any future production of Shakespeare that can't get it's point across in under two hours!
Cheers,
Craig
Well, actually, I wasn't really expecting such an extreme of absurd comedy (even though director Claire Hooper is extremely adept at performing in that style). But I was surprised to realise that in this 90 minute version, the pace was not so frantic that proper weight and solemnity wasn't given where it was due; and nor was the editing so severe that I felt anything was really missing. What it was was totally EFFICIENT. And extremely theatrical; relying totally on the skill of the performers to present characters, and of the director to create strong imagery and steer the unfolding of the story.
I have to admit a preference for this style of theatre: not relying on sets, costumes or props to any great extent, and therefore able to effect scene and character changes extremely rapidly, even cinematically. It also gives a lot of credit to the ability of the audience to follow and fill in the gaps with their own intelligence and imagination. Coupled with the fact that Shakespeare's language is laden with imagery and is inherently descriptive of time and place, this production was able to trim away all the non-essential elements, and yet still had time to depict images I would not have expected from a live theatre production. (It is a common technique in film versions to cut large passages of descriptive text where it can be shown in a few visual images; especially for reported action that occurs away from the current setting.... here, a few brief filmic images in dumb-show portrayed beautifully the development of the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia, and the incident of her death, without a word needing to be said.)
There was a bit of foyer debate as to whether this would have been totally clear to someone who had NO prior knowledge of the story and characters; to someone familiar with the play, a simple reference could transfer enough meaning to put us immediately in the picture...but some wondered if an initiate would not have been confused by some images and character changes. I tend to think that it WAS clear enough...the essentials were all there, and if you didn't know there was usually a gravedigger scene, for instance, you'd still figure out Hamlet was arriving at a funeral. (Alas, poor Yorick...I deleted him, Horatio.) But I also doubt whether anybody likely to attend would really have NO prior knowledge, and so this version is really aimed at people who will recognise and appreciate what's missing as well as what's there.
Notable moments that really kept the pace moving (without seeming to overspeed) were the overlap of speeches: Hamlet and his father's ghost played by the one actor; Claudius' praying interwoven with Hamlet's reaction; Rosencrantz and Guildernstern combined into the one character; the play-within-a-play occuring simultaneously with Claudius' reaction to it and Hamlet's conclusions.
So far I've only spoken of the direction and editing, which I found quite remarkable; but suffice to say it could not have worked so seamlessly without competent and focussed acting. Although a shorter play in total, each actor really had a massive responsibility to portray every character, with rarely time to rest. And the director gives credit to the cast for their assistance in shaping and revising the initial edit of the script.
Tim Minchen's Hamlet was immediate, intelligent, and real, brooding with a great sense of petulant humour that really captured the young prince out of his emotional depth. Doubling as his father's ghost gave a real edge to his madness and an authenticity to the older Hamlet...I'm surprised I've not seen this done before because it was very effective.
Renee Neuman-Storen swung easily between Ophelia, Gertrude, Laertes, and Ros&Guil. Her token adjustments of clothing were hardly necessary as it was all conveyed physically and vocally.
Dan Luxton - as Claudius, Polonius, Horatio, and the leader of the Players - was equally adept at changing roles, and distinguished between them easily.
The simple staging was very effective, turning the Rechabites into theatre-in-the-round, and framing it in see-thru curtains which combined with the lighting to sometimes obscure the action in a dramatic way, or allowed characters to hide from and avoid each other while still in full view...allowing the most mobile 'Arras' scene I've seen, which again, was wonderfully effective.
My main (only) disappointment with the show is that it has done away with jobs for about 15 other actors...and also I'm going to be fairly impatient now with any future production of Shakespeare that can't get it's point across in under two hours!
Cheers,
Craig