Hamlet

Thanks Garreth, some great observations you have made there from what has been said so far. I only wish you'd have a chance to see the play to offer further opinion on how clear our production is compared to how Gordon described it. (Note, by that I'm not implying that Gordon said the play wasn't clear; but rather that the way he said what he said was not entirely clear. So yes, it is conceivable from the post above that maybe everyone goes home thinking they have actually seen Rosencrantz and Guildernstern, even though they don't appear at all in our edit of the play. Who am I to know what an audience might be thinking? But I do warn against anyone assuming that someone with 'considerable play watching experience' need automatically be taken as gospel just because they frequently write things down..!) I'm not sure that it was courage that made me respond, rather it was convenient circumstance. If Gordon or anyone else had written a scathing review and I had expressed any opposition to what had been said, everyone would have considered it sour grapes. So the fact that he said he liked it and was overall positive means I am free to bring up these points without appearing to have any agenda. None of what we've said affects how I feel the play will be received. And I have occasionally wanted to make similar comments about other things Gordon has written that have confused me, but not having seen those plays in question, I didn't feel qualified to raise objections. In this instance I feel I CAN make very informed objections...so I will. Now to your points: You are quite right that the actors of Shakespeare's time would not have put on accents, and I don't think I implied that. Interestingly, (I'm sure you would have discovered this in your studies) the contemporary accent of Shakespeare's time was very different to standard English accents of today, and was actually not dissimilar to some American accents...notably the current Boston/New England region of the US. So it's not such a stretch to say his phrases with Americanized vowels. That's close to the way they were written. On our part, it was a directorial choice to place it in a familiar American soap context, which does the same thing Shakespeare would have been doing placing his stories in a romantic European context that everyone was largely familiar with. Had we kept ours as Denmark, we would not have needed to put on accents. The fact that we set it elsewhere is simply an artistic choice, and the accents become necessary because we are not rewriting any dialogue to explain that choice. ('Denmark', through use of other non-dialogue indicators, becomes a corporation, rather than a kingdom. We're not the first to stage the play with this kind of interpretation.) We found parallels in soap opera...but apart from a few deliberately cheesy moments, mostly on film, the rest of the play doesn't pander to this style. The Dallas sound reference is simply a throwaway joke, we could just as easily have referred to any personal drama, be it as mainstream as 'Home and Away' or as sophisticated as 'Six Feet Under'... The 'heightened reality' I speak of is typical of these personal dramas and particularly useful in tragedy. Like your friend says, there wouldn't be much of a play to watch if Hamlet was not conflicted by his feelings for the women in his life. And all the little tragedies...if Claudius had allowed Hamlet to go back to University in Wittenberg, if Ophelia had been honest with Hamlet rather than allowing her father to manipulate her in his schemes, if Polonius had allowed Ophelia the same understanding as he did his son, and not been so meddlesome, if Hamlet was aware that Claudius was unable to be truly repentant...if, if, if....the story might've simply been resolved at any number of points. All of these ironic moments, the personal mistakes and tragic flaws, are how it all adds up to be one big tragedy. That's also classic soap opera scriptwriting. Shakespeare was a visionary! The choice to concentrate on the personal relationships and none of the war story between Norway and Poland is largely one of wanting to make it manageable with a minimal cast of 7, and also because cuts must inevitably be made to the original 4 hour text, so why not choose to focus on the interior world rather than the exterior? It's still a highly powerful and involved 140 minute play...other productions might choose to include the further subplots, we simply don't. That's not this interpretation. And INTERPRETATION is the entire point. Unlike a new contemporary play, a huge percentage of the audience for a Shakespeare production does not come to see the story unfold and discover what happens. Particularly for Hamlet, almost everyone knows enough of it not to be surprised by any part of the story. We all know he dies in the end. So what's the point of attending, unless you are there to see the interpretation and whether it works and interests you? When I brought up the question of Freudian interpretation, my argument with Gordon was simply about his emphatic use of the word 'controversial', which I don't think it is. I actually think it's a bit of a cliché to consider Hamlet overly Oedipal, and not controversial at all. (Not to mention that Gordon brought up Oedipus in reference to Hamlet's relation with Ophelia, whereas it would have been much more correct to refer to the scenes with Gertrude). I wouldn't consider our production Oedipal at all, certainly not in comparison to some I have seen (Glenn Close and Mel Gibson pashing in the Zefferelli film for instance!) I think it's obvious that Hamlet loved his Dad, prematurely taken from him. So he resents his uncle taking his place...even before the vision of the ghost informs him that a murder has taken place and turns it into a revenge play. He loves but resents his mother for the decisions she has made, and too easily assigns her apparent fickleness to all women...she is obviously a huge influence on his life and how he regards females. He has feelings for Ophelia but can't maintain a relationship due to his low self worth and paranoia, and then his feeling she has betrayed him. He also has strong feelings for Horatio, who he nevertheless takes somewhat for granted as a friend (a situation made very interesting by casting and playing Horatio as female)....whichever way you look at it, Freud would have had a field day! In your argument disagreeing with this point, you say "Hamlet is a young man". But according to the script itself, in the calculations made by the gravedigger, Hamlet must be at least 30. But yes, he plays better as a young and in some ways immature TYPE regardless of his actual AGE (which is how I am getting away with it despite being 40 myself!) We don't say he NEEDS to be a pop star to get away with his odd behaviour. But it certainly suits our interpretation, which is capitalising on the musical skills of myself, Rhoda Lopez, and Whitney Richards, and is thoroughly consistent with the text, which has an amazing number of musical references. Your last point about Hamlet's 'odd behaviour' not making headlines...do you forget he slaughters Polonius? In a modern context that would certainly make headlines! Yet somehow, as he is 'beloved of the people', he is not immediately arrested for this, but the King himself contrives to punish him in secret by sending him to execution in England, and then when that coverup fails he tries to make it look like Hamlet dies by 'accident' in the swordplay. Somehow Hamlet is more powerful than the King. Your average young man of today could not get away with this. Hamlet wields a huge amount of power. In our modern context, where Claudius is less a king and more a business baron trying to effect a coverup, it helps convey that power to portray Hamlet as a popular celebrity. Entirely consistent with his character, it's also highly marketable to the audiences we perform to, and a great excuse for me to pull out the guitar and show off..! Please, if your train re-emerges from the tunnel, continue. Especially if you are able to view our production, add your own opinion. I hope you can tell, similar to the way Gordon stated that 'Hamlet is the most skilled of Shakespeare's plays at rhetoric', that everything I argue here is in no means personal and always in that spirit of rhetoric. I find it entertaining to argue. It keeps me in character! Let me also reassure anyone who may now be frightened off from posting a review of our show...I promise not to cut anyone down for having a personal opinion! Gordon is a seasoned veteran and will continue to have strong and valid opinions regardless of me pointing out a few silly errors. I encourage this, and welcome anyone's view of the show, favorable or not. There's still time for me to improve something! Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------