Hamlet

Wed, 26 Aug 2009, 08:20 am

‘The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark’ a powerful tragedy by William Shakespeare, is presented by the Bare Naked and Class Act Theatre companies. Performed on the main stage at the Subiaco Arts Centre, Wed 26^th Aug 8pm, Thu 27^thAug 10 a.m. & Fri 28^th Aug 10 a.m. Further performances in Mandurah on the 18^th September.

It is the year 2000 (four hundred year ahead of the play’s true date of 1600) in the royal castle at Elsinore in Denmark. Prince Hamlet (Craig Williams) strumming an electric fuzz guitar tells us in song of the death of his father.

Hamlet’s best friend, Horatio (Rhoda Lopez) arrives and tells Hamlet of sightings of the old King’s ghost by the sentries. On hearing this, Hamlet tries to see the ghost for himself. When the spectre appears (on video, like the start of the old ‘Dr Who’ series) the King’s spirit tell how Claudius had poisoned him and requests that Hamlet seeks revenge. After some hesitation, Hamlet decides to take vengeance on his uncle Claudius (Dan Luxton) who has gained the throne by a dubious election and, almost incestuously, married the widowed Queen Gertrude (Angelique Malcolm), Hamlet's mother.

Laertes (Ben Russell), the father of Hamlet’s girlfriend Ophelia (Whitney Richards), returns from the wars and is told by Polonius (Stephen Lee) that he suspects Hamlet does not have sincere feelings for Ophelia. Then to make things worse Polonius tells Queen Gertrude that he suspects Hamlet is unbalanced. Initially Prince Hamlet feigns madness, and as an alibi, simulates grief.

Then the trouble really begins – who will gain the other’s love. Who will die in the process?

Director Stephen Lee has an exceptional knowledge of Shakespeare’s writings, and even in this contemporary version, he manages to pass on a full understanding of the script to the audience, which last night was comprised mainly of school students. He also made accessible the hidden agendas of the play. Written at a time of religious upheaval, there is a Catholic versus Protestant theme. Also, satirical playwrights were punished for politically ‘offensive’ works, so Shakespeare had to hide any digs at the establishment. Here Lee has given some of the characters an American ‘deep south’ accent to hint at the strife between Norway and Denmark, I felt the success of this idea was variable.

The play’s light relief, the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern scene, is delivered in this production with great success as a hammed-up video scene from the old TV series ‘Dallas’.

Hamlet is the most skilled of all Shakespeare’s plays at rhetoric and, backed with a VERY strong cast, Craig Williams captured the tricky portrayal of the many sensitive meanings with clarity.

The scene where Hamlet fought with and abused Ophelia, the director hinted at the Prince’s possible (but controversial) Oedipus complex. Ophelia’s collapse into madness is superbly depicted with full emotions by Whitney Richards, in her first major production. In a play that is flowing with moral corruption, and which considers most women to be mere whores, the director has chosen a woman to play Horatio – with great success.

Hamlet is Shakespeare's longest play and most popular work, and it still ranks high among his most performed. Here we have a novel approach that was most successful, and with convincing, vicious fight scenes the play was loved by the young audience, who possibly came to truly understand the story for the first time. Most enjoyable, a difficult play handled with great talent.

Thread (20 posts)

Threaded Flat

Gordon the OptomWed, 26 Aug 2009, 08:20 am

Then the trouble really begins – who will gain the other’s love. Who will die in the process?

The play’s light relief, the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern scene, is delivered in this production with great success as a hammed-up video scene from the old TV series ‘Dallas’.

Hamlet is the most skilled of all Shakespeare’s plays at rhetoric and, backed with a VERY strong cast, Craig Williams captured the tricky portrayal of the many sensitive meanings with clarity.

crgwllmsWed, 26 Aug 2009, 05:44 pm

All his golden words are spent...

Among the things I've discovered attempting to play Hamlet: he is an arrogant smart arse who delights in the sound of his own argument, never lets go by a chance to show how clever he is, refuses to suffer fools gladly, and runs rings around anyone he disagrees with. Anyone wondering why I was cast? Gordon, I respect that you see so many shows. And that you always make the effort to talk intelligently about them. And that you are hugely positive about the industry in general. But I do find some of what you say quite odd. And seeing as I have the afternoon off with nothing better to do, why not start getting into character a few hours early? And indeed, any discussion I can eke out of this thread is useful, as we only have tonight and two matinees to go, so I might as well get my money's worth out of this thread before we close. It's probably not considered 'kosher' to argue about a review of your own show. But when there are odd errors in the information, it tends to call into disrepute the credentials of the writer, which somewhat negates what good has been said. Someone actually in the show is in the best position to notice and draw attention to these oddities. I'll try to avoid any comment about the actual value judgements you have made, as I respect your right to express your opinion, favourable or not. And anyway, Hamlet would shoot first, and debate about what questions to ask later..! I know you have made the point previously that you claim to like leaving deliberate errors in the stuff you write (or just make stuff up), to see who's paying attention. While I smile at the eccentricity, I still don't believe it really helps the way your writing comes across. I certainly don't want to discourage you from continuing to write your prolific reviews - however, because you are so prolific and at the forefront of this website, I want to encourage the readers here to be intelligently critical and not to take everything you write as gospel. It firstly strikes me as odd that you praise us for passing on a full understanding of the script, yet you seem to display large gaps in your own understanding! And for a script that is SO well known, it hardly seems necessary to spend half your review reiterating it...yet the bits you DO say are often either incorrect or are assumptions taken from your knowledge of the script but nothing to do with our actual production! I'm sorry, but it is misleading to call it 'reviewing', unless you are noting what you actually saw in the particular show! 'It is the year 2000'...don't know where you got this from. We set it NOW, unless you are referring to the rather dated American soap themes (Dallas/Dynasty) which should therefore suggest early 80s. "In the royal castle at Elsinore in Denmark"...not in our production. We're in a wealthy corporation in a southern US state, possibly Texas. Laertes is not the father of Ophelia; he's returning from school not the wars; you've confused who says what to whom about Hamlet's feelings for Ophelia; Hamlet feigns madness, but THAT is his alibi...he is not feigning his anger or grief. "There is a Catholic versus Protestant theme" ....REALLY? That seems like a huge leap to me, and you can't slip that one in without providing some explanation! I certainly don't see it. Are you thinking of Romeo & Juliet? "Shakespeare had to hide any digs at the establishment"...while this may be true of some other plays, I don't know that I get this at all from his script of Hamlet. What event are you referring to here, or is it another guess? "The Rosencrantz and Guildernstern scene".... - is a part of the play which is entirely cut! You may have been referring to the joke reference to their names in the credits of the film Hamlet plays, but the scene you refer to has nothing to do with them...it's the play within a play known as 'The Mousetrap'. Forgive me for brutally listing these flaws, but they really stand out to anyone who vaguely knows anything about this famous script...and have little or nothing to do with our actual portrayal, which is what I'd prefer you write about. I don't get why you feel you should write so much about the script - and yet get it wrong. "An American 'deep south' accent' to hint at the strife between Norway and Denmark"...is that really what you interpreted? Considering that almost all the political references to that war have been cut in this production, that seems like another big reach. As we're actively trying to avoid the story of international strife, it seems strange you should read that as being our intention! If the accents need explaining, Shakespeare very often set his stories in far off places, usually Italy (Venice, Milan, Rome, Verona, etc) so the English could wonder and marvel at the crazy goings on of its inhabitants, and not be too critical of the heightened reality of it all. In a modern context that's just what we do looking at the crazy celebrities in America. So it makes sense to draw a parallel in the tumultuous personal story to the kind of goings on in an American soap opera. And while a modern audience might not relate to a Prince getting away with somewhat unstable behaviour, we can easily relate to seeing how rock star celebrities do so. Whether we achieved what we set out to do is a matter of opinion. I think some of the accents, including mine, are problematic. But it's a choice. I think you're quite right about the sexual politics of the play, though it is not such a controversial reading. Hamlet has often been explained by Freudian theory. Hamlet is fixated on his mother, both loving her and hating her too much, which explains why he is initially so resentful of his uncle, and also probably why he finds it so difficult to relate to Ophelia and other women. "Ophelia’s collapse into madness is superbly depicted with full emotions by Whitney Richards"....I totally agree. I love what she does in those scenes, and they make sense to me far more than I have seen in previous productions or films. "the director has chosen a woman to play Horatio â€“ with great success"...again I totally agree. A female Horatio is one of the most interesting aspects of Stephen's interpretation. That, and the musical aspect throughout the show, are some of the things that interest me most about being in the production, and make me hope more people see it. Thanks, for your review, and all the opinions you offered. I hope you take my criticisms as they are intended, and feel free to make further comments should you see fit. To quote a line unfortunately cut in this production: "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." All opinions welcome. All facts contested and debated! Cheers, Craiglet ~<8>-/====\---------

GarrethWed, 26 Aug 2009, 07:37 pm

Well Craig, I say it takes

Well Craig, I say it takes alot of courage to stand up and correct a reviewer who has written an extremely positive report of your latest work. I will take this opportunity, seeing as you invited everyone, to lob a few balls back into your court... Danish or Yank-ish I'll leave you to decide which. Firstly, perhaps Gordon is very much mistaken... Maybe your production is not as clear as Gordon thinks it was. In which case I feel extreme pity for all those poor english teachers who will now be marking essays wherein Laerte's now plays Ophelia's father and correcting students who now think Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are the actors in "The Mousetrap". It surely follows dosen't it; if a man of Gordon's considerable play watching experience can't get the story line right from watching your production, what chance do your school audiences stand? "If the accents need explaining, Shakespeare very often set his stories in far off places, usually Italy (Venice, Milan, Rome, Verona, etc) so the English could wonder and marvel at the crazy goings on of its inhabitants, and not be too critical of the heightened reality of it all." etc. Well, here I can be of some assistance also. I have spent a few months now, studying the work of linguists like David Crystal who have attempted to reconstruct the english accent of Shakespeare's theatre. See, an Elizabethan audience is not so far removed from a modern audience. If you tell an audience "We're in Verona, Italy" then the audience understands we're in Verona, Italy regardless of accent. Indeed Crystal's work on the London accent of the 1600's when put into practice has bought to light just how well the rhyming now works, how much easier the text fits Iambic, Trochaic and other rhythms that Shakespeare writes in and it also speeds up the text. We can conclude from this that Shakespeare's actors very certainly would not have "put on an accent" to demonstrate that we are in a different place. I understand that you're saying, we being the bunch of Larrakin Aussies that we are, can only believe the events if they're happening in the middle of some american soap opera because otherwise we might not get why those blokes and sheila's are talking like a bunch of drongos. "As we're actively trying to avoid the story of international strife, it seems strange you should read that as being our intention!" Considering you're trying to give your audience a firm grip on the heightened reality of the play, I find it strange that you didn't include this. Seeing as the stories filtering through the media to our TV sets at home about the ongoing international strife could possibly help us to feel somewhat like Hamlet ourselves, aware and yet unaware of the inevitable storm of war brewing outside Perth's... Uh I mean Elsinore's walls. Certainly this would be the case for school students who are home in time to see the news and more likely to watch it than something as crass as Day's of Our Lives or another soap which finished long before they were born i.e. Dallas. "I think you're quite right about the sexual politics of the play, though it is not such a controversial reading. Hamlet has often been explained by Freudian theory. Hamlet is fixated on his mother, both loving her and hating her too much, which explains why he is initially so resentful of his uncle, and also probably why he finds it so difficult to relate to Ophelia and other women." OR as a friend of mine would say, if he wasn't there wouldn't be much of a play to watch. Or again in my own opinion perhaps he's just really really really F@#ked off that his uncle has murdered his Dad and may have done so in conspiracy with his mother, the woman whom he above everyone else is supposed to honour and love as the bible sets down for us. So one might begin to understand Hamlet's somewhat conflicting feelings when it comes to mummy dearest. And we do know that Hamlet is a good christian, after all he does refuse to kill Claudius while he's at prayer oh and I might tack on that murder is an infernal sin so again Hamlet's hesitation is understandable. Every critic berates poor Hamlet for his hesitation but my question for them is, how many people have you been asked to kill lately? So, I disagree with the freudian reading of Hamlet, I think he's a young man and being a young man is constantly torn between whether he is doing the right or wrong thing and this conflict does not make young men the most ameanable of creatures, as I am sure my mother would tell you. Also I refute that Hamlet must needs become a pop star to explain why he gets away with his odd behaviour. I behave oddly all the time and get away with it, it's just that my odd behaviour dosen't make headlines and incidentally neither does Hamlet's. I think all young people are prone to acting in very odd ways, some stop shaving and start protesting whale slaughter, some start living a much more hedonistic lifestyle and some... well some... Go to law school *shudder* and others become very odd and decide to become actors... Hmm got interrupted by dinner and have now lost my train of thought... I think it went into a tunnel somewhere near Switzerland, i'll let you know if I find it again.

crgwllmsThu, 27 Aug 2009, 04:59 am

Apricot Danish

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>-/====\---------

Gordon the OptomThu, 27 Aug 2009, 08:47 am

Wow, that is what I call a

Wow, that is what I call a bollocking! Good on you for stating your mind Craig. I don't fully agree with your interpretation of what I wrote - or meant to write - but appreciate your comments.

crgwllmsThu, 27 Aug 2009, 04:25 pm

West Australian review p8 Today section

Steve Bevis wrote a review which seems quite fair. It seems to have mainly worked for him, apart from the concept of using accents. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Walter PlingeFri, 28 Aug 2009, 03:22 pm

Age matters

Craig, I find your rebuttal hilarious. In a good way. Like you said, it's nice that you can discuss these things, and I'm glad Gordon didn't take it to heart. I was wondering about one thing you said though - that, according to calculations, Hamlet would have been about 30? This would make him, by Elizabethan standards, at least middle-aged, if not quite old - since, from the majority of what I've read, the life expectancy at that time was only about 45ish I believe. Unless I'm recalling my facts wrong. Any thoughts on this one? Could you explain to me how his age is calculated, since I don't have my complete works on hand?

GarrethFri, 28 Aug 2009, 03:55 pm

I too went to check my

I too went to check my facts after Craig pointed it out to me. Hamlet is indeed thirty according to the Gravedigger... Though there seems to be ALOT of debate about Hamlet's age. This is the section of text I am referring to: Ham. --How long hast thou been a grave-maker? 1 Clown. Of all the days i' the year, I came to't that day that our last King Hamlet overcame Fortinbras. Ham. How long is that since? 1 Clown. Cannot you tell that? every fool can tell that: it was the very day that young Hamlet was born,--he that is mad, and sent into England. Ham. Ay, marry, why was be sent into England? 1 Clown. Why, because he was mad: he shall recover his wits there; or, if he do not, it's no great matter there. Ham. Why? 1 Clown. 'Twill not he seen in him there; there the men are as mad as he. Ham. How came he mad? 1 Clown. Very strangely, they say. Ham. How strangely? 1 Clown. Faith, e'en with losing his wits. Ham. Upon what ground? 1 Clown. Why, here in Denmark: I have been sexton here, man and boy, thirty years. It is also plausible that Shakespeare made Hamlet about thirty to suit his actor Burbage's age which would have been about 33 at the time of the play's first performance (he also weighed in at a massive 240 pounds, apparently). You are right though when you state that the average life expectancy in Elizabethan england was 45 and it was normal for women to marry at the age of fourteen or fifteen. Taking this into consideration it makes sense that Gertrude would only be about 45 to Hamlet's 30 and Claudius not necessarily much older than that.

Targuus TaargusFri, 28 Aug 2009, 05:51 pm

Who Cares?

Shakespeare is for chumps anyway. He's so old, he's got to be as old as my Dad now. Why not do new plays like the play I just wrote, it's about a guy with no legs called Andrew. He joins a travelling carnival and get embroiled in a steamy love affair between the bearded lady and some siamese twins. It's called Craig Williams by Targuus Taargus. It'll be better than any of yours' plays and stuff. Yours faithfully, Targuus Taargus

Gordon the OptomFri, 28 Aug 2009, 06:19 pm

All his Golden Words are spent - not quite, here are some more

I have found a couple of seconds to reply to Craig. Although, as you say, Hamlet is an arrogant smart arse who delights in the sound of his own argument, your arguments are with sincerity.

I do see many shows, but that does not make my opinion automatically correct, it just gives me a larger range of plays or versions with which to compare.

You may find some of what I say quite odd, but tastes vary. I have seen some shows that miss on many levels, and yet I may admire the director and cast for trying something new and adventurous. Your show was novel, with a great many new ideas, which, if they have been misunderstood, then by all means feel free to ‘argue about a review of your own show.’

If an audience member says they enjoyed a show, don’t assume that all of the audience ‘saw’ the same play, out of the 2-300 people in the theatre the other night, I am certain that dozens of versions will have been experienced on the same night. Even the cast members will have seen the production in different lights. On the TV’s ‘Movie Show’ David and Margaret will often have very diverse interpretations of a film. Thankfully, you never feel obliged to agree with my judgements – that is what keeps the theatre alive. I strongly agree with your comment ‘I want to encourage the readers here to be intelligently critical, and not to take everything you write as gospel.’

If I can comment on your writings.

Re: ‘It firstly strikes me as odd that you praise us for passing on a full understanding of the script.’ I have seen a couple of Shakespearean productions recently, where hidden meanings have been totally missed, supposedly because the metaphor or double-entendre used has not been realised by the director or actor. Stephen had his cast feed his audience with information with excellent hand and body language.

Like the myriad of kids and teachers, I thought I was about to see Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ and so foolishly spent much of the performance trying read between the lines, in order to link your contemporary production to the theme and gist of the true version. As Garreth says ‘pity for all those poor English teachers who will now be marking essays on a different play’. I thought that the play’s storyline was really clear, now you have cast doubt on my interpretation.

I do reviews aiming to provide the general feel of a production – not critiques – although I am most happy to discuss plays in great depth with audience or cast privately.

'It is the year 2000' ... or 2009? Who cares, it wasn’t 1600.

"In the royal castle at Elsinore in Denmark"... not in our production. The company’s sign was ‘Denmark Corp’ which I assumed was based in Elsinore, even you seem a little unsure as to the true site.

"The Rosencrantz and Guildernstern scene".... is a part of the play which is entirely cut! I agree the original version was missing, however when their names were credited at the beginning of the video as ‘the producer’ and ‘director’, naturally I tried to see how your paraphrasing fitted the original interpretation. On hearing the ‘Dallas’ theme – for the young, it was an old TV programme - in which I thought that I was witnessing JR’s murder, accordingly I linked this section to the strong theme of greed and power that runs throughout Hamlet. Sorry I was wrong, it was Agatha Christie’s ‘Mousetrap’ instead – don’t get it, sorry.

You say ‘I think some of the accents, including mine, are problematic.’ Agreed. The American accents / drawl, whilst excellently enounced (especially Dan Luxton), I felt a pointless complication to an already complex play.

During Ophelia’s beating by Hamlet, as he lay on her - he hesitated – and I felt this was him thinking of his mother (an Oedipus complex can only refer to a mother – certainly not Ophelia). You doubt the controversial theory of the Oedipus complex, sorry but there are great arguments on this topic, but few will argue with his attitude to women.

‘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.’ Craig, it is never sour grapes as long as you can give reasonable justification for your comments. The importance of being earnest.

‘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.’ Ask 100 school students, even those to whom you were performing the other night, and I think you may be horrified by the response and lack of knowledge of even the basics of this play. Ask them to name two characters and one would be Hamlet the other Yorrik!!

Don’t forget Craig, I know where you live – and what is worse I can remove you from my Facebook friends at the push of a button.

Long live ‘Gertrude the Cry’

Grant MalcolmFri, 28 Aug 2009, 07:57 pm

Bastards

I've spent the last few years mostly in self imposed exile, blissfully ignorant of what is passing on the stages and in the greenrooms around the world, this country and this town.

But just occasionally, very occasionally something like this crops on here and I can't help thinking, "Damn, but I wish I'd seen that show!" Not necessarily even that I might join the debate but simply that I might be attuned to the nuance of the finely tuned and carefully constructed argument taking place.

Thanks Gordon, Garreth, Craig (and the Hamlet crew) for a fascinating read.

Bastards.

;-)

Cheers
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

crgwllmsSun, 30 Aug 2009, 06:03 am

Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows...?

Thanks Gordon, for clarifying....and for being a good sport. >>"Like the myriad of kids and teachers, I thought I was about to see Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ and so foolishly spent much of the performance trying read between the lines, in order to link your contemporary production to the theme and gist of the true version." Do you NOT think you saw Shakespeare's Hamlet?? While Steven made edits to the script (as do virtually all productions), the script was undoubtably Shakespeare's. What do you mean by 'the theme and gist of the true version'? While we have modernised the setting, virtually every decision was in order to strengthen and clarify the 'theme and gist' of character relationships, situation, and plot, in the eyes of our modern audience. It is therefore very true to the text. I assume by 'true version' you mean 'original version', in which case you are not talking about the script, which remains constant, but of directing choices. And obviously, the original production of Hamlet would have been staged in a style that would seem relevant and comprehensible to the audience of the time. You call ours a 'contemporary production' but we are doing no less than Shakespeare's own King's Men would have done with the text...performed it in a style accessible to the audience it was played for. I personally consider it an odd concept to believe that the 'true' way of performing something would be to adopt a style and costume from 400 years ago. Shakespeare didn't ever do that. That's not a play so much as it is a history lesson. You know I took no issue with any of your OPINIONS of the show - thankfully most of them were highly positive! I respect both your RIGHT to have any opinion, and the ACTUAL opinions you put forward. No conflict there. It was purely and simply the demonstrably incorrect statements (that can be verified as such from the script) that I was making fun of. "Who cares, it wasn’t 1600." In my experience of seeing any Shakespeare play, it is pretty rare that it will actually be set in 1600. They are almost always set in a different time to when it was written - most often in the current era of the audience watching, but a close second is to set it in a time consistent with a particular design element (the 70's hippy era, or the 40's war era, etc). As it's almost a given it wouldn't be set in 1600, it seemed quite odd for you to arbitrarily decide it was set 9 years ago....but I see now perhaps you meant to say this DECADE of the 2000's, and so you are definitely right. The point of 'Denmark Corp' was to justify the script mentions of Denmark, while we were denying it to be the country. (I've since discovered it's exactly what Michael Almereyda did in his film starring Ethan Hawke and Kyle MacLachlan, making Hamlet's world an American business corporation. Or you might be more familiar with Baz Luhrman's film of Romeo & Juliet, where he gives their pistols brandnames like 'Rapier' to avoid changing any of the dialogue.) If you didn't find that clear, I guess it wasn't. I guess the film is still a bit confusing to you. There is NO paraphrasing. It is the 'play within a play' (to catch the conscience of the king) spoken by the player King and player Queen. Shakespeare himself names it 'The Mousetrap'...nothing to do with Agatha Christie! In the original staging, Hamlet tells some actors to enact a particular murder story in front of his uncle. In our version, Hamlet tells some mates to make a film of it to show his uncle. (It solved us needing any more than 7 in the cast). Hamlet makes so many comments degrading the performance, that it is not uncommon to take it that the players aren't actually that good...so in parallel we deliberately have a film that is rather cheesily made. And so the jokes of the Dallas theme, and to put Rosencrantz and Guildernstern (who do not appear in our version) in the credits, were simply that - jokes. I thought most people got this, but obviously some did not. I'm interested to find out if you really thought Hamlet was 'thinking of his mother' when he hesitated over Ophelia because of anything I ACTUALLY conveyed, or whether you have imposed this interpretation simply because you had previously heard of the Oedipus complex links? As I thought I explained to Garreth, I certainly didn't doubt that there is a theory of the Oedipus complex related to Hamlet - in fact I emphasised that there IS, because what I DID doubt was that it is CONTROVERSIAL. That's the only word I was taking issue with. I think the Freudian reading is rather a common interpretation, so not controversial at all. Having said that, MY interpretation of Hamlet's moment with Ophelia was a moment of personal confusion, shame and regret..even as he expressed anger and longing. After all, later in the play Hamlet professes that he really loved Ophelia, and I choose to believe him. I therefore need to believe there is hope of a relationship in the previous scene, even as Hamlet screws it up. And so for me, while he both loves and despises his mother, there is no consideration of a desire to sleep with her; so in our production at least, there is no Oedipus complex as it is commonly understood. Maybe you saw an Oedipus simplex. I concede that perhaps 100 students (probably more) may horrify me with their lack of knowledge about this play...but it doesn't alter the point I was making to Garreth, which was that I consider the INTERPRETATION of a classic play to be more interesting than the REITERATION OF THE SCRIPT. (hint.) Cheers, Craig PS I'm still interested to know just where the 'Catholic vs Protestant' theory can be demonstrated... Feel free to let me know via Facebook. ~<8>-/====\---------

crgwllmsSun, 30 Aug 2009, 07:25 am

As old as I am, if like a crab you could go backward

Garreth is exactly right in his researched response. If we take the Gravedigger's calculations to be correct, Hamlet is indeed 30. (Although there are other arguments in parts of the play which can imply a younger man). If Gertrude is likely to only be 45 or 46, that lends creedence to the popular idea that Hamlet is conflicted by an Oedipal longing for his mother, which fuels his hatred for her new husband. While some of the emotional turmoil and immaturity of Hamlet may be better attributed to a younger man, his depth of emotion and intelligence is usually only captured by actors with a more mature level of experience. Famous Hamlets: Laurence Olivier first played the role at age 30, and then played and directed the first film version at the age of 40. (His 1948 film version is the one that most emphasised the longing for his mother, and fueled the Oedipal debate.) Richard Burton was 39. Nicol Williamson was 31 Derek Jacobi was 42 in the BBC filmed version. (He'd first played the role in highschool and at college, in productions that toured). Mel Gibson was 34. Kevin Kline was 43. Kenneth Brannagh was 28 when he first played the role, and 36 in his film. Ethan Hawke is the youngest actor to play Hamlet on film so far, at 29. I just found out by Googling that a new film is in production, with Emile Hirsch, who is 24. It will be reportedly akin to a supernatural horror movie, set in a college, with Hamlet as a musician...! (I'd better release my sung version of 'To be or not to be' first!) I just played the role at age 40. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Walter PlingeMon, 31 Aug 2009, 02:04 pm

More age stuff

Getting back to the age thing, I'm not worried so much about the ACTUAL age of the actor playing the character, but what the equivalent age would be today. If the average life expectancy in that time was 45, and Hamlet is 30, and our average life expectancy today is, say, 80, then - if my maths is correct - Hamlet would be the equivalent of about 48??? I would say that if a 48 year old behaved that way today, we would indeed think him rather emotionally immature. A 48 year old bachelor still attached to his mum? We'd probably assume he was gay... Is Hamlet having a mid-life crisis??? Or is he just a royal spoilt brat? Just food for thought. Thanks for adding that text for me, Garreth.

LabrugMon, 31 Aug 2009, 02:54 pm

Conversion?

Sarah, interesting thought. Firstly, IMHO, I think it "unfair" to translate age based on life expectancy and then expect that maturity follows suit. That simply doesn't wash. Coming from a statistical and behavioural model, the two are not really all that connected. Maturity comes with experience/education but experience/education is not necessarily driven purely by age. Deprive a man of all experiences and education, and it is very unlikely they will "mature" as such, but that is just being clinical.

On the other hand, I know and know of plenty of men in their flippin' 50s and 60s who are rather juvenile in their attitudes to many things, so having a 48 year old man acting like a spoilt brat does not sound that too far fetched to me.

Let's also consider, for a moment, the emotional impact of having you father die, then have reason without proof that it was murder and the guys gone a married mum, then to feel that you were not trusted and your "parents" had "friends" report your every move to them, all the while struggling with an impotent desire to throttle the living daylights out of someone. That's enough to send anyone back to their childhood.

Right, I feel better now. I'll go back in my box...

All in good fun.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins
SN Profile
"ÆƒuÄ±Ê‡sÇÉ¹ÇÊ‡uÄ± ÇÉŸÄ±×Ÿ ÆƒuÄ±ÊžÉÉ¯"

Daniel KershawMon, 31 Aug 2009, 04:52 pm

Thank you supporting

Thank you supporting professional, semi-professional and community theatre in Perth, Gordon, and writing reviews for everyone on this website to read.

Walter PlingeMon, 31 Aug 2009, 05:27 pm

Some more to think about

Definitely good points. I too know quite a few 50 and 60 year old men who are just as immature as Hamlet. But I wouldn't say they are the MAJORITY... Obviously I'm working on a generalisation here, but as actors we often have to do this to achieve, for lack of a better phrase (well actually not lack of but perhaps surplus of), a 'magic if'. What would we GENERALLY infer from a 48-year old bachelor who behaves in this way? How would we usually feel about such a person? I can't say I'd want to hang around them much, as emotionally immaturity tends to annoy me, which is probably why Hamlet tends to annoy me at times. But I'm not the most compassionate or patient of people. ;) It's interesting that Shakespeare has written a character who tends to think rather than do. I wonder whether Elizabethan audiences would have found him a tad trying as well? It's also interesting to consider whether Hamlet's behaviour in the play is indicative of his usual behaviour - meaning, is he always like this? Or can we attribute his emotional immaturity and indecision to the extreme events that precede it? Can we categorise his behaviour as 'acceptable', according to his environment and experience? Therefore, is he usually such a commitment freak and whinge-bag? Should I be a bit more lenient because his dad just died, or shall I give him a swift kick and tell him to build a bridge? Apologies for feminist actor's reading, devil's advocacy and excessive use of capital letters. P.S. I love Shakespeare regardless of the protagonist, so unknot your undies now. ;) Going now before my cultural studies reflexivity starts reflexing on me.

crgwllmsMon, 31 Aug 2009, 05:35 pm

The readiness is all.

Is Hamlet gay? Many of the interpretations prior to the twentieth century did paint Hamlet as rather flowery, arty, and effeminate. Modern interpretations tend to push the rebellious, angry, sullen and brooding. This is another reason why the 'rock star' image worked so well, because it allowed the tough rebel fighter image to marry seamlessly with the image of a poet who has a sense of the theatrical. Hamlet is an artist (or at least a wannabe) and is therefore, in a sense, ageless. While it makes mathematical logic to expand the life expectancy timeline of the past to fit today's, it doesn't follow biologically. You can't just stretch the timeline and expect all the points to move proportionately. Otherwise you'd expect children would have gotten their teeth, & been able to talk, about three years earlier than they do today; sexual maturity would have happened at about 8, etc...! (Just like the myth of human years being equivalent to 7 dog years...it works for the first few years of a puppy's life: in 3 human years a dog can be born, pass through 'childhood', 'pubescence' and enter 'adulthood', but thereafter the 7 year thing doesn't work. Otherwise there are a hell of a lot of what would be considered 80 year olds, in dog terms, still running around and rooting as if they were in their 'twenties'..!) So no, I think the compromise is to accept that Hamlet is pretty close to 30, but in most other aspects of his behaviour acts more in his early twenties. However, that's why I listed the ages of the actors who have played some definitive Hamlets. They were almost all late 30's to 40's, which is possibly the intellectual age of Hamlet, and the typical age an actor might need to be to have the experience to tackle it sensibly. Being older, and (particularly in the era of short life spans) closer to death would justify some of Hamlet's stoic attitude to death and fate and whether he is ready to face his end. All in all, he's just a character in a play with a function to perform, and so he can be allowed some artistic license in the consistency of his actual physical existence! Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

GarrethMon, 31 Aug 2009, 06:47 pm

I think you make some good

I think you make some good points Sarah, though i'm not sure i'd call your reading of Hamlet's character a feminist reading... As I stated above I think Hamlet is wracked by the decision he must make. Who wouldn't be? Taking someone else's life is not an easy decision and the only evidence he has to go on is the word of an apparition. Which is why he sets up the players to try and get some evidence on Claudius. Also I'm reminded of the fact that if Hamlet just decided to kill Claudius, we wouldn't have much of a play... well it would be over very quickly... Though I see no reason why Hamlet couldn't be over quickly, lol, I remember seeing Claire Hooper's Production starring Tim Minchin and Dan Luxton which was billed as "Hamlet on speed" it lasted an hour and I felt it really didn't loose much...

grantwatsonTue, 1 Sept 2009, 11:59 am

I've always found the

I've always found the younger Hamlet is, the more believable he seems in a contemporary context. A guy in his early 20s with a lot of anger to burn and wracked with self-conflict, coming home from university to a funeral, feels believable and realistic in the 21st century. The older you make him, the less I buy the character. Hamlet being 30, while obviously heavily implied in the original script, doesn't wash for me when watching the play.

← Back to Theatre Reviews