![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
grondficHow can I even BEGIN to talk about this play?
This is not because - as was the case with Common (http://grondfic.livejournal.com/245180.html) - it was so bad. Quite the opposite in fact. It was so full of fresh ideas and novel takes on this best-known of all Shakespeare's works, that my head is jammed with things to say; each point spawning at least a dozen more insights. So I shall just have to write it as an essay, in 2 parts, under section headings. In this part, I'll give a sense of the play and look specifically at Scott's Hamlet; and in Part 2 I'll look at the brilliant ensemble, and maybe tackle a couple of problematic areas in reaching an absolute reading - OK? Ooooookay -
General Overview
Firstly, at nearly four hours, the play is one of the longer versions of Hamlet that we’ve seen. It was also slightly different, both in structure and lines, from the more ‘standard’ versions (although most are abridged). It appears that the choices made by Director Robert Icke over what to include from the 3 extant versions of the play, lean most towards the earliest version for its ‘shape’ (presumably because it has a more straightforward plotline, but less of the poetic flights for which Hamlet is famed – these come from the later versions).
I mention this because the story told to us at the Harold Pinter Theatre is more coherent than some; with a more definite timeline (and an emphasis on Time generally, with several characters receiving, or possessing, watches). However, there are some rather puzzling slants on certain scenes; which defy a definitive overall interpretation.
The action takes place in a contemporary setting, with overhead screens, tv cameras onstage and arrays of surveillance equipment (through which the Ghost is glimpsed on multiple screens pacing through the older parts of Elsinore). There’s also a hint of Scandi noir with the subtitles appearing in Danish below the televised funeral of Old Hamlet, the coronation of Claudius and the intermittent encroachment of Young Fortinbras on the soil of Denmark. (Fortinbras and his troops never appear onstage in the flesh – a neat solution to the problem of showing a large invading army, having only a limited cast and small space.) Before leaving the ‘special effects’ I should also mention the use of Bob Dylan’s music throughout. I can’t say it bothered me much; except at one the beginning of The Mousetrap, when the Player King essays an amateur rendition on a recorder-pipe, which gradually merges into Dylan singing!
So – even before anyone appeared onstage, a great deal of thought had clearly been expended to shape the play (even including the ‘open’ interpretation). Because of this careful preparation, and of the sheer amount of text used, the play was allowed time to unfold, at its own pace. It therefore appeared to develop organically – a living experience rather than a contrived artifice. This was a great achievement by all concerned.
Once the play began, the devotion to Shakespeare’s words became very apparent. As a result, we found ourselves catching phrases and meanings we hadn’t noticed before; and experiencing well-known passages afresh. Also, the latent humour was allowed full rein, which happily balanced some of the weightier passages and themes.
Let’s look specifically now, at how Scott used Shakespeare’s language (I’ll come to other members of the cast later):
Scott's Hamlet
Following his enforced abiding in Elsinore, Hamlet, left alone, turns to us, the audience, to talk; softly confidentially - Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt ... (his first soliloquy). And that is how it will be, throughout. Scott’s Hamlet is focused (in his stage-isolation) on us. We, and solely we, are the recipients of his innermost thoughts. Not even Horatio comes so close, in this production.
[Hamlet even acknowledges us direct at one point; in a lovely interpretation that raised a rather uneasy laugh – ’ I have heard; he tells us, cocking an eyebrow, ’That guilty creatures sitting at a play/Have by the very cunning of the scene/Been struck so to the soul that presently/They have proclaim'd their malefactions ... ‘]
It felt like a massive privilege; and there was one instant when I thought that he was looking direct at me, seeing me as he spoke. I expect that every member of that audience thought the same at different points during the play. I certainly hope it was so for the school-group at the back of the auditorium. It was a credit to the members (all aged about 12) and their staff, as well as to Scott, that you could have heard a pin drop during all the soliloquies.
We’ve experienced this making-eye-contact thing before – at the Almeida where this Hamlet began its run. The Chorus in Bakkhai made a point of catching individual audience members’ eyes; it made us in a small way complicit in the action. But of course, the Almeida is a tiny theatre compared with the Harold Pinter; so again, it would be down to Scott’s skill that it worked in the larger space (even if was an illusion!).
Scott’s was generally a low-key performance; his Hamlet is softly-spoke in the main (though he does lose control from time to time!), his hands and fingers weaving the air as he speaks.
Because Hamlet (as it were) prioritises his audience interactions, his isolation amongst the rest of the characters is made starkly obvious. When he first appears (looking extremely vulnerable), he’s creeping past the sliding doors that screen an inner sanctum of the palace, suitcase in hand, intent on a mad dash back to Wittenberg. I’m sure I wasn’t alone in willing him to make good his escape! However, it transpires that he’s awaiting permission to leave; and he is soon joined by the rest of the Court.
He then hangs around the edges of the action whilst Claudius deals with the Norway situation, and the petition of Laertes to depart. This sets the tone for the whole play – Hamlet is completely isolated, whereas everyone else is shown in compact, close groupings – family (Polonius/Ophelia/Laertes), couples (Claudius/Gertrude, Rosencrantz/Guildenstern) or functions (soldiers, servants).
So now, it’s time to introduce the rest of the cast, in Part 2, here - http://grondfic.dreamwidth.org/6204.html
This is not because - as was the case with Common (http://grondfic.livejournal.com/245180.html) - it was so bad. Quite the opposite in fact. It was so full of fresh ideas and novel takes on this best-known of all Shakespeare's works, that my head is jammed with things to say; each point spawning at least a dozen more insights. So I shall just have to write it as an essay, in 2 parts, under section headings. In this part, I'll give a sense of the play and look specifically at Scott's Hamlet; and in Part 2 I'll look at the brilliant ensemble, and maybe tackle a couple of problematic areas in reaching an absolute reading - OK? Ooooookay -
General Overview
Firstly, at nearly four hours, the play is one of the longer versions of Hamlet that we’ve seen. It was also slightly different, both in structure and lines, from the more ‘standard’ versions (although most are abridged). It appears that the choices made by Director Robert Icke over what to include from the 3 extant versions of the play, lean most towards the earliest version for its ‘shape’ (presumably because it has a more straightforward plotline, but less of the poetic flights for which Hamlet is famed – these come from the later versions).
I mention this because the story told to us at the Harold Pinter Theatre is more coherent than some; with a more definite timeline (and an emphasis on Time generally, with several characters receiving, or possessing, watches). However, there are some rather puzzling slants on certain scenes; which defy a definitive overall interpretation.
The action takes place in a contemporary setting, with overhead screens, tv cameras onstage and arrays of surveillance equipment (through which the Ghost is glimpsed on multiple screens pacing through the older parts of Elsinore). There’s also a hint of Scandi noir with the subtitles appearing in Danish below the televised funeral of Old Hamlet, the coronation of Claudius and the intermittent encroachment of Young Fortinbras on the soil of Denmark. (Fortinbras and his troops never appear onstage in the flesh – a neat solution to the problem of showing a large invading army, having only a limited cast and small space.) Before leaving the ‘special effects’ I should also mention the use of Bob Dylan’s music throughout. I can’t say it bothered me much; except at one the beginning of The Mousetrap, when the Player King essays an amateur rendition on a recorder-pipe, which gradually merges into Dylan singing!
So – even before anyone appeared onstage, a great deal of thought had clearly been expended to shape the play (even including the ‘open’ interpretation). Because of this careful preparation, and of the sheer amount of text used, the play was allowed time to unfold, at its own pace. It therefore appeared to develop organically – a living experience rather than a contrived artifice. This was a great achievement by all concerned.
Once the play began, the devotion to Shakespeare’s words became very apparent. As a result, we found ourselves catching phrases and meanings we hadn’t noticed before; and experiencing well-known passages afresh. Also, the latent humour was allowed full rein, which happily balanced some of the weightier passages and themes.
Let’s look specifically now, at how Scott used Shakespeare’s language (I’ll come to other members of the cast later):
Scott's Hamlet
Following his enforced abiding in Elsinore, Hamlet, left alone, turns to us, the audience, to talk; softly confidentially - Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt ... (his first soliloquy). And that is how it will be, throughout. Scott’s Hamlet is focused (in his stage-isolation) on us. We, and solely we, are the recipients of his innermost thoughts. Not even Horatio comes so close, in this production.
[Hamlet even acknowledges us direct at one point; in a lovely interpretation that raised a rather uneasy laugh – ’ I have heard; he tells us, cocking an eyebrow, ’That guilty creatures sitting at a play/Have by the very cunning of the scene/Been struck so to the soul that presently/They have proclaim'd their malefactions ... ‘]
It felt like a massive privilege; and there was one instant when I thought that he was looking direct at me, seeing me as he spoke. I expect that every member of that audience thought the same at different points during the play. I certainly hope it was so for the school-group at the back of the auditorium. It was a credit to the members (all aged about 12) and their staff, as well as to Scott, that you could have heard a pin drop during all the soliloquies.
We’ve experienced this making-eye-contact thing before – at the Almeida where this Hamlet began its run. The Chorus in Bakkhai made a point of catching individual audience members’ eyes; it made us in a small way complicit in the action. But of course, the Almeida is a tiny theatre compared with the Harold Pinter; so again, it would be down to Scott’s skill that it worked in the larger space (even if was an illusion!).
Scott’s was generally a low-key performance; his Hamlet is softly-spoke in the main (though he does lose control from time to time!), his hands and fingers weaving the air as he speaks.
Because Hamlet (as it were) prioritises his audience interactions, his isolation amongst the rest of the characters is made starkly obvious. When he first appears (looking extremely vulnerable), he’s creeping past the sliding doors that screen an inner sanctum of the palace, suitcase in hand, intent on a mad dash back to Wittenberg. I’m sure I wasn’t alone in willing him to make good his escape! However, it transpires that he’s awaiting permission to leave; and he is soon joined by the rest of the Court.
He then hangs around the edges of the action whilst Claudius deals with the Norway situation, and the petition of Laertes to depart. This sets the tone for the whole play – Hamlet is completely isolated, whereas everyone else is shown in compact, close groupings – family (Polonius/Ophelia/Laertes), couples (Claudius/Gertrude, Rosencrantz/Guildenstern) or functions (soldiers, servants).
So now, it’s time to introduce the rest of the cast, in Part 2, here - http://grondfic.dreamwidth.org/6204.html
