![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidSunday I went to ASP's Hamlet, staged in Dorchester's Strand Theater.
I knew I'd go, so I avoided reviews and such until afterward; I wanted to make up my own mind about it. Eerily enough, Xiphias' review in Bard_in_Boston is pretty much spot on (and well written). So I'll just add things that struck me.
I think that this is one of the weaker ASP productions, mostly because of the smaller parts feeling less well done. It's still quite good, but not quite up to my by-now-high expectations of them.
It helped to stay for the actor talk-back session afterward, hearing how the characters were seen by the actors. Johnny Lee Davenport's Claudius always envied his brother, and fell for his wife. The kingdom was an added bonus. He's more of a lover than a statesman, however: he actually needd Polonius to keep the ship of state sailing true(ish). Marya Lowry's Gertrude was a woman who needed adoration, overt appreciation, lots of touch, and when the dead king didn't give that to her, it was easy for her to fall for Claudius, a totally sensual guy. She's acting for the moment, for what peak experiences the now can offer, without thought for consequences, until Hamlet provides a mirror she must face. It's that scene that made me believe she didn't have a hand in the murder, though she welcomed the outcome; I'd had my doubts before.
Marianna Bassham's Ophelia loves Hamlet, and believes he loves her, but is pushed by her father and king to play him false, attempting to return his letters and trinkets, and he sees that she has chosen sides against him. I still think that his "get thee to a nunnery" could be an attempt to keep her safe, away from court and what might happen. Women were known to take sanctuary for a while without taking vows; she could do this, and once the story played out, he could reaffirm his love for her without the question of whether to kill his uncle. Ophelia knows nothing of this, of course. And this Ophelia is very fragile. Hamlet is very rough with her in that scene, and her father doesn't comfort her, just goes after the king, leaving her there almost battered, trying to pick up the pieces on her own. Her brother has left the country. And then the man she loves kills the father who cared about her as a game piece more than as a person. Her madness is of the person without recourse, mourning the father she might have had, the marriage she might have had. She is angry at people, but only verbally; she cannot act, she is acted upon, the violence she needs to do directed only at herself: it's the inverse of Hamlet's madness, which directs it all outward.
I was pleased to recognize two actors I'd seen a couple of seasons ago at Brandeis, Willie Teacher and Ted Hewlett. The former's Horatio was excellent, a steadfast friend, while the latter's Rosencrantz is an unremarkable sort.
Query: why did Shakespeare write it so the new husband of the queen got the crown, rather than the son? I'd've expected Gertrude to become dowager/queen mother, especially because it's clear that Hamlet is already in his majority (remembering Yorrick, dead these 23 years). Sure, this particular plot doesn't work without it, but it doesn't ring true to how things work with kingdoms. I could've more easily bought it were they merely nobles, as she might have brought whichever demesne as dowry to her marriage, and therefore held onto it after the first husband's death.
Notes about the space: I had been to the Strand once before, but for a much more traditional use of the space, seated in the audience. Being seating diagonally across the stage is wholly different. The rest of the stage was for the play, as well as a box seat and the balcony, and movable scaffolding. Even with all the lights down, the stairs were lit with horizontal strips, making things eerier. The downside of this, however, was seating that was uncomfortable. Extremely so; I'd recommend bringing a pillow if you go, to avoid 3.5 hours in back-challenging chairs.
I knew I'd go, so I avoided reviews and such until afterward; I wanted to make up my own mind about it. Eerily enough, Xiphias' review in Bard_in_Boston is pretty much spot on (and well written). So I'll just add things that struck me.
I think that this is one of the weaker ASP productions, mostly because of the smaller parts feeling less well done. It's still quite good, but not quite up to my by-now-high expectations of them.
It helped to stay for the actor talk-back session afterward, hearing how the characters were seen by the actors. Johnny Lee Davenport's Claudius always envied his brother, and fell for his wife. The kingdom was an added bonus. He's more of a lover than a statesman, however: he actually needd Polonius to keep the ship of state sailing true(ish). Marya Lowry's Gertrude was a woman who needed adoration, overt appreciation, lots of touch, and when the dead king didn't give that to her, it was easy for her to fall for Claudius, a totally sensual guy. She's acting for the moment, for what peak experiences the now can offer, without thought for consequences, until Hamlet provides a mirror she must face. It's that scene that made me believe she didn't have a hand in the murder, though she welcomed the outcome; I'd had my doubts before.
Marianna Bassham's Ophelia loves Hamlet, and believes he loves her, but is pushed by her father and king to play him false, attempting to return his letters and trinkets, and he sees that she has chosen sides against him. I still think that his "get thee to a nunnery" could be an attempt to keep her safe, away from court and what might happen. Women were known to take sanctuary for a while without taking vows; she could do this, and once the story played out, he could reaffirm his love for her without the question of whether to kill his uncle. Ophelia knows nothing of this, of course. And this Ophelia is very fragile. Hamlet is very rough with her in that scene, and her father doesn't comfort her, just goes after the king, leaving her there almost battered, trying to pick up the pieces on her own. Her brother has left the country. And then the man she loves kills the father who cared about her as a game piece more than as a person. Her madness is of the person without recourse, mourning the father she might have had, the marriage she might have had. She is angry at people, but only verbally; she cannot act, she is acted upon, the violence she needs to do directed only at herself: it's the inverse of Hamlet's madness, which directs it all outward.
I was pleased to recognize two actors I'd seen a couple of seasons ago at Brandeis, Willie Teacher and Ted Hewlett. The former's Horatio was excellent, a steadfast friend, while the latter's Rosencrantz is an unremarkable sort.
Query: why did Shakespeare write it so the new husband of the queen got the crown, rather than the son? I'd've expected Gertrude to become dowager/queen mother, especially because it's clear that Hamlet is already in his majority (remembering Yorrick, dead these 23 years). Sure, this particular plot doesn't work without it, but it doesn't ring true to how things work with kingdoms. I could've more easily bought it were they merely nobles, as she might have brought whichever demesne as dowry to her marriage, and therefore held onto it after the first husband's death.
Notes about the space: I had been to the Strand once before, but for a much more traditional use of the space, seated in the audience. Being seating diagonally across the stage is wholly different. The rest of the stage was for the play, as well as a box seat and the balcony, and movable scaffolding. Even with all the lights down, the stairs were lit with horizontal strips, making things eerier. The downside of this, however, was seating that was uncomfortable. Extremely so; I'd recommend bringing a pillow if you go, to avoid 3.5 hours in back-challenging chairs.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 05:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 05:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 05:33 pm (UTC)After the panel discussion of Hamlet with some of the Shakespeare & Co. folks and some of the ASP folks, and some other directors and academics, I got to go up to the actor and thank him for portraying the most vile Polonius I'd ever seen. His response was, "Me? Vile? No, 'beautified' is vile -- an ill phrase, a vile phrase." And he then said that he'd begged the director to let him play at least a LITTLE compassion to Ophelia. I said I really liked what they had, and that his was the only Polonius I'd seen where I was looking FORWARD to him getting stabbed.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 09:05 pm (UTC)What if Gertrude is Queen Regnant?
May change the story slightly, but if the queen is monarch in her own right -- like Elizabeth or Victoria or Mary, Queen of Scots -- she will still retain the throne should her husband predecease her.
Of course, that would mean that Hamlet I and Claudius are princes, not kings, unless she has them crowned, but that might be one workaround.
Otherwise, I'd love to see a version of the play where Hamlet is a minor -- requires some fudging of the Yorick scene -- but I think the loneliness and vulnerability could add a lot.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 11:25 pm (UTC)I can totally see Hamlet as a teenager; I think the first time I saw it I assumed he was. He's moody and intensely focused and all, which totally fits. OK, some parts of his madness might be more of a stretch, but even so, this could work well.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 11:29 pm (UTC)I assume it's election by the nobles or some other restricted body, who are likely to vote only one of their number. So there'd be a limited number of possibilities. I should look to see how often it ended up being sons or brothers of the most recent king, rather than someone unrelated.
It does make me wonder at the end why it's important that Hamlet endorses Fortinbras, if he's likely the only one left to be able to take the throne.