|
Post by shaxper on Mar 29, 2002 17:43:16 GMT -5
I understand the RSC has done a production of Hamlet every year for at least the last three years now. I was curious if anyone had seen the more recent ones. I caught Mark Rylance at the Globe two years ago. How do the interpretations differ? Is the RSC keeping Hamlet fresh or just continually reviving an old favorite to keep their patronage up?
|
|
MsDirector
Money Lender
Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice... s'hath seal'd thee for herself...
Posts: 24
|
Post by MsDirector on Mar 29, 2002 22:29:50 GMT -5
I saw RSC's "Hamlet" this summer at Stratford-upon-Avon. It was certainly not what I'd consider "the same old Hamlet". It was a relatively modern dress production with minimal set, huge lights set to move vertically on the stage left and right walls. Hamlet used guns rather than sword - Polonius was shot through the arras (which seemed strange since Gertrude still spoke of his sword in her description of the act to Claudius), and for the final duel (which was with a sword), after Hamlet stabbed and then poisoned Claudius, he finished him off with a gunshot coup de grace (seemed like a bit of overkill to me). Hamlet's meeting with the ghost struck me strangely. The ghost was oddly human - that is he ended up on his knees crying in Hamlet's lap. Hardly a ghost to inspire fear and awe. Hamlet's meeting with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern took place on a blanket on the ground, punctuated by a joint which was passed around. And... when Hamlet charged Horatio to watch Claudius carefully during "The Murder of Gonzago", he gave Horatio a video camera, which was then plugged in on a ramp downstage. A screen was set up just upstage of Claudius and Gertrude and all through the play, the camera stayed on them and the audience saw close-ups of their reactions on the screen. Would have worked great had Claudius had some facial reactions worth recording! Sam West, who played Hamlet, was wonderful, but the production had some major context problems. It was a good idea, but the text just didn't support it. It might have worked better had they decided to make some small text changes to support their concept.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 29, 2002 22:37:21 GMT -5
Very interesting. Thanks Yes, it seems like the two opposing positions the RSC seems to enjoy taking are overly traditional and overly modern Not to say all (or even most) of their productions are failures in that respect. Sometimes, it just feels too stale or too forced. I really enjoyed the Hamlet I saw at the Globe in 2000. Marc Rylance definately delivered a different interpretation without forcing much. I understand this was a reprisal of his role as Hamlet though. In his own words (I got to speak with him!), he felt that he was sort of poking fun at the role he originally undertook, which used a similar interpretation of the character. I would have liked to have seen the original. I also enjoyed how authentic they attempted to make the production (probably since they were in the Globe). They refrained from using sophisticated lighting changes (well, actually, there was no lighting) and the costumes and set were simple and traditional. I appreciated this the most when Hamlet's ghost appeared. He simply walked on stage in armor and white makeup. No fancy effects at all. I actually found this more scary, in a sense. It felt more real, less presentational.
|
|
MsDirector
Money Lender
Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice... s'hath seal'd thee for herself...
Posts: 24
|
Post by MsDirector on Mar 29, 2002 22:59:19 GMT -5
Actually, being at the Globe apparently doesn't ensure a "traditional" Shakespeare. Not about "Hamlet" or RSC, but when we were there in June, we we saw Macbeth at the Globe. Incredibly strange production. The entire cast wore tuxedos (even the women much of the time). The entire set was a series of black chairs and one solid rectangle maybe 4'x8' or 6'x10' which was suspended from the ceiling and was able to be raised and lowered at either end, allowing it to be used as a table, a bed, the surface (tilting up and down parallel to the edge of the stage) on which Lady Macbeth sleepwalked, and ultimately a vertical wall. There were no weapons of any kind. The only other props were red and gold "tinsel" which represented blood, and three metal buckets. Each character had a hand-sized stone, which apparently represented their life or mortality. When, in the play, they were killed or died, they or their killer dropped their stone in one of the buckets. The weird sisters were played by 2 women and a man also in tuxedos, and wearing strange glasses with huge eyes. One of them "became" Banquo's ghost during the banquet - which was an interesting choice that actually worked. Actually, again, the performances were excellent, but the concept was so distracting that it was hard to focus on them. And the use of identical costuming for everyone made it difficult to distinguish between the characters. Makes me not worry so much about the choices I make when I stage Shakespeare... if they can go to interesting places, then so can I
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 29, 2002 23:07:34 GMT -5
Yowza. Sounds like Baz Luhrman's been directing these productions you've seen I saw a modernized version of The Comedy of Errors at the RSC a while back, and while the production qualities weren't particularly modernized, the interpretation was. Since the jokes from that play are pretty obscure, they chose to basically ignore them and rely on their own sight gags instead. It was funny, but hardly The Comedy of Errors. They were doing an entirely different play. I'm forced to wonder why they chose The Comedy of Errors in the first place. But such a modernized production at the Globe? Fascinating, and yet troubling. It sounds almost more frightening than the Kelsey Grammer Macbeth on Broadway that I was forced to sit through last year. Lousy costumes, lousy lighting/effects, and lousy acting made for a complete waste of my time. I'd always assumed Kelsey Grammer would be great with Shakespeare. I was sorely mistaken
|
|
MsDirector
Money Lender
Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice... s'hath seal'd thee for herself...
Posts: 24
|
Post by MsDirector on Mar 29, 2002 23:20:15 GMT -5
So I heard. I was dying to get tickets, then really glad I didn't. I too thought he would be at least an interesting Macbeth. How disappointing it must have been for you.
Are you located in London? Sounds like you see more RSC than Broadway. I fell in love with England when we were there in June. Saw LOTS of theate. Can't wait to go back. I'm in the NYC/NJ area, currently directing a new musical for the Midtown International Theatre Festival in NYC this coming July. Not Shakespeare, but promising. My Shakespeare project is my own adaptation of "Hamlet" which I know will get LOTS of flack from Shakespeare traditionalists. More on that later.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 29, 2002 23:26:17 GMT -5
Actually, I'm in the middle of nowhere, PA (originally from Long Island, NY). I went to England to study Shakespeare at Cambridge for the summer two years ago (you'll notice all the RSC productions I saw were in 2000), but I'm itching to go back! Interestingly enough, the best Shakespeare I saw while I was there were the outdoor productions performed by the Cambridge theatre students. Very fresh interpretations with refreshingly simple production elements.
What's the new musical you're putting on, by the way? I'd meant to ask what you've been directing in my last post. Do you do much Shakespeare? I'm curious to know what else you've directed.
|
|
MsDirector
Money Lender
Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice... s'hath seal'd thee for herself...
Posts: 24
|
Post by MsDirector on Mar 30, 2002 0:18:43 GMT -5
I've been directing and acting (and other theatre stuff) for over 20 years. Feel free to check out my website - it's got my theatrical biography and my directing resume which will tell you more than I can here.
Haven't had the opportunity to do as much Shakespeare as I like. There are so few companies which are willing to take the chance. I did do a workshop of my adaptation of "Hamlet" this summer to some wonderful feedback, so I'm really anxious to find someone brave enough to let me have a chance to do it. I was assistant director/production stage manager for an off-off Broadway production of "The Tempest" this past year. Hopefully more will be in my future.
The new musical I'm directing is called "BELLES OF THE MILL", book by Rachel Rubin Ladutke, music and lyrics by Jill Marshall-Work.. It is based on the "Bread and Roses" textile workers' strike in Lawrence, MA in the bitter winter of 1912, and follows the journey of two very different women who struggle to find their place in this world turned upside-down. It's got a fabulously complex, beautiful and playful score and a wonderful book. I've been collaborating in its development for the past two and a half years (first as a play, now as a musical), and now we can finally put it on its feet. It's very exciting.
|
|
MsDirector
Money Lender
Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice... s'hath seal'd thee for herself...
Posts: 24
|
Post by MsDirector on Mar 30, 2002 0:21:08 GMT -5
Oh, and where on Long Island??? I spent my teen years in North Bellmore, and my early married years in Levittown and Commack.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 30, 2002 9:45:22 GMT -5
Nice webpage! I see you directed the Fantastiks. That's one of my favorite musicals of all time. I'm getting married this June and "They Were You" is going to be the song played for our first dance. I was devastated then the longest running musical in the world finally closed this year I've never been to Bellmore, but my father grew up in Commack. I still have family there. I was from Roslyn, which isn't exactly next door, but it's close enough
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 31, 2002 19:11:11 GMT -5
I did do a workshop of my adaptation of "Hamlet" this summer to some wonderful feedback, so I'm really anxious to find someone brave enough to let me have a chance to do it. I'd love to hear more about your adaptation! Would you tell us about it?
|
|
MsDirector
Money Lender
Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice... s'hath seal'd thee for herself...
Posts: 24
|
Post by MsDirector on Mar 31, 2002 23:00:21 GMT -5
I have always loved "Hamlet". It's an incredibly insightful study of human psychology, and a wonderful character study of a person torn between intellect and passion. But there have always been certain aspects of productions of the play that didn't ring true for me: primary of these is Hamlet's character - if Hamlet is played as the the passionless thinker, he is seen as indecisive, lacking in action, unable to take revenge for his father's death; if he is played ranting and raving all over the stage, he seems so caught up in the throws of rage that his hesitation to follow through on his revenge makes no sense. I couldn't figure out why so many directors and actors seemed set on choosing the most extreme aspects of his character when, by the text, he is an amazingly complex and multi-faceted person.
Then it occurred to me that portrayals of Hamlet have been limited by the fact that he is played as a traditionally ideal male. That is, either as the intellectual with the superior mind, and/or with the more masculine emotions of rage and outrage emphasized. My question was, what happened to everything inbetween and how do we bring that out. They are in the text, but, in practice, it seems very difficult for a male actor to find those levels. So I thought about what would happen if Hamlet were played by a woman. Ok - it's been done before. But I approached it differently.
What if Hamlet WAS a woman? That is, not the Prince of Denmark, but rather the Princess of Denmark? It changes many things, but, for the most part, not the story, the sense or the themes of the play itself. A man is "expected" to react to the accusation of murder by running to vengeance. But a woman would more naturally be horrified by the accusation, think about it, try to understand it, and be sure it's true before commiting herself to violence. As a woman, Hamlet's reaction to her father's death is so much stronger and more understandable - a father-daughter relationship is very strong and very special. And her horror at her mother's betrayal of her beloved father makes far more sense (to me at least). There is more, but I'll leave it here for now, except for this. The great Sarah Bernhardt once actually played Hamlet. She commented at the time that somehow she just couldn't see Hamlet as a man. I found myself agreeing with her.
It also occurred to me that Shakespeare would probably understand my vision very well. After all, his Queen, Elizabeth I, was once a young Princess whose mother was killed by her father and who was placed in the situation of having to deal with tremendous confusion and betrayal in the court and in her life. The parallels between their lives encouraged me to extend my vision, since Hamlet's reactions to the betrayals in "her" life could well reflect Elizabeth's reactions to those in hers.
So I had a vision, but would the text support it. Well, I reread the entire play with "Hamlet as a woman" as a concept. I was shocked. It is absolutely amazing how much of the text seems written precisely for that situation. Try it. There are dozens of lines that make SOOO much more sense if Hamlet is the daughter, not the son; if Hamlet is a beautiful young woman returning to lecherous Claudius' court; if Horatio is her much-loved and only true friend, but with no future together because she's royalty; and even if Ophelia is a young girl with a desperate crush on an older and idealized young woman who cares deeply for her but may or may not return her affection - how much would that be seen as "madness" by Polonius and even Claudius and Gertrude. Sure there are some lines which would need to be cut or have minor rewrites in order to maintain the concept, but on the whole it works surprisingly well (although I'm sure purists will just hate it.)
Understand, I'm not trying to create a "new" Hamlet, or to showcase myself as a director. It's all about the play. It's very exciting to be able to use a different approach, a different viewpoint, to be able to find insights into what is already in the play, but is seldom seen. I have high hopes...
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 1, 2002 14:21:00 GMT -5
It's truly a rare art when a director can "change" a major aspect of one of Shakespeare's plays and make it work. You seem to have done just that, and I'm very impressed. All through reading your post, I kept thinking "but what about Ophelia?" and I liked your solution, as did I like what you did with Horatio.
Yes, I can see the parallels with Elizabeth as well, and Hamlet has several lines in which he fears he is acting like a woman (always used in the negative sense). In this way, Princess Hamlet would follow the trend of Beatrice-Joanna and Lady Macbeth as Renaissance heroines called to tragic action who attempt to "unsex" themselves. I love it!
I'd like to reread Hamlet tonight with your interpretation in mind. I'll get back to you with more of my thoughts, but what an exciting idea!
|
|
MsDirector
Money Lender
Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice... s'hath seal'd thee for herself...
Posts: 24
|
Post by MsDirector on Apr 1, 2002 18:05:19 GMT -5
It's truly a rare art when a director can "change" a major aspect of one of Shakespeare's plays and make it work. The most exciting thing about it for me is that, with the exception of changing a few gender words (him to her, Lord to Lady, etc.) and a few, surprisingly few, cuts of lines which pertain specifically to Hamlet as a man (beard and such), the text stands as written. I'm usually very uncomfortable with productions that attempt to "update" Shakespeare, since they often maintain the story line but lose the essence of what makes Shakespeare, Shakespeare. So I was very tentative when I started this exploration, having no desire to create "Arlene's" Shakespeare (I never claimed to be a writer, nor do I think that I could write a "better" Hamlet than the original). I was simply looking for a way to make what I've always seen in the play come alive on the stage. To be honest, I was very surprised and pleased when the workshop got as good a reception as it did. Two other points that I didn't have room to mention in the last post. When you are re-reading Hamlet tonight keep two other things in mind. First, I see Gertrude as the ruling Queen, married at a young age to an older Hamlet who then jointly ruled with her, wisely and well. She was then seduced by his sexy, sleazy younger brother Claudius, who killed her husband, married her, and therefore became king, with the consent of the the nobles. This eliminates the confusion over why Hamlet did not succeed his father. And it gives Claudius an even stronger reason to marry Gertrude, since the kingdom comes with her (which, if fact, it didn't in the original - creating the confusion). It also sets up Hamlet as the presumptive heir to the throne, even though she is a woman. Second, there are two other gender changes. In my adaptation the role of Polonius is female. I have always seen Polonius as a "Jewish mother" in character, so I thought, why not actually try the role as Ophelia's and Laertes mother rather than father (no, not actually Jewish). Again, it's amazing how well it works. With Gertrude as reigning Queen, it is not unlikely she would have a female Minister, who would then continue with her, but try to ingraciate herself to the new King. And Polonius' talks with both Ophelia and Laertes take on a wonderfully truthful and very parentlike reality. Her persona as a "wretched, rash intruding fool" is perfect for such a "Yente", and it is far more logical that the king would allow her to hide behind the Queen's arras in her chambers, than a male Polonius. One other factor. If Hamlet kills Laertes *mother*, then it seems logical that Laertes would have little problem wanting to take his revenge against a woman. The other gender change is minor, but interesting. With Hamlet as a woman, it seemed reasonable that at least one of her childhood friends would be a woman as well. So I've cast Rosencrantz as a woman. It makes for intriguing interactions with Guildenstern...
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 3, 2002 10:39:34 GMT -5
Okay, I've been through Hamlet again, and you're absolutely right. I'm amazed. It's gotten me to thinking about Shaky in general (a dangerous thing!) and it now occurs to me that in most of Shaky's plays, it seems that the strong, sturdy, and well-thought out "male" persona tends to be given to the female leads, and the inconstant, ever doubting, impulsive "female" persona is given to the male leads. The men are still the ones called to action (at least in the tragedies) but Shakespeare seems to play this reversal of gender types as the tragic flaw. Think about it:
Romeo and Juliet: Juliet is the calm, even-tempered one who tries her best to find solutions and Romeo is the one who goes on a crying tantrum and through poorly thought out bad decision upon poorly thought out bad decision manages to participate in the death of Mercutio, kills Tybalt, and becomes an exile. Juliet is even teaching Romeo how to love in a less flighty fashion from the first few moments they spend together.
Othello: Rash misjudgements, jealousy and rage, while Desdemona is the one bold enough to stand up to her father and then remain calm and even-tempered throughout the play, even being so dedicated and strong-willed to accompany Othello to Cyprus.
Hamlet: Indecisive, prone to wild mood swings, and thoroughly inconstant with his mother, Ophelia, and even himself. Also too afraid to act. Ophelia is not necesarily the compartive male persona in this example though.
Macbeth: Macbeth vs. Lady Macbeth. Need I say more?
King Lear: Lear is the inconstant, moody, and irrational one, while Cordelia is wise, even tempered, and the only one willing and able to take action against her sisters at the end. There is no doubt that the gender personas are reversed with Gonorail, Reagen, and their husbands, as well.
Antony & Cleopatra: Cleo is not very male at all, but she does wear the pants in the relationship, and Antony definately takes on those indecisive, moody, subordinate qualities, even when not wearing a dress while walking through town (as per Cleo's instructions).
As You Like It: Rosalynd literally becomes a man and must teach her flighty "ah me!" lover to love, and she is the one called to action, who manages to put things right in the end.
Twelfth Night: Similar idea, plus Olivia, though moody and inconstant, is very much a dominating figure, while Orsino is far more flighty and submissive.
Richard II: Richard whines, has a mood swing ever two lines, and does anything but act, while Queen Isabelle is the one who urges him to be like the lion, "who dying, thrusts his paw forward".
I'm sure I could go on, but you get the point.
Shakespeare and gender. Oh, what fun! ;D
|
|