Hamlet in New York
-
We just got back from our New York jaunt (extended to Monday, as it turned out). We had a great time. We stayed at Broadway and 32nd, which was a great neighborhood. On Sunday we went to the Whitney and the Frick. But the highlight was definitely seeing Hamlet on Saturday night at the Broadhurst Theater. Jude Law was a fantastic Hamlet, and the production was great overall.
Having seen so many productions of Hamlet, what I really look for is for the actors and the director to have a clear idea about the play and the character. Some productions have emphasized his indecision, some his intellect, some his distaste for what is essentially a horrible thing to be asked to do. Jude Law's Hamlet was not indecisive. He was a man of action, one who is doing, all through the play, exactly what he intends to be doing. For example, in the scene where he comes upon Claudius at his prayers and thinks of killing him, the scene is played like this: Claudius is toward the front of the stage, and Hamlet walks by an opening at the back of the stage. As soon as he sees Claudius, he strides in forcefully and pulls his knife, lifting it over his head, ready to strike. Then he delivers the lines that say (essentially), Why should I do him the favor of killing him while he prays and thus sending him to heaven? This is not played as indecision or making excuses but as part of Hamlet's revenge. He wants to make this as bad for Claudius as he can.
In this production the tragedy is not in Hamlet's actions or inactions---the tragedy had already occurred when the curtains rises. The tragedy is the murder of his father, and the subsequent loss of Hamlet's sense of security, love, and goodness. When his father dies, he loses that sense of security that we all have until something goes horribly wrong. We take our good life for granted as the natural way of things, until a baby dies, or a friend is raped, or we are paralyzed in a car accident. And then we realize that what we thought was the natural order of things was just a string of incredibly good luck. Then he loses his sense of love when his mother, who seemed completely in love with his father, remarries almost immediately. All his ideals of love are shattered; if what was between them wasn't love, then can anything be considered love? Finally, he loses his sense of goodness when the final piece drops: when he learns that his uncle murdered his father. I imagine this as akin to how the family must have felt when their son-in-law murdered their pregnant daughter. All at once, you lose not just someone you love, but you realize that snakes live among us.
All of this is to say that this production emphasized Hamlet's natural reactions to a devastating loss rather than focusing on any "mistakes" that Hamlet is conceived of making in other interpretations. Jay chuckled at me when, at one point in the performance, I leaned over and whispered, "It's just so SAD." Well, yes, it is.
Another thing I liked about the production was that the female characters, Gertrude and Ophelia, were not played as gentle innocents. Gertrude was strong and practical (but not evil) and Ophelia was playful and almost modern. They were really fresh conceptions of the characters. The actor playing Gertrude was Geraldine James, who I recognized from other British productions. It was also nice to see the psychosexual undertones UNDERplayed for once.
The costuming was modern but plain---which worked well. And the set was cool: a black stage floor, and a set of wooden walls in the back that moved back and forth, opening and closing as needed for various scenes. When open, you could see a plain background illuminated with a blue light.
The production had a nice theatricality and physicality, but not overdone. Some performances of Shakespeare play up the bawdiness and commedia dell'arte stylings with almost a self-conscious pride and wink to the audience, like "Look how irreverent we're being." This was just right---theatrical without seeming to linger or self-reflect on the physical tricks and playfulness.
The only downsides were two poor performances: the ghost of Hamlet's father, and Fortinbras. Normally a small part like Fortinbras wouldn't make much of an impact. It's just unfortunate that Fortinbras closes out the play---he speaks the last few lines. The actor was a little iffy. The actor playing the ghost was outright embarrassing---really over the top, almost a caricature of Shakespearean acting.
-
We just got back from our New York jaunt (extended to Monday, as it turned out). We had a great time. We stayed at Broadway and 32nd, which was a great neighborhood. On Sunday we went to the Whitney and the Frick. But the highlight was definitely seeing Hamlet on Saturday night at the Broadhurst Theater. Jude Law was a fantastic Hamlet, and the production was great overall.
Having seen so many productions of Hamlet, what I really look for is for the actors and the director to have a clear idea about the play and the character. Some productions have emphasized his indecision, some his intellect, some his distaste for what is essentially a horrible thing to be asked to do. Jude Law's Hamlet was not indecisive. He was a man of action, one who is doing, all through the play, exactly what he intends to be doing. For example, in the scene where he comes upon Claudius at his prayers and thinks of killing him, the scene is played like this: Claudius is toward the front of the stage, and Hamlet walks by an opening at the back of the stage. As soon as he sees Claudius, he strides in forcefully and pulls his knife, lifting it over his head, ready to strike. Then he delivers the lines that say (essentially), Why should I do him the favor of killing him while he prays and thus sending him to heaven? This is not played as indecision or making excuses but as part of Hamlet's revenge. He wants to make this as bad for Claudius as he can.
In this production the tragedy is not in Hamlet's actions or inactions---the tragedy had already occurred when the curtains rises. The tragedy is the murder of his father, and the subsequent loss of Hamlet's sense of security, love, and goodness. When his father dies, he loses that sense of security that we all have until something goes horribly wrong. We take our good life for granted as the natural way of things, until a baby dies, or a friend is raped, or we are paralyzed in a car accident. And then we realize that what we thought was the natural order of things was just a string of incredibly good luck. Then he loses his sense of love when his mother, who seemed completely in love with his father, remarries almost immediately. All his ideals of love are shattered; if what was between them wasn't love, then can anything be considered love? Finally, he loses his sense of goodness when the final piece drops: when he learns that his uncle murdered his father. I imagine this as akin to how the family must have felt when their son-in-law murdered their pregnant daughter. All at once, you lose not just someone you love, but you realize that snakes live among us.
All of this is to say that this production emphasized Hamlet's natural reactions to a devastating loss rather than focusing on any "mistakes" that Hamlet is conceived of making in other interpretations. Jay chuckled at me when, at one point in the performance, I leaned over and whispered, "It's just so SAD." Well, yes, it is.
Another thing I liked about the production was that the female characters, Gertrude and Ophelia, were not played as gentle innocents. Gertrude was strong and practical (but not evil) and Ophelia was playful and almost modern. They were really fresh conceptions of the characters. The actor playing Gertrude was Geraldine James, who I recognized from other British productions. It was also nice to see the psychosexual undertones UNDERplayed for once.
The costuming was modern but plain---which worked well. And the set was cool: a black stage floor, and a set of wooden walls in the back that moved back and forth, opening and closing as needed for various scenes. When open, you could see a plain background illuminated with a blue light.
The production had a nice theatricality and physicality, but not overdone. Some performances of Shakespeare play up the bawdiness and commedia dell'arte stylings with almost a self-conscious pride and wink to the audience, like "Look how irreverent we're being." This was just right---theatrical without seeming to linger or self-reflect on the physical tricks and playfulness.
The only downsides were two poor performances: the ghost of Hamlet's father, and Fortinbras. Normally a small part like Fortinbras wouldn't make much of an impact. It's just unfortunate that Fortinbras closes out the play---he speaks the last few lines. The actor was a little iffy. The actor playing the ghost was outright embarrassing---really over the top, almost a caricature of Shakespearean acting.
-
posted by Anonymous at
4:18 PM
4 Comments:
VERY, VERY IMPORTANT: how tall does jude law look?
--theater lover
Oh, Deborah, how you do tend to get to the heart of things . . . it's kind of amazing. Yes, he is noticeably a little short. But I guess that makes his ability to dominate a leading man role all the more impressive.
tiny, little man, big, tall talent? i hear you.
they are *all* so *short*. i'm basically just assuming from here on out that unless i can otherwise verify, they're all about 5'4".
*sigh*
Hi
I saw him in London on stage and also at stage door. He does notably NOT look that short. I am fairly tall for a girl and he was a bit taller, so , no, he isn't too short either in height or talent.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home