Sunday, October 17, 2010

"That Girl" Loves Shakespeare, But...

But...

Hates when the text of one of Shakespeare's plays is treated like the holy gospel, and is declaimed, not simply spoken. I just saw the National Theatre's production of Hamlet and I wanted to love it. I really did. I think the play is full of interesting possibilities across the board, and love the idea of stark modern interpretation. In my mind, Hamlet as written is struggling with some very "modern" concepts, and I like the idea of moving Shakespeare into a modern context.

That being said, I didn't love the production. At all. Instead of using Shakespeare's elegant poetry as a springboard, the actors were directed to throw the text at us, poetry separated from its meaning. For every one of his soliloquies, at least at some point, Hamlet stepped onto the front apron of the stage and spoke at us, not to us. It's very hard to get the meaning behind "oh what I rogue and peasant slave am I" when Hamlet is directed to elevate the words, not merely to use them to show us his alienation and discontent. To me, dramatic text (even Shakespeare) is just words. Words that give us, as audience and actors, an understanding of what a character is DOING. The words are a vehicle, not a untranslatable hieroglyphic.

This is a huge complaint of mine with interpretations of classical texts. These kind of presentational interpretations make it seem like the text is not relevant, not graspable for a modern audience. When, in my mind, nothing could be further from the truth. For me, Shakespeare is vital and relevant not because of exquisite poetry alone, but because he wrote hundreds of years ago about situation, issues and feelings that we feel today, because they are part of the human condition. These 'old' texts cans till move us, partially because they show us how common these feelings (like love, jealousy, patriotism, sorrow)etc. are. Shakespeare's groundlings felt what we feel. Shakespeare's power lies not his iambic pentameter, but in his deft grasp of humanity and human emotion.

When you direct actors to speak Shakespeare like the Holy Gospel, it's precisely that sentiment that gets lost. Period. I can't care why Hamlet cruelly dismisses Ophelia to a nunnery if I haven't felt invited into Hamlet's struggle, his questioning of life versus the unknown void afterward. I don't want to be proclaimed to, but really invited to question, with Hamlet, living or not living, acting or nonacting, Being or Not Being. If an actor isn't using the words to forward an action, I can't care.

This production was nicely imagined, to some degree. Putting a modern spin on the concepts of political power, the interpretation involved a heavy presence of surveillance/security, as well as media figures. We meet Claudius and Gertrude by way of a formal press conference, with cameramen and makeup artists in tow. The stage is always watched by 'Secret Service' agents, and different characters display varying levels of wariness with this presence, most notably Ophelia. It's a clever idea, and for the most part is effective. But, without a connection to the text as I mentioned earlier, I still couldn't bring myself to care about the characters, even while watching the oppression created by these conceptual figures. I still just wanted to be talked to.

Now that being said, I must say that I thought that role of Laertes was played with such sensitivity and an understanding of what his text is doing. In this interpretation, Laertes was a revelation. He moved seamlessly from protecting a sister, to standing his ground, to allying with a powerful leader etc., all of the actions that his lines point to. For me, he stole the show. I cared about him. I wanted to watch his struggle, and a little part of me wanted the ending of his story to change, even though I knew how the play ended. That's how I wanted to feel for the entire 3.5 hours of the production.

I know, I know. Get down off your soapbox, That Girl. And I will. I just had to get that off my chest. It's back to class for me tomorrow! Being a student again is both exhilarating, and exhausting. I'm too old for this! :)

Cheers!
That Girl

3 comments:

  1. That Girl might have mentioned the name of the actor playing Laertes....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmm...that declarative style is a very "classical" form of performance. I would tend to buy it more in a period-style presentation, but I agree with you here. Modern context demands a more modern performance style--and it also gets on my nerves when the text becomes too "precious."

    I look forward to reading some more reviews!

    ReplyDelete
  3. A thousand pardons, Lisa. The actor's name is Alex Lanipekun. And he was a breath of fresh air.

    ReplyDelete