“Who’s there?”
Hamlet in
Hamlet
“Who’s there?”
These words start the
play, a play filled with questions.
These words are also used to open the introduction of the Norton edition
of Shakespeare’s complete works. I read
the intro after having chosen the title of this essay so I’m not plagiarizing.
Nor is it much of a coincidence.
Scholars, critics, playgoers and movie watchers have long been asking
the question, “Who is Hamlet?” And many
have noted that though we can find many answers we still don’t know who he
is. Even Professor Harold Bloom writes
fifty pages and doesn’t really say much.
So why should I try? The
simple answer: how can I not? I don’t aim to solve any mysteries or come up
with any eurekas but I can’t deal with the play at all until I’ve sorted out a
few puzzle pieces.
So who’s there in the
play? Who is this guy Hamlet?
Somewhere in his roles as the son of a father, the son of a mother, a
lover, a student and a prince there must be some kind of answer. Otherwise he’s
a nobody, and nobody is a nobody. Not in reality. Not in Shakespeare.
Son of a
father
We meet the father, as a
ghost, before we meet the son. We meet
the son grieving the death of his father.
Excessively, say his mother and stepfather. Hamlet’s first long speech insists that his
grief is deeper than what can be seen.
His stepfather/uncle Claudius then calls it “unmanly grief” to which
Hamlet does not reply but here is one of the key issues in Hamlet’s
relationship to his father. Old Hamlet was a soldier, and an aggressive
one. We have already seen that: “He smote
the sledded Polacks on the ice,” and that he was valiant: he “did slay this
Fortinbras” (Horatio in Act 1.1). Hamlet, in his first soliloquy, calls his
father Hyperion, the Titan sun god, and then – and this is important – says
that Claudius is no more like old Hamlet “than I to Hercules.” He says to
Horatio that his father “was a man…I shall not look upon his like again,” (Act
1.2) especially not in himself.
Adolescent Hamlet does not live up to his macho father.
He tries, though, in his
meeting with the ghost, or at least he promises:
Haste, haste me to know it, that with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love
May sweep me to my revenge. (Act 1.5)
This satisfies the father
who finds him “apt” but even here we see the hesitation, the contradiction. As
swift as meditation? Meditation, by definition, takes time. And that’s what
happens. Hamlet dithers around, not avenging his father as a son should, must,
according to their rules, so he asks himself, “Am I a coward?” and the answer,
in his mind, is yes: “I am pigeon-livered and lack gall…what an ass am I” who
resorts only to words like a whore or a scullion (Act 2.2). He sees himself in these despised female
roles instead of the aggressive masculine avenger role demanded of him. By society, to be sure, but more importantly
of himself.
Much could and should be
said, and has been said, about Hamlet’s idealization of his father as a husband
and a king but here it would only emphasize his sense of inferiority. This can be seen in his other roles as well.
Son of a
mother
If one’s father was a
perfect example of a masculine man, what does one do with a mother who,
immediately upon becoming a widow, marries someone else, someone not nearly as
manly, someone who instead of a warrior is…a statesman? A talker?
Someone who is in fact more like young Hamlet than old Hamlet?
In this convoluted
situation one (read Hamlet) would hate her and use society’s worst weapon
against her – her sexuality.
And this is what Hamlet
does. Almost in the same breath with
which he expresses his grief over the death of his father Hamlet rants against
the marriage of his mother and uncle.
Hamlet is very clear on
the question of incest here and considering his vulnerability as a grieving
adolescent that’s reasonable but the issue was very ambiguous. In some times
and societies a widow was expected to marry the brother. In this case it could
also be seen as necessary – Denmark was again being threatened by Norway and a
strong king united with a strong queen was vital. Immediately. Claudius himself
expresses this: “…now our queen, / Th’ imperial jointress of this warlike
state” (Act 1.2). But Hamlet doesn’t see this.
He sees betrayal: his perfect father loved his virtuous (though lusty)
wife who jumps from royal bed to incestuous bed. We already see that Hamlet is
confused about his mother. His father loves her devotedly, or seems to, but
Hamlet sees her devotion as “hang[ing] on him/ As if increase of appetite had
grown/ By what it fed on” (Act 1.2). “Appetite”, i.e. lust, not love. But in
her marrying Claudius she is frail: “Frailty, thy name is woman.” Too weak to…?
Yes, to what? Withstand the pressures of state, in need of a royal couple? Why
not? But Hamlet more likely sees her frailty as giving into Claudius. There is, in any case, a hint of Hamlet
feeling, in spite of his harsh words, that it isn’t entirely her fault, but it
is her weakness.
Almost a whole page about
Hamlet’s mother and I haven’t even written her name. Gertrude. The Queen of Denmark. It is
important to remember that. She’s not
only a mother and a wife but a head of state.
But Hamlet doesn’t see
this, he sees her only as his mother and his father’s wife, and he sees her as
failing at both. We can almost excuse
him. He’s blinded by grief and resentment.
He’s neither the first nor the last to hate and resent both remarrying
parent and married stepparent. And it is as son to a mother that we are dealing
with Hamlet here.
Shakespeare doesn’t tell
us much about their relationship when Hamlet was a boy. As a queen she probably didn’t have much to
do with him but there is no indication in the play of any earlier
conflict. The problem though is that
Gertrude did not maintain the role Hamlet demanded of her, grieving widow. He’s selfish, as children and grievers tend
to be. He’s confused and scared (ghosts will do that to a person).
Hurting, frightened,
feeling inferior and inadequate, unsure of his masculinity, Hamlet does what
young men (and old) do in that situation.
He becomes violent.
The closet scene.
It is very important to read this scene, Act 3.4, carefully. Gertrude is often interpreted as weeping and
wailing and repenting her own evil. This
is wrong. She is angry. Here, more than ever, she is authoritative.
She loves her son but she is hurt by and tired of his outrageous behavior. “Have you forgot me?” She is saying, “I am
your mother, you are a child. I am a queen, you are my subject.”
Hamlet’s reply: “You shall not budge,” and Gertrude’s “thou wilt not
murder me? Help, help, ho!” is usually shown by Hamlet throwing her down on the
bed then killing Polonius. When Hamlet then replies to her horrified reaction
that it’s no worse than killing a king, Gertrude is stupefied. “As kill a
king?” We believe her – she hadn’t known Claudius had killed old Hamlet, but
young Hamlet still rants on about her dreadful act and Gertrude is truly
puzzled at his passion: “What have I done…Ay me, what act,/ That roars so loud
and thunders in the index?”
Hamlet tells her. And tells her. And tells her. You betrayed my perfect
father with disgusting Claudius and it can’t be for love (would that have been
OK?) because you’re too old (ah, kids, they say the silliest things).
Now is when Gertrude is usually shown as weeping and wailing and
repentant. Yes, she knows her hasty marriage is a problem and his words make
that impossible to ignore: “Thou turn’st mine eyes into my very soul…” Yes, his
words are painful, “These words like daggers enter in mine ears. / No more,
sweet Hamlet.” Yes, she wishes he would
shut up. She is well aware of the
Christian view of women’s sexuality as evil and sinful and society’s bawdy
acceptance of lust. She is troubled by her own role in this painful paradox and
so Hamlet’s neurotic accusations hurt. Her “heart is cleft in twain” as indeed
is unavoidable in a society (like our own) that demands that a woman is sexy
and sexless at the same time.
But she is not reduced to a blubbering old sexpot as she is sometimes
portrayed. As soon as Hamlet starts
acting like he’s seeing a ghost, which we know he is but she doesn’t, Gertrude
takes over again and tries to calm him down and to bring him back from his
madness. And when they have calmed down somewhat, Gertrude says, “What shall I
do?” The portrayals I have seen show that Gertrude is more or less begging
Hamlet to guide her but I think this is wrong. I think she is asking herself,
what do I do now with this cruel mad hurtful son?
It’s an exhausting confrontation for both of them and though there is
much more that could be said, here I will have to limit myself to the
observation that in the end, Hamlet’s rage at his mother has been spent. His
last words to her, when she has died and he is dying, are, “Wretched queen,
adieu.” No longer hateful, or incestuous, but wretched.
Lover
We only see Hamlet and
Ophelia together in two scenes and if we only had what we see there to go on we
could only say, “She’s better off without him.”
Maybe she is but that doesn’t mean they didn’t love each other. Not that
it did either of them any good.
From what Ophelia says at
various times, Hamlet has been a loving and honorable wooer. He has been generous with his feelings: “He
hath…of late made many tenders/ Of his affection for me” (Act 1.4). He has been “honourable” and he has been
serious: he “…hath given countenance to
his speech…/ With all the vows of heaven”
(Act 1.4). Ophelia at least has seen nothing mad, insulting or
untrustworthy in Hamlet’s feelings for her before the play opens. Still, she obeys her brother and father and
breaks with him.
And he goes mad. He comes to Ophelia, pale, shaking, his
clothes disheveled, looking “As if he had been looséd out of hell/ To speak of
horrors” , “he raised a sigh so piteous and profound” and then he left her, his
eyes lingering on hers (Act 2.1).
“Mad for thy love?”
Polonius thinks immediately. Ophelia thinks this might be the case. Very
possibly but another possibility to consider is that Hamlet regards her not
only as a sweetheart but as a friend he can turn to with his torment, but since
she has broken with him, he finds he cannot speak to her, of their love or
anything else.
In the next scene Polonius
reads Hamlet’s letter aloud to Claudius and Gertrude. It’s clearly a love
letter:
“To the celestial and my soul’s idol…
…Doubt thou that the stars are fire,
Doubt that the sun doth move,
Doubt truth to be a liar,
But never doubt I love.
O dear Ophelia, I am ill at these numbers. I have not
the art to reckon my groans. But that I love thee best, O most best, believe
it. Adieu.
Thine evermore, most dear lady, whilst this machine is to him. Hamlet.”
(Act 2.2)
From the anguish of the
tone it seems that he gave this letter to her after she had broken with him.
And his love and anguish seem to go deep. Why then do we hear nothing at all
from Hamlet himself about Ophelia?
Several major scenes pass,
including the meeting with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in which Hamlet
describes Denmark as a prison and thereafter proclaims, “I have of late, and
wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth” (also Act 2.2), Hamlet’s fishmonger dialog
with Polonius, the players’ arrival, and Hamlet’s “Am I a coward/the play’s the
thing” soliloquy. Only thereafter, and
after “To be or not to be”, in which Ophelia herself is not named but “the
pangs of disprized love” are among the slings and arrows listed, do Hamlet and
Ophelia meet on stage for the first time.
It’s a heartbreaking
scene. Ophelia must reject the love she believes was real. Hamlet contradicts
himself from one line to the next. He
did love her, he didn’t. She’s beautiful but beauty can’t be trusted. Love is only
bawdiness. Love is a sin. I am worthless. All men are worthless. Women can’t be
trusted, they hide themselves under cosmetics. Go to a nunnery, don’t marry.
Don’t have kids. Marry a fool. No more marriages. Nunnery/brothel?
No wonder Ophelia despairs
over the young man she has loved!
O, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown!
The courtier's, soldier's, scholar's, eye, tongue, sword;
Th’ expectancy and rose of the fair state,
The
glass of fashion and the mould of form,
Th’
observed of all observers, quite, quite down!
And
I, of ladies most deject and wretched,
That
sucked the honey of his music vows,
Now
see that noble and most sovereign reason,
Like sweet bells jangled out of tune and harsh;
That
unmatched form and feature of blown youth
Blasted with ecstasy. O, woe is me,
To have seen what I have seen, see what I see! (Act 3.1)
In Olivier’s film version
of Hamlet this soliloquy is cut and
Ophelia is simply left weeping piteously on the floor. That’s one of the
reasons I don’t like the Olivier version.
Ophelia is not a wimp. In this soliloquy she reveals herself as a very
unhappy (of course) but astute and analytical young woman.
One would wish to spare
her further painful confrontations with her hurtful lover but no. They meet at the play. She tries to remain aloof but Hamlet is all
over her, manic and insistent. Their
exchange is bitter. And it ends with Ophelia’s last words to him, “Oh, the king
rises.” They never meet or speak again.
If we can disregard
Ophelia’s later song about the maid whose lover would have married her if she
hadn’t gone to bed with him as just that, only a song and not her own
experience – as in many cases in the play, Shakespeare leaves us uncertain -
and even if it has happened, the scene at the production of “The Mousetrap” ends
what was surely at one time a tender love relationship that could have led to a
happy marriage, as Gertrude and probably the two young lovers had hoped
for. If Laertes and Polonius hadn’t
pushed Ophelia into breaking with Hamlet and thereby convincing him that women
and their love cannot be trusted, it might have been that Ophelia’s love and
friendship could have helped Hamlet through his torment. If only.
Instead she is driven to
madness and death. Hamlet too. Because
surely silly Polonius is partly right in interpreting Hamlet’s irrational
behavior at least partly caused by Ophelia’s rejection.
Hamlet as a lover is as complex and tragic as he is as a son.
Student
Love and hate as
intertwined in each other are thus a major part of trying to figure out who
Hamlet is. I could end this essay here feeling that a significant start had
been achieved in defining Hamlet. But
love isn’t everything, not even together with hate. Two more facets must be
looked at, however briefly.
Hamlet is a student. This
is established early in the play. And
not just some schoolboy. He is, or was,
studying at one of the most prestigious and demanding universities of the time
(i.e. Shakespeare’s time). This is the
dawn of the era when discussion, debate and analysis were not limited to
theological issues and biblical texts but to the material world around us and
to the essence of the human condition.
In all of his soliloquies – in fact in almost everything he says in the
whole play – Hamlet is intellectually working his way through sticky, even
painful issues. Death versus life, of
course, love and/or hate too, sublime love versus foul sexuality, political
power versus resistance, structured society versus chaos. There isn’t much he misses and he does it
according to the rules of academic debate.
He thinks. He reasons. He’s a scholar.
Even about his most passionate obsessions. This, he thinks, is his weakness. A man who thinks instead of acting is
unmanly. In spite of the admiration and
respect expressed by others throughout the play for his role as a student, the
demands on him are to abandon his studies.
The ghost doesn’t say, “Go back to school.” Claudius and Gertrude don’t say, “Go back to
school.” They tell him to stay. So he stays. He becomes a dropout. But he can’t stop thinking. He is a scholar
to his very depths. Is it this which is
his downfall? Or is it this which lifts him above his own disgust and despair?
Is the answer to both questions yes?
Prince
Finally I would like to look at one of Hamlet’s most visible roles that
somehow disappears in the shuffle. How
can we miss it? Already in the title
we’re told he’s a prince.
To be sure, this is mentioned frequently throughout the play. Laertes
and Polonius insist on telling Ophelia she isn’t good enough for him because
he’s a prince and she’s just a….whatever she is. Daughter to a royal advisor
who is undoubtedly of the aristocracy anyway.
And Gertrude doesn’t see any problem.
The other princely aspect is that Hamlet is always “my lord” and never
the 16th century version of “dude”.
His friends are not his equals and he doesn’t treat them as such. They are there to serve and support him
(Horatio) or betray him (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern).
What I find puzzling though is the primary role of prince – to succeed
to the throne at the death of the king – doesn’t even seem to be an issue here.
King Hamlet dies, Prince Hamlet should become Hamlet II. Right? But nowhere can I find does Hamlet express
any serious interest in becoming king himself, no personal resentment except
for a brief mention in Act 5 that Claudius took the throne that should
rightfully be his. Hamlet, in spite of
his title, is not the once and future king.
So who’s
there?
In trying to clarify the
character of Hamlet, even a little bit, we find that we can. Sort of. To a
point. But not really. Of all the words,
words, words at Hamlet’s command, constant and harmonious are not among them.
He is an explosive bundle of obsessions, pain, wit (both in sense of humor and
intellect), grief, anger, cruelty, sarcasm, longing. He is, in every way, brilliant.
But he is also young (even
if we see him age inexplicably in Act V).
He is growing up. He is
struggling to wend his way through the turbulence of his structured childhood
falling apart and giving way to life in all its tormenting ambiguity, in all
its contradictory demands on a young man.
It’s enough to drive
anyone mad. And that’s been the big question for a few hundred years. Is Hamlet
crazy? Well, it depends on your definition. There is, Polonius points out, a
method to it anyway. He is driven, like
Ophelia, to whatever diagnosis is applicable by the conflicting demands put on
him and in the end none of the roles he has tried or been forced to play have
brought him any peace. He dies, which is
what the whole play has led up to, and he is resigned – “let be” – and he
anticipates nothing more, or so we could interpret, “The rest is silence”. But though he says it he doesn’t want silence
for those left living. He wants Horatio to tell his story and Horatio will. Supportive
loyal friend that he is however, in the end, Horatio loses the role of
historian to the military hot-headed Fortinbras who steals Hamlet’s identity by
turning him into a soldier, the least of the roles he has been asked to
play. The silence that should have
brought Hamlet peace denies everything he was.
Works cited:
The Norton Shakespeare, based
on the Oxford Edition. Ed. Greenblatt, Stephen et al.
Second edition. 2008.
While not quoting other
scholars, I am indebted to the following for information and inspiration:
·
Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare - the Invention of the Human.
1998.
·
Bruster, Douglas. To Be or Not to Be. 2007.
·
Coyle, Martin, editor. Hamlet – Contemporary Critical Essays.
1992.
·
Dotterer, Dick, editor. For Women: Pocket Monologs from Shakespeare.
1997.
·
Earley, Michael and Philippa
Keil, editors. Soliloquy – The
Shakespeare Monologues, the Women. 1988.
·
Erickson, Peter. Rewriting Shakespeare Rewriting Ourselves.
1991.
·
Greenblatt, Stephen. Hamlet in Purgatory. 2001.
·
Greenblatt, Stephen.
Introduction to the Norton Edition.
·
Knight, Wilson. The Wheel of Fire. 1930 and 1989.
·
Kott, Jan. Shakespeare Our Contemporary. 1964.
·
Neill, Michael. “’He that
knowest thine’ – Friendship and Service in Hamlet”.
From A Companion to Shakespeare’s Work –
the Tragedies. Edited by Jean E. Howard and Richard Dutton. 2003, 2006.
Spin-offs and Hamlet related films seen:
·
Withnail and I, 1987. Director: Bruce Robinson.
Cast: Withnail - Richard E. Grant; “I” - Paul McGann. I don’t remember where I read or
heard about the Hamlet connection in this movie or if I remember it from seeing
the movie about twenty years ago. The
only connection is at the end when the out of work actor Withnail quotes the “I
have of late” soliloquy. It’s very appropriate to his despair at that
point.
·
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, 1991. Director: Nicholas Meyer. Cast: the original TV cast plus Chang – Christopher
Plummer and many others. If I remember
correctly Chang is the only one to spout Shakespeare quotes but he certainly
spouts a lot of them. I knew it! Science
fiction and Shakespeare are a given!
·
The Glass House, 2001. Director: Daniel Sackheim. Cast: Stellan Skarsgård, Leelee
Sobieski, Diane Lane, Bruce Dern, Kathy Baker. The most obvious connection to Hamlet
is that Sobieski gets a school assignment to write about it, Skarsgård writes
the paper for her plagiarizing Harold Bloom (how cool is that!) and she gets
caught. Otherwise there are some
parallels to brother murdering brother (in this case best friends) to take over
kingdom (money) and offspring (daughter) getting revenge. You don’t have to run out and buy the DVD or
anything but if you come across it it’s watchable.
·
To Be or Not To Be, 1942. Director: Ernst Lubitsch. Cast: Carole Lombard, Jack Benny, Robert
Stack and a lot of other actors I’ve never heard of. World War Two, Poland, a troupe of actors who
end up playing the roles of their lives. A touch of humor, a touch of tragedy,
a lot of history and beautifully filmed in black and white. Carole Lombard is
superb.
·
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, 1990. Director: Tom Stoppard. Cast:
Rosencrantz – Gary Oldman; Guildenstern – Tim Roth; the Player – Richard
Dreyfuss; Hamlet – Iain Glenn; Claudius – Donald Sumpter; Gertrude – Johanna
Miles. This is such an ingenious film
and the acting is so good that it can be thoroughly enjoyed even without having
a clue about Hamlet. But knowing the play makes it even more
brilliant. A must see, again and again, and again.
·
In the Bleak Midwinter, 1995. Known as A Midwinter’s Tale in the US. Director: Kenneth Branagh. Cast: Michael Maloney, Julia Sawala, Nicholas
Farrell, Richard Briers, Celia Imrie, Mark Hadfield, Jennifer Saunders, Joan
Collins, John Sessions, Gerard Horan. This is a movie for actors who love
acting, movie lovers who love Shakespeare and everybody who likes a happy
ending. An out of work gang of actors
doing Hamlet doesn’t seem to be a
perfect set-up for a feel-good movie but Branagh makes it work. Like he does everything.
Film versions of Hamlet seen in
order seen this time around:
·
BBC, 1980. Directed by Rodney Bennett. Cast: Hamlet – Derek Jacobi; Claudius –
Patrick Stewart; Gertrude – Claire Bloom; Ophelia – Lalla Ward; Horatio –
Robert Swann; Polonius – Eric Porter;
Laertes – David Robb; Ghost – Patrick Allen; Rosencrantz – Jonathan
Hyde; Guildenstern – Geoffrey Bateman; Fortinbras – Ian Charleson. This is
probably the best production of the BBC box and with actors like Jacobi,
Stewart and Bloom it would be hard not to be.
It’s not perfect – Jacobi overdoes it at times (and besides I can’t stop
wondering why he believes someone else wrote Shakespeare’s plays) and Stewart
is too macho and not remorseful enough, but the production doesn’t cut major
parts, the minimalist stage settings emphasize the play’s stark grimness and
when the play is over, a feeling of overwhelming sadness lingers.
·
Zeffirelli version, 1990. Directed by Franco
Zeffirelli. Cast: Hamlet – Mel Gibson; Claudius
– Alan Bates; Gertrude – Glenn Close; Ophelia – Helena Bonham-Carter; Horatio –
Stephen Dellane; Polonius – Ian Holm;
Laertes – Nathaniel Parker; Ghost – Paul Scofield; Rosencrantz – Michael
Mahoney; Guildenstern – Sean Murray; Fortinbras – nobody, the role was cut;
gravedigger – Trevor Peacock. This is quite a good version in spite of Mel
Gibson, one of my least favorite actors. He does OK here but there are so many
actors who would have been better.
Helena Bonham-Carter gives, as always, an outstanding performance
although many of her (Ophelia’s) most important lines were cut. In fact much of
the play’s scenes were cut or mixed up, making this a good action drama but not
the profound masterpiece that Hamlet
is. Like all of Zeffirelli’s films this is lavish and colorful and somewhat
likeable.
·
Almereyda version, 2000. Directed by Michael Almereyda. Cast: Hamlet –
Ethan Hawke; Claudius – Kyle MacLachlan; Gertrude – Diane Venora; Ophelia –
Julia Stiles; Horatio –Karl Geary; Polonius – Bill Murray; Laertes – Liev Schreiber; Ghost – Sam
Shephard; Rosencrantz – Steve Zahn; Guildenstern –Dechen Thurman; Fortinbras –
Casey Affleck (barely); gravedigger – Jeffrey Wright. Hamlet in a techno
corporate setting works just fine. Ethan
Hawke is a very convincing Hamlet, young and sullen. Julia Stiles is also
sullen. It fits Ophelia. Much of the
cast is good, though MacLachlan and Venora are disappointing as Claudius and
Gertrude. The visual aspect is very effective. In spite of the flaws, I like
this version.
·
Olivier version, 1948. Director: Laurence Olivier. Cast: Hamlet –
Laurence Olivier; Claudius – Basil Sydney; Gertrude – Eileen Herlie; Ophelia –
Jean Simmons; Horatio – Norman Wooland; Polonius – Felix Aylmer; Laertes – Terence Morgan; Ghost - not listed
; Rosencrantz - nobody, the part was
cut; Guildenstern - nobody, the part was cut ; Fortinbras - nobody the part was
cut ; gravedigger - Stanley Holloway. Oh I know it’s a classic and won Oscars
for best picture and best actor but it just doesn’t hold up. From the very first frame you can
see it’s a fake – Denmark doesn’t have any mountains! Heaven knows I don’t
demand strict realism in the movies I watch but there has to be some
logic. The swirling fog in the enormous
castle with endless stone staircases is dramatic enough. And Olivier? Either expressionless to the
point of ho hum to hammy to violent and incestuous. And a vampy, lascivious
Gertrude. So, so wrong. I’ve tried to like this film, really I have. But I
don’t. Sorry.
·
RSC version, 2009. Directed by Gregory Doran. Cast: Hamlet – David Tennant; Claudius – Patrick
Stewart; Gertrude – Penny Downie; Ophelia – Mariah Gale; Horatio –Peter de
Jersey; Polonius – Oliver Ford Davies;
Laertes – Edward Bennett; Ghost – Patrick Stewart; Rosencrantz – Sam
Alexander; Guildenstern – Tom Davey; Fortinbras - Robert Curtis; gravedigger - Mark
Hadfield. A very intense Hamlet set in
the here and now. David Tennant
crackles; he takes Hamlet’s madness further than most. Penny Downie is the best Gertrude so far and
generally this is a powerful production. Worthy seeing many times.
·
Brook version, 2002. Director: Peter Brook. Cast: Hamlet –
Adrian Lester; Claudius – Jeffrey Kissoon; Gertrude – Natasha Parry; Ophelia –
Shantala Shivalingappa; Horatio – Scott Handy; Polonius – Bruce Meyers; Laertes – Rohan Siva; Ghost – Jeffrey Kissoon;
Rosencrantz – Asil Raïs; Guildenstern – Rohan Siva; Fortinbras – nobody, not
included; gravedigger – Bruce Meyers. Adrian Lester is the star of the production
and he really is a star. A subdued, thoughtful, anguished Hamlet who is mostly
in control but sometimes not. It is painful and beautiful to watch Adrian
Lester. The other stars of the play are
the colors. Minimalist but intense. Red, black, white, gold. A disappointing
Gertrude, she doesn’t seem to even like Hamlet. Otherwise, a very strong
production, with a strong international cast from several continents.
·
Kevin Kline version, 1990. Director: Kevin Kline. Cast: Hamlet – Kevin Kline; Claudius – Brian Murray;
Gertrude – Dana Ivey; Ophelia – Diane Venora; Horatio – Peter Francis James;
Polonius – Josef Sommer; Laertes –
Michael Cumpsty; Ghost – Robert Murch; Rosencrantz – Philip Goodwin;
Guildenstern – Reg E. Cathey; Fortinbras – Don Reilly; gravedigger – Macintyre
Dixon. After a stiff start this version takes off.
Kline does a fine interpretation, the cast is generally good, though Gertrude
tends to be negligee-off-the-shoulder and not as good as the role demands.
Diane Venora is possibly the best Ophelia ever. The dark minimalist stage
setting works very well.
·
Branagh version, 1996. Director: Kenneth Branagh. Cast: Hamlet – Kenneth Branagh; Claudius – Derek
Jacobi; Gertrude – Julie Christie; Ophelia – Kate Winslet; Horatio – Nicholas
Farrell; Polonius – Richard Briers;
Laertes – Michael Mahoney; Ghost – Brian Blessed; Rosencrantz – Timothy
Spall; Guildenstern – Reece Dinsdale; Fortinbras – Rufus Sewell; gravedigger –
Billy Chrystal. What can I say? The
competition is tough but Kenneth Branagh just can’t be beat. It seems this movie will always have the top
listing in my heart. It’s flawed, yes, but each and every one of the cast –
especially Branagh of course but also especially Julie Christie – are just so
good! In his introduction to the DVD
Branagh says an actor doesn’t play Hamlet, Hamlet plays the actor. This could be said of them all. “Natural”
doesn’t even begin to describe it. OK, I’ll quit there.
Seen on stage: no, amazingly.
