Family
mess sorted! For now … So I suppose we’ll all be able to meet for Christmas.
And another possible way to sabotage my theatre event in February has appeared:
one of London’s numerous theatres was so dilapidated that the ceiling of a
balcony crumbled during a show and several people got injured. Claudia told me
that this already happened in one of the theatres where she had planned to see
a show, so – not even THAT unlikely! I bet, if I don’t get to see “Uncle Vanya”
it will be because of something even more unexpected … But it bothered me –
less because I fear for my own safety but because of the possibility that one
of so many precious actors might be “damaged”.
Then
there was Halloween – which was great! Made disgusting pumpkin pie accompanied
by my three and a half hour horror playlist, and then watched “The Shining”,
about two thirds of the first season of “Hannibal”, and finally “Red Dragon”
with Ralph Fiennes. And was puzzled - and pleased! - that it wasn’t really
good. Pleased because I had an actual point of reference for how unbelievable Richard
Armitage’s Red Dragon has been. I had this impression that I saw an entirely
new dimension of acting – and this confirmed it. (It wasn’t a fair contest, by
the way, because Richard Armitage had all the time in the world for doing
things for which Ralph Fiennes had no time at all.) On the other hand, I actually
was a bit relieved because Ralph Fiennes became uncanny just recently. He had
been that already, a few times, and especially seeing him as Heathcliff – whom
he played ages ago, of course. But I recently watched “Schindler’s List” – a
film I was absolutely certain I would never want to see in my life, and of
course I was right. Not that it isn’t good, it is just the kind of film I’d
never watch. And Liam Neeson was great as Schindler, but I minded him the whole
time because – as the film is in black and white, which was basically a good
idea because of the blood – he looks like a HERO in an old Ufa film, and –
worse! - makes everything else look and feel like an old Ufa film. That is, until
the moment Hauptsturmführer Amon Goeth – played by Ralph Fiennes – turns up.
From this moment, black and white ceases and “real life” returns with a
vengeance. I have seldom seen something as disgusting and disturbingly weird
but, as usual, from the moment I saw him, I BELIEVED – actually for the first
time, even though I never actively doubted it! – that human beings like this,
that kill other people just because they enjoy it, are possible. And – worse! –
that they ARE human. Maybe it is just my fault that I always believe what he is
doing (except his Red Dragon), but he certainly makes it easy for me. So, it actually
was some kind of relief to see that, after all, he is only human.
And
there is still something before I’ll be back to work which I have started
unintentionally in my last post: My …
BRRR👅👅👅😖EXIT column:
There
isn’t much to say FOR Brexit from my point of view, but without its becoming an
issue nobody on the Continent would ever have heard of John Bercow. Now, after “we”
have come to appreciate him, he has retired and left us a message. He said that
he doesn’t understand why it shouldn’t be possible to go about serious business
WITH HUMOUR. (I don’t know what he said exactly because I heard it on my radio
in German, but this was the point he made.) And YESSS, John Bercow, you are
RIGHT!!! I mean, at least anywhere in Great Britain you would be. But, at my
place of work, if I make a joke on a work-related matter people are looking at
me as if they expected an explanation of my strange behaviour coming out of my
mouth … 😢 And this is, of course, what I love about the Brits
more than anything - even more than acting on the assumption that the content
is important too – not JUST the wrapping … Sorry, but I am obviously feeling
the need of examining the limb one last time before it gets hacked off.
Now definitely
back to the serious business: “Hamlet” … Despite of the usual weakening towards
the end I loved this production because it worked on the same principle as the
Almeida’s “Richard III” – which is still the best Shakespeare I have seen. (And
another opportunity to mention Ralph Fiennes!) The focus was almost entirely on
Hamlet – as it was on Richard – but they built a strong social environment
around their main protagonists, like some kind of strong “architecture” - where everything is set up tight, and is full
of movement and energy, but nothing (and nobody) stands out. And this was a
great environment for the lead actors to unfold the potential of their
character. (Of course there are plays by Shakespeare that are completely
different, but for something like “Hamlet”, “Macbeth”, or “Richard III” this
appears to me to be the recipe.)
Therefore
my focus was almost entirely on Hamlet, and there were a few aspects I found
interesting about this production – apart from him being part of a family. Some
of this I came upon in my conversation with Claudia. We discovered that we had
the exact same opinion about what the specific political situation in “Hamlet”
is – which made me aware that it must have come from Dover Wilson. The
political background of armed conflicts between the Scandinavian kings fighting
for overlordship is relevant in two respects. First because it adds to Hamlet's
load of responsibility, as the people, in troubled times, are looking to their
leaders to “set it right”. This aspect is dealt with briefly – and efficiently!
– by showing Fortinbras announce his hostile intentions on TV. We never see
Fortinbras on the stage, not even at the end where he appears on the screen
instead, arranging the state funeral for Hamlet. A smart move – not only
because they economize on actors. It is aesthetically satisfying as well as
significant that the play ends the way it begins: with a state funeral on TV.
But more important, I think, is that it shows Fortinbras as what he is for
Hamlet: a projection screen. Fortinbras is in the exact same position as
Hamlet: next in line, with his father dead and uncle on the throne. Only he is
taking positive action – even without the added motive of revenge! - waging war
mainly to replace his uncle as head of state. In the end he wins the throne of
Denmark as well, as it appears just as a result of the Danish “tragedy”. But he
certainly has proved that he qualifies as a leader.
So,
politics is efficiently set up as background, but, at the same time, REMAINS in
the background. Quite obviously they didn’t just want political issues marginalized,
they wanted them OFF THE STAGE. All the characters were radically stripped of
their political “outer skin”. Where Hamlet is concerned, in my opinion, there
isn’t any. If he deals with matters of state at all it is from a radically “inward”
perspective. (And when he tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that he lacks
advancement it is obviously a diversion.) But with Claudius and Polonius this
is different. Claudius can be shown as a politician where he is dealing with
foreign policy on behalf of Fortinbras’ provocation. As far as I remember, he
doesn’t show any interest in the situation, nor concern about it, just relief
when he hears that Fortinbras’ uncle intervened. I think that there IS a
political dimension of the Claudius plot that could make the last third of the
play more interesting: that he neglects foreign policy because he is tied up in
the internal scandal. This is probably debatable, and I have no practical idea
about showing it on the stage, but there certainly is a choice of showing him
as a good or bad politician – or not as a politician at all.
The loss
of a skin is most obvious where Polonius is concerned. But it appears only in
comparison – with other actors playing this character – because Peter Wight
always “fills” his characters so completely. But Polonius is not just a
concerned father, struggling with old age, he clearly is a meddler and a
snitch. This can be shown as an occupational hazard – not as a character flaw –
because he obviously is one of the “bureaucrats” (like Lord Burleigh) that (if
I believe Philippa Gregory) were in charge of the steering-wheel much more
than their sovereign. That this dimension is radically taken out of Polonius –
as we both agreed! – is the most striking proof of their intention to reduce
the play to the private/family situation. But, where my reading is concerned,
this reduction released a lot MORE meaning than any political interpretation of
“Hamlet” ever did. So I experienced it as a conscious choice that proved
relevant.
Instead
of the political implications, another dimension of the play came into focus when
Claudia found something in another Shakespeare blog that played into my reading.
“Hamlet” is certainly dealing with RELIGIOUS matters and debates of the time
much more than most of Shakespeare’s plays. Usually, he makes it rather easy
for me to ignore religion, and I certainly did my best to do this with “Hamlet”
as well – until my nose got dunked into it. (I think that I haven’t mentioned
for a long time that my blog has not even a marginal intention to provide
INFORMATION about Shakespeare, but that it is about ME READING SHAKESPEARE’s
plays and other fictional text. So, it is not about speculating what they might
have been about at the time, or discussing other people’s opinions about them –
though other people’s personal experience with them would be extremely welcome!
- but about finding out what ACTUALLY HAPPENED when I was reading/watching
them.) Taking it that it is relevant that Hamlet is studying in Wittenberg,
there is a clear indication of his protestant background. Which might actually
be the reason that part of his distress – and puzzlement! - at meeting his
father’s ghost, who describes purgatory in vivid terms, is that he might never
have heard of purgatory before! Having just listened to “The Other Queen” (and
remembering “Wolf Hall”!), I am very aware of how confused and uncertain
religious matters were at the time. So, would be extremely cautious to jump to
any conclusions. But the idea is extremely tempting where Hamlet is concerned
because being scared of purgatory would create a CONCRETE “situational” link to
his thoughts about what might actually happen if he would take his own life. So
it is definitely not just philosophical reflection in this monologue, but
genuine personal distress about what choices he has. And some of the
extraordinary behaviour he shows suddenly appears quite natural. For example, I
always found parts of his behaviour towards Ophelia and Gertrude extremely patronizing,
if not cruel - which made me dislike him. But telling Ophelia to go to a nunnery
and firmly pushing his mother on a way out of the deadly sin of incest – if we
take the religious context seriously! – probably springs from genuine concern
for the salvation of the two human beings he loves most. In the context this
production created, Hamlet’s urge to “set it right” can be explained
biographically – as the point of view of a teenager who gets suddenly
confronted with what the world is REALLY like, and is naturally compelled to do
something about it. It is no coincidence that Greta Thunberg is sixteen, not
thirty six! But where Hamlet is concerned there is more reason for this urge to
translate into action than in the case of “average” teenagers. He is the ONLY
one who knows what really happened. And he is clever enough to understand that
he cannot tell ANYONE – respectively, cannot tell anyone who could help him! –
and this makes his position genuinely scary, and ultimately tragic. In this
context, for the first time, the Rosencrantz/Guildenstern scenes developed
their full tragic potential as, in the beginning, Hamlet is so genuinely
pleased to meet them, and then realizes that they are set up to spy on him! What
this does to his relationship with Ophelia is only too obvious. And I was
reminded of his genuine delight - and relief! - at meeting Horatio when, during
the last (boring) third of the play, I suddenly MISSED him (- whereas, usually,
he just annoys me.) Missed him as the one person that Hamlet would have needed
to make him FEEL BETTER. And this showed me that Andrew Scott played it right
after all because, for the first time, he made me genuinely understand Hamlet
and EMPATHIZE with him.
(What I
realized just now: I always thought that my general lack of empathy makes it
easier to understand human content because it is easy for me to separate fictional
characters from myself. I have proof for this, but, most of the time, it might
actually make it harder.)
At the
same time I became aware that – gaining a lot of meaning by this successful
effort to make Hamlet more consistent – I lost whole DIMENSIONS of the
character. I think we had a significant disagreement about the gravedigger
scene – which Claudia found boring because it wasn’t funny at all, and which I
liked extremely because of one of these little moments that made me look
closely at what this scene really is about. Instead of using Hamlet’s questions
as an opportunity for cracking jokes, the gravedigger appears rather bored with
them – until he suddenly realizes that Hamlet is interested in his professional
expertise. At this moment he suddenly becomes animated, something that feels so
extremely realistic that I was just DRAWN into the scene. And this unexpected
closeness - just like when I first saw Andrew Scott’s “To be or not to be” on
YouTube - made me aware what this scene really is about. (That it is NOT JUST a
comic relief scene – as comic relief scenes in “Shakespeare” never are! In my
opinion, they are strategically put where they are to “frame” content that is
so extremely “dark” that it exceeds the conventions of what it was possible to
show on the stage at the time. Actually, as a means to highlight something BY
HIDING IT. (If you want to look, you can look, if you don’t want to you have an
excuse to laugh instead.) So, TODAY, when a scene like this is played
conventionally funny, we don’t look anymore, and the dark content remains
hidden. Therefore it is usually good, in my opinion, to try something
different.) What actually happens in this scene is that Hamlet comes to face
the REALITY of his own death, not just the possibility of it.
The main
thing I realized in this context is that I DIDN’T MISS Hamlet being ironic all
the time and making – often rather cruel – fun of other people. He isn’t even
really taking the piss out of Polonius because, as Polonius doesn’t patronize
him, it would just appear cruel – not like Hamlet striking back. But this takes
an important dimension out of the character, namely that Hamlet is extremely
clever, cunning, and resourceful. I clearly didn’t miss it because this
reduction makes him appear more innocent and “childlike” which strengthened the
impression that he is just a teenager who is burdened with a load much too
heavy for him to bear. But I was aware nonetheless that we lose a vital
dimension of the character. If there was an actor who would be able to figure
out how to show Hamlet as young and vulnerable and sophisticated AT THE SAME
TIME – he would probably be “my” Hamlet. Until this happens, Andrew Scott
delivered the only convincing version I have actually seen. (Claudia had the
(dis)advantage of having seen “her” Hamlet – when Samuel West played him – which
made it easier for her to dismiss what Andrew Scott was doing.) It might be
possible, but it would certainly require genius.
The most
interesting thing they did with the Hamlet plot, in my opinion, was LEAVING OUT
the scene where he explains that he is going to play mad, and why he is doing
this. As I saw it, that made it possible to basically IGNORE the madness issue
– which is, in my opinion, the least convincing “part” of Hamlet. I can only speak
for myself, of course, but I have never seen an actor do it in an INTERESTING way.
Of course this clearly defeats what Shakespeare intended with the play, and
might even make the second half more boring. As I focused entirely on Hamlet’s
general predicament and his family relationships this didn’t bother me at all
but appeared to ADD consistency instead! Probably just because I don’t know the
play (or Dover Wilson) as well as Claudia who was dissatisfied that Hamlet
isn’t shown to have changed after his return. As I don’t remember – or never
understood – what Dover Wilson had to say about this, I am just guessing. But
the only way Hamlet might be SEEN to have changed would be, in my opinion, that
he isn’t playing mad anymore. And this would only have been possible if we had
seen him playing mad before – which, in my opinion, in this production we
didn’t! So, that is what I mean by having stripped the protagonist of entire
dimensions. That he improved so considerably by this - in my experience! -
leads me to the unorthodox question of how much we can skip of “Hamlet” and still
make it a better text …?!
So, as
usual with “Hamlet”: The rest is puzzlement …
I had
another really interesting experience though, which proved to me – if only in a
very subjective way - that they did something exceptionally truthful with this
play. And that digging deeper into “Hamlet” always releases something “we”
didn’t yet know. For the very first time I understood – not because the scene
was so well played but just because of the context my reading created! – why we
have this heavy, tiresome monologue about Priam and Niobe AT THE CENTRE of the
play. In my experience, it is always set up in a way that we can see that Hamlet
is extremely pleased and animated by the unexpected appearance of the actors –
and that he really loves what they do and would love to do it himself. But the
extreme RELIEF he experiences is not just because he gets momentarily
distracted from his dire predicament. It is also about the reason WHY he loves
theatre and acting so much. He really loves the monologue because it is this
convincing representation of how people are supposed to deal with violence and
tragic circumstances. What their emotional reactions are SUPPOSED to be. He can
understand completely how Niobe is feeling whereas he CANNOT understand how his
mother could have fallen in love with Claudius, or how Ophelia could suddenly have
turned out two-faced. How real life can suddenly turn out so complicated – and
so utterly UNSATISFACTORY. I wouldn’t have understood any of this without taking
into account that Hamlet is a TEENAGER – and this means somebody who GENUINELY
BELIEVES that he has to set it right. That is, to change EVERYTHING that is so
totally wrong with this world that there actually is no point to living your
whole damned life in it if it doesn’t get changed! But he is also an unusually
sophisticated teenager – rather the kind that I had been myself – who already
observes where this line between fiction and reality is located WITHIN HIMSELF.
He doesn’t understand it yet, but he observes that he cannot GENUINELY feel
what Niobe is feeling, and that this inability to set it right might be a part
of himself – not just the circumstances - because he cannot BELIEVE in it. And
this means that he cannot just come out and ACT – like Fortinbras would have
done – and kill Claudius. (Or even like Greta Thunberg who would certainly not
have killed anybody but would have gone out on the streets and told all the
Danes what’s what.) By bringing the actor’s scene into the picture I completely
REMEMBERED this predicament that, I’d say, the “worthier” part of humanity
experiences at a certain age. And which never gets resolved because there is
no way of resolving it. We just kind of “grow out” of it. If we are lucky …???
The really bad thing about tragedy is, of course, that, in the end, death comes
as a RELIEF.
And now
I cannot say how infinitely relieved I am to be rid of “Hamlet” and am
beginning to look forward to “Coriolanus” – which will be a chore, of course! –
and “Uncle Vanya” – which probably won’t. But I’ll certainly find a way of
making it difficult for me! 😉
