Hamlet – “born to set it right”

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! 😉