(“Hannibal”,
season one, episode four)
Apart
from the usual unpleasantness regarding “Hamlet”, there is still another source
of frustration. I noticed this when I read Claudia’s general remarks as to what
she found puzzling or inconclusive about this production, and I didn’t
understand what she meant. It alerted me to the fact that I am ill qualified to
write anything about “Hamlet” because of my insufficient knowledge of the text.
Usually, when I am writing something about one of these plays the first thing I
do is to read it (again). Usually more often than once. Which is just not
possible right now (because, if I do, I will never begin to read “Coriolanus”,
respectively “Uncle Vanya”…) But what REALLY puts me off where “Hamlet” is
concerned: that reading Dover Wilson again would be so much more useful to
understand the play than reading the play itself. Nothing against Dover Wilson
– but what I really liked about his book is that he was an extremely accurate
but also very IMAGINATIVE reader. Where I am concerned, “Hamlet” doesn’t really
speak to my imagination. And even though I haven’t seen as many productions of
the play as Claudia I have seen quite a few, but not a single one that
furnished me with a convincing theory of what this play might be about. (Of
course I don’t believe that any Shakespeare play actually is “about” anything –
except about creating a hit show that brings lots of people into his theatre.
But, for example, the sudden realization that “King Lear” might be about
“Nothing” gave ME a clue where to START reading.) A few times I picked up a
scent but lost it at some point when everything becomes the usual inconclusive
mess … Sometimes, when I have the energy for it, I find it fascinating that
there are so many possibilities and (false) leads. And something that Claudia
said even before I got to see this production made me aware of the most likely
explanation for this, which is disappointingly mundane: that there is NO FINAL
VERSION of “Hamlet”. Much more than we can usually be aware of, seeing it on
the stage, the play is just an accumulation of (great) ideas which often are
not properly linked. Especially where the main protagonist is concerned: Unlike
most of Shakespeare’s characters Hamlet isn’t something from “real life” but a
conglomerate of human predicaments, philosophical theories, and fascinating new
ideas that don’t really fit together. And this might even be the main reason
for the overwhelming and continuing success of the play! But it defeats MY
reading. For me, the main focus is always how close the plays are to real life,
displaying fascinating human stuff that I can read with MY OWN knowledge or
experience.
So, to
begin where Claudia ended her first reading: that she couldn’t see any
underlying idea or leading thought in this production. I think it very likely
that she is right, and that there wasn’t one. Where I am concerned, watching
what Andrew Scott was doing gave ME an idea of what might REALLY be the matter
with “Hamlet”, one that made this character – and this play – suddenly a lot
more consistent. I already had this idea seeing him on YouTube, and it
definitely helped me to get through this production: roughly, that Hamlet is
about somebody GROWING UP. And there was ONE decision they took in this production
that played very much into my idea. I will come to this, for now I just
mentioned it because it is the reason that I cannot skip “Hamlet” this time,
even though there are lots and lots and lots of other things to do …
Another
thing I noticed when Claudia mentioned inconsistencies: The first thing
everybody has to do with “Hamlet” – reading it or, especially!, playing it – is
to make it more consistent. Which also means to TAKE OUT a lot of its potential
for creating meaning. Of course this applies to all of Shakespeare’s plays – even
more so, I think, than it applies to fictional text in general – but most of
the time we don’t notice. We don’t notice it reading, and we don’t notice it
watching a play like, for example, “Richard III” performed on the Almeida’s stage,
as I recall, because everything they did made sense. Reading “Hamlet” – for the
reason I mentioned in the first paragraph – MEANS consciously engaging in the
activity of making it more consistent. As far as I was concerned, they did a
good job in the Almeida Theatre, but only for about two thirds of the play.
After that I was stuck with the usual question: What is the bloody POINT???
In
particular, I think, they did well where the relationship of Hamlet with his
girlfriend and mother were concerned. Claudia expressed puzzlement on behalf of
the Ophelia plot which had something to do with shifting the scenes about. I
noticed that there was considerable shifting about and tampering with the text
– or the VERSION I read in the Alexander text! – but I cannot look into this
because I cannot take up reading “Hamlet” again. Where Ophelia is concerned, it
is pretty straightforward anyway. They fall in love, Hamlet displays strange
behaviour which Ophelia reports to her father who sets her up to find out the
reason for it. Hamlet notices that Ophelia is dishonest with him and distances
himself from her. They get estranged, and after he has accidentally killed her
father this relationship is dead anyway, even more so as she probably never
gets to know what really happened. Hamlet is sent away because of this, and
Ophelia - with her father dead and brother absent - is suddenly left without
anybody to turn to and cracks. This is MY VERSION of the Hamlet-Ophelia plot –
and I still remember how much effort of making it consistent went into it!
Either my own or Dover Wilson’s … (If it is Dover Wilson, Claudia and I were
probably talking about the same text!)
But
there is one really important question left open that has to be answered – one
that has fundamental impact on how we see the relationships in this play. It is
WHY Ophelia is doing this. And not even ANSWERING this question matters because
it is easy: as a loving daughter she trusts and obeys her father. And it
doesn’t preclude that she is genuinely concerned about Hamlet! But we can
ANSWER this question as much as we like, on the stage they have to SHOW us
their answer because we need to SEE what happens with Hamlet. Why he reacts and
acts as he does. And there, at least I understood it like this, Claudia thought
that the production failed or was inconsistent because Ophelia is shown as a
contemporary young woman who has her own mind and is loyal to Hamlet, and then
- without explanation – betrays him. I basically agree with this, but, finding
a lot of consistency in how they set up family relationships in this play, I
came to a different conclusion in the end.
(As
usual she lost me in the scene where she is shown to be mad, which was as
uninspired as it is in any production I have seen – and I could see no tragedy
in her death. There was never any Ophelia that could make me empathize with her
fate, she is only ever important because of Hamlet. Pity! I remember that I already
minded this pattern reading “Faust” at school and am always pissed off when
they “kill” their girlfriends to make us empathize with MEN! I mean: Ophelia is
just a young girl – like Hamlet is a very young man – who loses her father –
just like Hamlet does - who’s world is breaking apart – just like Hamlet’s … What
is it I see in Hamlet ABOUT ME that I don’t see in Ophelia??? See – this is
what I HATE about “Hamlet”: Its unending potential to question my reading of it.
I just have to scratch the surface …)
So, I
have still one issue to clear up about Gertrude before I can come to the point
that I saw in this production. And this time I actually have to check on the
text. Between the two of us we picked up a lot of points where they made her
more consistent in one particular respect: that she is loyal to Hamlet AFTER
she has come to believe him about what Claudius has done. (The scene where
Hamlet confronts her and is telling her is always so inconclusive on the stage because
she doesn’t see the ghost and might just be trying to accommodate Hamlet, being
convinced that he is mad.) Thinking about it, there is a strong point in the
text for Getrude being loyal to Hamlet – not Claudius! : that she doesn’t give
his plot away. But it probably doesn’t even matter much because she doesn’t
take any positive action either until the end when she drinks the poison trying
to save her son. Though I wasn’t able to confirm – not even when I saw it
another time - that she observes Claudius putting the poison into the drink, I
believe Claudia about this because I noticed two other moments where they tried
to make the Gertrude plot more consistent – even pushing her towards positive
action. When Claudius is speaking with Laertes alone for the first time we see
Gertrude reflected in the polished surface of the wall. So she is listening but
is probably called away because they discovered Ophelia’s death. She hears the
beginning of the conversation but not that Claudius intends to get Laertes to
kill Hamlet, and she probably BEGINS to suspect Claudius. And what we both
found puzzling: that she kisses Claudius immediately after the bedchamber scene,
might indicate that her loyalties are still divided at this point. It is made
very clear in this production that they are very much in love – which I think
is a good point to make, not just for the effect it has on Hamlet but because
it is a natural explanation that she doesn’t suspect anything where Claudius is
concerned. But, just before Claudius is talking with Laertes a second time,
they INSERTED a scene where Gertrude is talking to Horatio about Hamlet - and in
this case I have to make sure that it is nowhere in the text. I just did (– and
was puzzled how much they have changed and shifted scenes about that I almost
didn’t recognize the end of act 4 and the beginning of act 5. Maybe there was
even LESS consistency because of this. To bring “Hamlet” on the stage –
actually, a nightmare! But I insist on being naïve, pretending that there must
be a reason for doing it apart from box office – knowing that people will pay
to see “Moriarty” play Hamlet.) As this scene isn’t really about anything, or
makes us understand better what is happening, I took it that they did this to
give Getrude a more active role and assert her loyalty towards Hamlet.
The
point of this - in the context my reading is trying to create - is that the
people on whose love Hamlet depends genuinely care about him but become
disloyal because of other ties and predicaments – which creates a situation
that is extremely complex and confusing. Too complex and confusing for somebody
still so inexperienced in the ways of the world to process and to deal with.
And there I am finally close to what I found so striking and true-to-life about
this production: that they took the concept of people being parts of families
so seriously, and, in my opinion, successfully applied as a key concept for
reading “Hamlet”.
Seeing
it a second time, I was extremely pleased with the beginning. Not just the
ghost turning up on CCTV, but when they set up the whole family – respectively:
the Hamlet AND the Polonius family coming to together for the royal marriage –
as one family unit. (For example, I noticed Gertrude cuddling Laertes all the
time, whereas Hamlet sat at one side of the room, not interacting with anyone.
Looking upon this as an outsider, there could be MORE THAN ONE explanation for
it.) And, looking back at this, I liked the way they set up the ending, without
really understanding it: when everybody is getting up, walking slowly towards
the old Hamlet, and all these ties – all these vibrant, inconsequential human
relationships – suddenly cease to matter … and just now it strikes me: THIS is
why “Hamlet” is still a tragedy! In fact, he destroyed all this even by not
really doing anything. If we don’t SEE in the beginning what is to be
destroyed, the ending of “Hamlet” is just the usual inconclusive blood-dripping
mess that tragedy tends to become on a contemporary stage.
I’ll try
to stop my train of thoughts here because I have just discovered why I loved
this version of the play – even though, as a whole, it isn’t convincing. Being
myself part of a big family that I always thought worked rather well – until the
moment it got tested for the first time and developed a mess! – I am
particularly susceptible to what they did on that stage. I fully understand now
why I was particularly pleased with all the small inconsequential things they
did to make it true-to-life – one example will follow! – because this is what
families are like. (And I know that there always is a mess – and always WAS, by
the way, because it is just GOODWILL that is holding it together until
something happens to upset it. And if there is goodwill left it will just take
time and patience to sort it out, though, at the moment, I am not that
confident …) By the way, I just found out why “Marple” upset me! I noticed
recently that I was GENIUNELY upset when I watched the second episode of the
third series of the “new” ITV “Marple” - which I bought when I found out that
Richard Armitage played in it – and found it weird that I was upset. This
episode is about a big family, living together in a big house. A family that is
thoroughly unhappy. Then one member of this family gets murdered – and the next
thing we see is: a HAPPY family that works so well that it even “absorbs” the
unhappy and ungracious, making them part of its radiance! And this is exactly
how big families work, and why family ties are so strong and efficient that
people are tied down and changed by them – for better or worse! – and why it is
so extremely difficult for their members to do anything about this ON THEIR
OWN. (Unfortunately, murdering somebody is not really an option! 😉) And –
who would have thought! – there I am landed in “Hamlet” again. Obviously, my
“key quote” for this production became:
“O
cursed spite – THAT EVER I WAS BORN TO SET IT RIGHT!”
And I
even remember now the moment when it took on meaning because I realized with
enormous relief THAT I WAS NOT! The moment I wanted to say to Hamlet: Good luck
with this concept because you will need it!
In this
production Hamlet realizes the implications anyway and gets genuinely
upset. But now I got too far ahead of
myself. I just wanted to add another example because it is about these small,
inconsequential ideas they had about characters or plot which I was so pleased
with. And it is usually something “we” find puzzling at first, or even dislike.
I think Claudia disliked it and I found it puzzling: that they never leave out
the moment when Polonius, in the scene where he is sending someone to spy on
his son, loses his train of thought. This time they even decided – or Peter
Wight decided? – to do something meaningful with it. He made this moment really
long and made his face “fall down”, as if to suggest that Polonius has
Alzheimers in an early stage. Claudia particularly disliked this, and I agreed
with her at first because it is the only moment something like this happens,
and it has no bearing on anything else. But, like many of these little moments
– as, for example, Gertrude cuddling Laertes – it had a big impact on my
reading. It might even have been this efficient “ruse” to make me look closer –
even closer than I was already looking because I was so pleased to see Peter
Wight as Polonius anyway. I liked it that he made Polonius so “different”, and
I just love it when somebody is so “naturalistic” and psychologically precise
with a Shakespeare character. So I noticed, for example, though he shows him as
a kind father who cares about his children and tries to give them good advice –
not like a family tyrant who wants to keep them contained – there is one moment
where he gets irrationally angry with Ophelia –
without warning or genuine reason. This was the second incident where I
felt that he wanted to show Polonius as somebody who is already failing because
of old age. And THIS, for me, became the missing motivational link in the
Ophelia plot. Why she is loyal to her father and fails Hamlet. As I experience
myself at the moment: We cannot do anything about our parents “failing” when
they are getting old. And at least the female part or their descendants tends
to notice and to feel obligated to do something about it. So, obviously,
Ophelia is PROTECTIVE of her father when she is taking his side against Hamlet.
And THIS is family ties for me: IF the family works, they are so strong that they
can DESTROY almost anything – even a growing love relationship. Even if it bears
on other issues important to us, “we” will always feel OBLIGATED to do
something about it.
