Stella's Performance Review "Hamlet"

So, I had purchased tickets to the Benedict Cumberbatch Hamlet, but I was absolutely destroyed when I arrived at the theater at 7:40, thinking it started at 7:30, and found out that it started at 7:00. My reaction was probably similar to that of David Tennant in the Hamlet montage.

Although I was disappointed I didn't witness Cumberbatch parading around the stage as Hamlet, I thoroughly enjoyed the Shakespeare Royal Company production that I watched starring David Tennant and the illustrious Patrick Stewart. I though it was interesting that this was a contemporary adaptation of Hamlet, as the clothing and setting was modern. I had heard that it was difficult to place the production starring Benedict Cumberbatch in a specific period, as the time period seemed to remain intentionally ambiguous, yet it is evident that this production was very modern. This modernity even translated into the manner in which the actors delivered the lines. I found that Patrick Stewart was more fluid in his mannerisms and line delivery, rather than the more rigid mannerisms that I have noticed in productions that are found within a more archaic period.

The set was absolutely gorgeous in this production, as everything seemed to be cloaked in a rich black. One of the most striking features of the set was the stage floor, where the majority of the scenes took place. The floor was a very glossy and reflective ebony, which seemed reflected the play's action back onto the actors. The floor's black reflective quality made it seem cold and unfeeling as it did not alter the reality of the play's tragedy, but remained indifferent to the play's tremendous sorrow. At the play's ending Gertrude, Claudius, Laertes, and Hamlet are found lying on the glossy black surface. Maybe I'm reading too much into that beautiful floor, but I loved it haha.

I thought it was interesting that the cast took modern artistic liberties with the play. When Laertes admonishes his sister Ophelia to be careful as Hamlet might entice her to give into her passions, she mocks his advice and walks to his packed trunks and pulls out condoms and suggests that he has no room to talk. One moment that differed from the play was that Hamlet shoots Polonius through a mirror rather than stabbing him through the drapery.

I was intrigued by the frequent scene cuts to a security camera view of the play. The play opens through the view of a security camera and intermittently changes to the security camera perspective. This might be intended to make the audience feel as if they are stepping into the intimate reality of the prince Hamlet and witnessing his gradual descent into madness. Sometimes Hamlet directs his soliloquies directly into the monitors and at the climax of one of his rages he tears one of the security cameras from the wall.

Oh, and one more quick little thing . . . Hamlet wore a casual T-shirt with the image of chiseled abs on it. He pretty much looks like a voracious video gamer with his disheveled hair, yet I wondered if there was greater meaning in this shirt. I wondered if Hamlet wore the facade of masculinity after he found out about his father's murder and he consequently sought to assert his masculinity through avenging his late father. Behind the painted T-shirt image of chiseled abs stood an emotionally and physically weak man who eventually succumbed to the hatred which consumed him. Anyways, just a thought. I really enjoyed this production and would recommend this to anyone who wants to enjoy a production of Hamlet!

Continue Reading...

Riley's Review of "Much ado about Nothing"

For my play review I watched the Royal Shakespeare Company's performance of "Much Ado About Nothing, " directed by Jeremy Herrin. I confess this was my first exposure to this specific play - having neither read it nor seen it before. But I was not disappointed...the performance was exquisite. 

It was interesting to watch a performance that toyed with two forms: live performance and film. By bridging these two forms, the performance was able to enhance to the unique benefits of each. The lack of props and setting transfixed the viewers focus on the dialogue and the expression of the actors – this was helped by the use of the camera which primarily shot the scene from the waist up. The camera provided a rich perspective to the play because it controlled the viewers focus. The camera would follow the speaker as he or she walked around the stage – making the stage appear larger. Furthermore, the camera would zoom in on actors faces when they were giving a soliloquy and would zoom out on the whole stage when there was a shared group reaction or response to a situation. The use of the camera allowed the at-home viewers to see facial expressions up close whereas physical attendees did not have that opportunity. In essence, the camera allowed the viewer to enjoy the play in a fashion that highlighted the key elements of the plot and dialogue—whereas physical attendees would be limited by their location. The at home viewer was able to watch from the stage and the crowd – enjoying a plethora of perspectives and angles. However, this did limit the audience’s exposure to staging.

Apart from the interesting contrast of form, the acting itself was exemplary. This unadorned simplistic performance bereft of unnecessary props and backdrops focused solely on the richness of the play’s (at times) nonsensical dialogue. Nevertheless, the intricate costume designs helped cultivate the complexity of each character and complimented the strength of the actor’s performance. The sole focus of the play was on character and not their various interactions rather than on external aesthetics or grandiose design.  Occasionally the actors would acknowledge the audience and give them a knowing and exasperated look – cultivating a sense of solidarity and participation among the viewers. The multicultural cast subverted traditional expectations of Shakespearean drama – while nevertheless reaffirming its timeless applicability. The play was carried by the performance of Charles Edwards (Benedick) and Eve Best (Beatrice) who’s witty banter and melodrama was exaggerated by the use of the camera which zoomed in on scenes of tension and conflict and out on scenes of lightness and comic relief. 

P.s. For all the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air fans out there, the butler plays the king! 

Continue Reading...

McKay's Performance Analysis

I originally planned on attending Hamlet with everyone else, but when I forgot about that, I was happy that I still had King Lear That I could go to, but when I forgot about that I was crying with tears of joy that Dr. Burton had shown us the Globe Theater plays that we could watch online. If it weren’t for this safety blanket, I may never have seen a Shakespeare play.

I decided to watch Julius Caesar, the play that I read for my individually this semester, because I found it interesting and I thought that maybe it could me with my paper (which is about Julius Caesar) and show me different ways to interpret scenes. So, from the comfort of my own home, I was able to watch this play.

1.     Character/ Performance Analysis-While I did not recognize any of the actors in the play I did think the casting was very interesting in play. Caesar was played by an older man, who was tanner then the rest of the characters and who always moved around slowly. His movements and face gave him a feeling of royalty. When he was on the stage it was as if you knew he was meant to be the Emperor of Rome. He spoke slowly and vey clearly as if everything he said was a speech and dignified. In contrast, the men that played Brutus and Cassius were much younger and moved around quickly. These made them feel in direct opposition of Caesar, because everything that he was they weren’t. They also wore cloaks for much of the play, which gave them a conspirator feel, as if they were up to no good, which they weren’t. Their speech was much quicker and more hushed then Caesar’s showing that what they were saying was not for all to hear and that they were conspiring against Caesar.

2.     Stage- With the globe theater being outside and the play being done during the day, there really was no lighting to speak of other then natural light, but this worked to the plays effect because most scenes were done in the streets of Rome, before the people. So everything seemed a bit more real. What may have been the most interesting part of the whole play may have been how the players used the audience to make the play feel more realistic. Instead of keeping the actors solely on stage, they dispersed many in the audience, and when they spoke from the audience it made it feel as if the whole audience were people of Rome, gathering to see Caesar become king, or gathering to see his assassination. In fact, when the play first started, I didn’t know if it really was because the scene seemed so realistic as if the whole audience were shouting for Caesar to start, but in reality, they were all shouting for Caesar himself. They also used drums a lot to give off a special effect. For example, when Brutus and the other conspirators approached Caesar to slay him, the drums were going off making the scene that much more intense.

3.     Interpretation of script- While much of the play was highly dramatic and intense, there were also many jokes that I didn’t know were jokes being used. I actually laughed aloud a couple times, which was very interesting because I never had an inkling to laugh when I read the play. That was probably the biggest difference I saw. Because there were actor dispersed throughout the crowd, as if they were really a crowd, when they would talk it would always be shouting and done simultaneously, which I thought made it seem a lot more realistic. It also gave them this feeling of adoration, whether it be for Caesar, Brutus, or Mark Antony.

Overall, I thought the play was brilliantly done and it taught me new things about Caesar that I did not consider before. This analysis also kind of inspires me to go and see another one of these adaptations of Caesar so I can begin to see the differences in their interpretation and learn more about this awesome play.

Continue Reading...

Garrett's Review of the London Theatre's Hamlet

I really enjoyed Hamlet! I wasn't quite sure what to expect, since I've only ever read Hamlet. So I don't have anything to compare it to except for other plays I've seen. That said, I think there were pros and cons to the filmed version. It was so nice to be able to zoom in and see people's facial expressions. Sometimes I miss some emotion in plays that was readily available in this format upon the faces of the actors. That said, sometimes I was willing the camera to zoom back out, since I wanted to see other character's reactions as well as the one the camera was focused on.
Either way, while some people were bothered by the varying styles of clothes and by some of the gloominess, I kind of liked that stuff. It felt pretty postmodern, since we couldn't really tell what time period they put the play in, but I think it felt purposeful—like Hamlet could exist in any time period. Also, the gloominess and darkness really added emotion to the play for me. I especially like the music that they put in, mostly during scene transitions. It was frightful and sometimes gave me goosebumps along with what had just happened in the scene. But it felt fitting, and a constant reminder that the play was ever brooding and dark. The part I will never forget was in part because of this, and was something that's not even in the original play. During scene transition right after Polonius has died, Ophelia walked on stage and to the point where her father had lain dead. There she knelt on the ground, hands held out in front of her, covered in Polonius' blood, and she just screamed. Along with the music, this was absolutely haunting.
I think that helped me enjoy the rest of Ophelia's part. She was my favorite actor, because Ophelia felt just right in this play. Her singing was really well done, and her last few lines brought me to tears.  Out of all the acting, I thought she did the best job. Someone else mentioned the camera Ophelia used. This was actually a great point, used to highlight her coming suicide. They really did build up her character with some of the set and her actions before she went mad, making it all more meaningful.
Of course, I enjoyed Benedict Cumberbatch's Hamlet as well. I thought he played the part well, giving the right emotions in each scene. He was passionate, but still able to bring the humor into the play as well.
Overall, I really enjoyed the play. The acting was well done, and along with the effects I was able to really feel emotion in the play.

Continue Reading...

The Isolation of an Obnoxious Hamlet: Christopher Muratore's Performance Analysis

I saw the production of Hamlet live from the National Theater and starring Benedict Cumberbatch in the titular role.  This three hour version was entertaining, yet I actually was kind of dissastisfied with the play as a whole.  I personally felt like it was trying to moderrnize the familiar characters of the play without trying to explore their nuance.  While the production was overly ambitious and inconsistent in its use of anachronisms, Cumberbatch's portrayal of the troubled Prince of Denmark sheds some interesting light on the character.  With the help of staging and costuming, Cumberbatch is able to play up the isolation of his character.  Unlike the other characters with their elaborate, brightly colored costumes, Hamlet spends much of the play adorned in black.  His dark, austere clothes combined with his confrontational brooding visually seperate him from his stagemates. His soliloquies become beautiful slow motion scenes where his movements and thoughts are independent of the other background characters.  This isolation is also exaggerated by the sprawling elaborate stage which with it's staircases and massive doorways separates Hamlet from the other characters.  Even the dark-ambient score which sounds like a careful study of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' work in The Social Network becomes a barrier between characters, as when Hamlet plays his records during fit of madness. Unfortunately, this isolation ends up taking away the attention from the other side characters and makes them seem insignificant compared to Cumberbatch's bombastic, mopy Hamlet.  It also seems like this isolation was sometimes more of a natural product of Cumberbatch chewing then deliberate forethought.  Nevertheless, the production where Cumberbatch tries to eat a telephone is memorable in how it truly depicts a Denmark that is a prison.

Continue Reading...

Isaac's Performance Analysis (now in technicolor)

This is now my favorite performance of Hamlet. If I ever end up teaching high school, this is definitely the adaptation that I will show to my students. It captures the feeling and the nuance of Hamlet, while including humor, emotion, and extraordinary stage choices. I will remark on what I saw as the most significant of these choices.

The first choice that stood out to me was the connection between the first and last scenes. In the first scene, everyone is clothed in white, with white hides draping the table and white flowers hanging from the ceiling. These white elements could symbolize life (in flowers) and death (in hides and antlers on the table). However, Hamlet, placed in the center of the table, is clothed all in black. He is the "angsty teenager" in this scene, brooding over his father's death and his mother's marriage. By contrast, in the last scene (shown above), everyone is clothed in black, except for Hamlet, who is clothed in radiant white. I could see this choice being read in two ways: 1) The white in the first scene is an ironic reading, showing how everyone thinks they're innocent but are really complicit in the murder of King Hamlet, except for Prince Hamlet himself, who is starting to see the corruption. This reading would suggest that in the end, Hamlet is the guilty one (of causing so much death and destruction), thinking he is innocent. This would also mean that everyone else is innocent, at least of the slaughter that has happened since Hamlet sees the ghost of his father. 2) The other way to read this would be to say that Hamlet is in mourning and trapped in inability, signified by the black, until the last scene, when he changes his character and decides that he will no longer sit in the den of indecision, but will fight. Either way, it is telling of how Hamlet changes during the play in relation to the rest of the cast.

Another choice (that has been touched on in others' posts) is in regards to time. Time is played with in many different ways during this production. Time slows down when Hamlet gives his soliloquies, showing how his thoughts race in real time while being surrounded by others. Time speeds up many times in between scenes (accompanied by a large musical bass element that gives a melancholy, intimidating feeling). These variations of time lend the most meaning to the play itself when Hamlet claims that his parents have been married for two hours. When questioned on this, he says that he has lost all concept of time. The choices of this production to use variations of time could be read as Hamlet's own experiences with time, that it slows down and speeds up as he experiences his grief. It could show how overwhelmed he is and how mad he is actually becoming.

Other things to remark on:

• Some productions portray Ophelia's madness as simply madness--numbness to reality--complete disjunction with what is happening in life. This production shows how she is mad but how that grows out of her grief for her father. I appreciated this connection to life and how she's not a completely different person. It becomes more sorrowful for me.

• The shadow on the wall of Hamlet considering murdering Claudius as he prays. It showed the actual dark powerful potential of Hamlet, although he never actually acts on that potential. 

• I thought it was interesting that they skipped the first scene. I didn't know what to make of that choice. 

Overall, it was a masterful performance by the actors, by the director, and by the stage manager. I'm glad that I was able to be exposed to this performance.

Continue Reading...

To Be or Not to Be for All the World's a Stage: Gaylie's Hamlet Performance Analysis

If all the world's a stage then at times it is a stage full of rotary, mundane action. It lacks coordination of theme music and costume. If the world is a stage, then it is made up of restrained thought and expression, and wants a proper intermission in which the exhausted players are allowed a brief reprieve.

In contrast, the Encore broadcast of Hamlet was riveting. The general opinion hold true, so much life and color and dimension is lost when a play is read silently. The characters, stage and plot are two dimensional, trapped in a prison of black and white printed uniformly on bound sheets, encased between two solid coverings.

To see a play is to see the humanity of it. This humanity is the gift of those who choose to breathe life into it, and with it comes pieces of their personality and unique experiences. Glimpses of these pieces were offered throughout the play: dressing Hamlet as a toy soldier when he was mad, using Nat King Coles "Nature Boy" as the music for the introduction, giving Ophelia a camera to emphasize her brief role and the importance of her memory, and many more. The idea of abandoning the use of curtains in favor of a single stage set up emphasized the unity of the events and the sad lack thereof in the actions of the royal family and staff.

To be or not to be may very well seem the question, but the answer may very well be that tis noblest in the mind to suffer temporarily through a sea of troubles.  And through striving, struggling and passionate effort inspire one's fellow soldiers thus rearming them in preparation for the next wave of the onslaught.

Continue Reading...