2/17 Aquila Theatre's HAMLET
Not going to write much because it's late and it was such a disappointing production. Seemed like a brain-dead production from a directorial point of view: no ideas there. Felt like the director phoned it in; went for the easiest, most obvious, most superficial choices almost all the time, and then, when an unusual choice was made (incorporating aspects of Q1, certain line readings, dumbshows between scenes, and ALL the cutting and pasting choices) it was invariably an unfortunate choice, in part because there seemed to be no overriding reason behind it.
Actually, there seemed to be one idea that I could see (and regret): I think Hamlet was supposed to start out as a very young, callow, not-terribly-bright boy and mature through the action. Actually, if that was the idea, the actor did a fairly decent job of it. Trouble was, the first half of the play was boring and uninvolving because Hamlet seemed to have no interior life or even much of a thought process. Made the soliloquies awful. In the second half, he seemed to be much more on target and find some depth and honesty and I thought he might be quite a good actor after all. If he had been allowed to start where he ended and develop from there, he might have really found something.
There were other reasons I disliked the production. The acting was uneven, to say the least. The staging was nicely pared down but didn't help the actors. The zombie Ghost through the scrim at the rear was a really unfortunate choice, especially when the spill light illuminated the poor actor trying to sneak offstage during the Closet scene (in a red coat!). Really horrible. The story was pretty mangled even though the idea seemed to be: let the actors speak the words and the story will take care of itself. But (for example), as Hamle dies he says "...the election lights on Fortinbras"--but there has been absolutely no mention of Fortinbras before then. Poor folks seeing the play for the first time must have been really confused.
The main problem for me was there seemed to be no reason to be doing the play beyond the fact that it was a classic that people would feel obligated to attend (the WORST POSSIBLE REASON). No attempt to explore the mystery, the absolute strangeness of the play. No attempt to breathe new life into it. No recognition that, for some of us anyway, over-familiarity was going to be an obstacle and the challenge was to plumb its depths (practically unavoidable for Hamlet, but neatly avoided in this production.
Enough. Except to note that almost the entire audience jumped to their feet for the obligatory standing ovation. Is it just me?
Actually, there seemed to be one idea that I could see (and regret): I think Hamlet was supposed to start out as a very young, callow, not-terribly-bright boy and mature through the action. Actually, if that was the idea, the actor did a fairly decent job of it. Trouble was, the first half of the play was boring and uninvolving because Hamlet seemed to have no interior life or even much of a thought process. Made the soliloquies awful. In the second half, he seemed to be much more on target and find some depth and honesty and I thought he might be quite a good actor after all. If he had been allowed to start where he ended and develop from there, he might have really found something.
There were other reasons I disliked the production. The acting was uneven, to say the least. The staging was nicely pared down but didn't help the actors. The zombie Ghost through the scrim at the rear was a really unfortunate choice, especially when the spill light illuminated the poor actor trying to sneak offstage during the Closet scene (in a red coat!). Really horrible. The story was pretty mangled even though the idea seemed to be: let the actors speak the words and the story will take care of itself. But (for example), as Hamle dies he says "...the election lights on Fortinbras"--but there has been absolutely no mention of Fortinbras before then. Poor folks seeing the play for the first time must have been really confused.
The main problem for me was there seemed to be no reason to be doing the play beyond the fact that it was a classic that people would feel obligated to attend (the WORST POSSIBLE REASON). No attempt to explore the mystery, the absolute strangeness of the play. No attempt to breathe new life into it. No recognition that, for some of us anyway, over-familiarity was going to be an obstacle and the challenge was to plumb its depths (practically unavoidable for Hamlet, but neatly avoided in this production.
Enough. Except to note that almost the entire audience jumped to their feet for the obligatory standing ovation. Is it just me?
posted by Graham at 9:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home