Overall, the play was alright considering the limited staging and low budget production, but I don’t think I would sit through something like that again. It was a very long play even though they did cut out some scenes. One thing that confused me was how they cut out Fortinbras. It could have been because they did not have enough actors or that they felt his character was not significant enough. This definitely challenged my interpretation since I saw Fortinbras as an important character. He is not only a parallel to Hamlet, in that they both are looking for revenge for their father’s deaths, but Fortinbras is also a foil. Fortinbras at the end of the tragedy is seen as a strong leader ready to take the empty throne. It was a different interpretation on ending the play with Horatio. By leaving the play to end on that note maybe enforces the tragic aspect. The audience is not given an answer for who will take over the kingdom.
Another interesting point is when Ophelia was retelling Polonius of how crazy Hamlet was acting, the production acted it out on stage – similar to a flashback. When Gertrude was describing Ophelia’s death, the production chose not to act it out. Perhaps it was the inability to change scenery or lack of space.
A scene that was staged well and reinforced my initial interpretation was Hamlet’s soliloquy in act II, scene II. It was really effective when Hamlet talked to Claudius’ chair for some lines. This reinforced not only just his anger at his lack of action, but his anger at his uncle. I think the movement during that soliloquy created dynamic and was a good last scene before the intermission.
I agree with your comments about Fortinbras. I thought it hurt the production in terms of the "to be or not to be" soliloquy. Without a foil, to whom is Hamlet comparing himself?
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of this post: limited staging and low budget production. (Diplomatic way of saying "ghetto production").
ReplyDeleteI would have loved to read more about what you believe the implications of there being no Fortinbras are, or perhaps a guess of why there is no Fortinbras. You said that the ending leaves the audience ambivalent about who will rule over Denmark, that is a great springboard for why LBSC might have chosen to perform the play without Fortinbras.
I like the idea that Fortinbras is a foil in his readiness to accept power and authority. Instead of Hamlet, who is inactive in avenging his father's death and seemingly unprepared to rule, Fortinbras was reliable and strong. It's also interesting that Hamlet points this out in the play, implying that he might be jealous of this fact, just like he's jealous of the Player's acting.
ReplyDelete