I don't really know why so many people are not impressed with the performance we saw. While the first act was a little tiring (I may have shut my eyes a few times), overall it was exciting to see a play that I have only read before. This is a play, and not a novel for a reason. All of the inside jokes, puns, and references are so much easier to catch with the acting, and I think this especially made the interactions among Hamlet, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Polonius much more entertaining.
The biggest choice by the director was probably to leave out Fortinbras at the end, and I think, changing the play as a whole. With Fortinbras and the ensuing Hamlet soliloquy, Shakespeare sets up an interesting comparison that could suggest the active Fortinbras is the model for us. After all, Fortinbras ends up with a new kingdom, while Hamlet, in his delay, ends up dead with his friends and family. This is an important lens in which to view the play, and Hamlet. The lack of his presence instead presents Hamlet as not quite as typically thoughtful throughout (I saw several others mentioned his violent nature in the play). Hamlet did look more active, just a little confused about what action to take.
It's great how you pointed out the juxtaposition between action leading to glory and inaction leading to destruction. I hadn't followed that idea all the way through. I agree that they didn't stress Hamlet's delaying, although I think they did get the point across with the soliloquies and Hamlet's performance.
ReplyDeleteI like how you didn't actually talk about a scene, but a missing scene. I thought that was strange too.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, I completely agree with you. I know my own review was harsh, but I really did enjoy the play. I got a lot of good laughs and was pretty impressed at some of the acting.
Fortinbras is definitely a foil to Hamlet, and I do think that our general view of Hamlet changes when Fortinbras doesn't come marching in at the end.