Hamlet (review)

Figure 1.

Ophelia (Derbhle Crotty) and Polonius (David Ryall) in the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, directed by Matthew Warchus. Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. Photo: Ivan Kyncl.

Figure 2.

Hamlet (Alex Jennings) in the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, directed by Matthew Warchus. Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. Photo: Ivan Kyncl.

Figure 3.

Hamlet (Alex Jennings) in the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, directed by Matthew Warchus. Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. Photo: Ivan Kyncl.

The overlapping runs of the RSC-Stratford’s Hamlet and the New Globe’s Henry V last summer seemed a symbolic commentary on the changing dynamics of producing Shakespeare in his homeland. Henry V, one of the first plays produced at the original Globe theatre, presumably held particular appeal for Shakespeare’s audience, who found a compelling parallel between the potential of their own time and the glories of Henry V’s reign. Such a parallel makes the play an apt choice for the inaugural season of the New Globe where there exists a similar celebration of heritage and contemporary vigor. The opening of the New Globe may provoke something of an identity crisis for the RSC, and as a result the timing of Hamlet—a play scrutinizing being in relation to past beliefs and future directions—is striking. A production of a history play done in deference to tradition makes one statement about Shakespeare in production, while an innovative approach to a play as philosophically profound as Hamlet makes quite another. The RSC production of Hamlet, directed by Matthew Warchus, can therefore be seen as a kind of counterpoint to the Globe’s Henry V.

At times, the production realizes the potential of liberating a text from its original setting; at others, however, this Hamlet suggests how innovation might prove at least as reductive as historical accuracy. Warchus eliminates the Fortinbras portion of Shakespeare’s plot and concentrates on revenge within one family. Seeming to tap into modern preoccupations with family dysfunction and individual psyche, the RSC Hamlet concentrates more on the psychological than the philosophical concerns of the text. Mark Thompson’s production design evokes The Godfather, where the icons of power are not those of state, but those of money, influence, and a family empire.

By eliminating the details of a specific state of public affairs, the production occasionally provides a glimpse of human turmoil as a universal condition. Most effective is the play-within-a-play scene. Alex Jenning’s Hamlet, his face transformed through crudely applied clown makeup, moves through this scene with manic and boyish energy. Instead of an individual compelled by his claim to any throne, he becomes an embodiment of the fine line between foolish indulgence and spirited righteousness in a universalized power struggle between young and old. At other times, the depiction of Hamlet’s dilemma as an essentially private one robs the character of some of the complications which account for the richness of the text. The decision to feature a gun prominently in the “To be or not to be” monologue is a most striking example of how a modern context might collapse rather than broaden the possible texture of historic work. This gun makes either suicide or murder seem relatively uncomplicated actions: a gun works with simple efficiency when compared to dagger or sword. More importantly, the gun—which Jenning’s Hamlet begins by pointing forward before turning it to his own head—reduces a larger rumination on being to a more literal question about specific response in the specific circumstance.

If the prominence of the gun (which is emphasized in photos promoting the production) takes something away from the pivotal third act monologue, its introduction there provides an interesting twist to the play’s last scene where no gun is seen on stage. Hamlet...