Going to start off with the negatives, as they are few and small and I might as well get them out of the way - I have the weird thing here that I'm not sure I actually like the production - in terms of the technical elements - that much. I couldn't warm to the set - whether that was because I was at the side both times and had the weird effect of being able to see the undecorated back of the walls (as well as the cast squeezing around them to get into place - this was also weird, I was not sure whether what I was looking at was part of backstage or was supposed to be part of the set). Plus well I sort of liked the idea of the set as movable and insubstantial and representing the false, media focused world of Claudius - I wasn't actually sure whether that was what I was supposed to be taking from it or how that matched with the rest of the story or how it fitted with the idea of Denmark as a powerful police state. The balance seemed off to me and compared to several of the sets I've seen at the National last year it just seemed unimpressive and inelegant. The use of sound between scene changes also mostly felt clunky to me - it wasn't really adding anything emotionally for me. There also seemed to be lots of odd little references, mostly visually, to the last full RSC Hamlet which left me a bit baffled - I couldn't work out if it was accidental or, if it was on purpose, why they were making those connections.
The lighting though was beautiful and the use of shadows and really none of those things mattered because the performances, with scarcely any exceptions were incredible and the characters had obviously been so deeply and carefully considered just thinking about it makes my heart want to explode. In a somewhat attempt to make this coherent, I'm going to do character subheadings.
HAMLET:- I... just... what Rory Kinnear does in this, completely blows my mind. I've probably not picked up a fraction of the subtlety he adds to the role, but all the stuff I did notice was incredible. My favourite thing, among many favourites, is the way he plays the 'madness'. Obviously that's a major question in any portrayal of Hamlet and Kinnear's choices are so clever. For me in the earlier scenes where he's playing at being mad you can see that he's tottering on the edge of real despair in moments, but I don't think he ever crosses it - and it's the moments when he isn't putting on the act, when he's left alone or when he lets his defences slip (like "Except my life," and "bad dreams") that you see this breaking down. I also love in these scenes how he plays with the difficulty we all face in the sense that we present different aspects of ourselves to different people - I loved the sudden change in him when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern appeared and again for the players. After he's killed Polonius though, particularly once he returns from the aborted trip to England - he's utterly mad. The play acting has gone and on the surface he seems normal - but beneath it the sanity's gone. Their's a coldness to the portrayal in his last scenes, his emotional depths have vanished, he's suddenly overconfident and cocky and he's become so detached from his conscience that it's disturbing. The non-apology to Laertes before the duel is a great example, though the one that really stuck with me was how he delivered "They are not near my conscience..." - utterly chilling. When he seems mad he's at his sanest and when he seems sane, he's utterly mad. On top of which he's relatable and likable and you are rooting for him even at the end - which is oddly not often how I feel about Hamlet (usually I'm all about Polonius' family).
GERTRUDE:- Clare Higgin's portrayal of Gertrude seems to have been highlighted a lot in the reviews but I must admit it wasn't one that particularly stood out for me. I did really like though that there were moments when Gertrude also seemed to be teetering on the brink of destruction and hysteria - shoaling herself up with alcohol - which echoed Hamlet's own reaction. I loved the familiarity of family that gave them. I also thought she did a great job with the description of Ophelia's death, which sometimes sits a little awkwardly in the play - the productions decision to have Ophelia dragged away is masterful - and ti makes so much more interesting.
CLAUDIUS:- I wasn't sure about Patrick Malahide in the first half and was oddly, given I was in the fourth row, having difficulty hearing him sometimes. He really came into his own though with the soliloquys - very cold - and it's the first time it's really dawned on me, possibly because of having the movement for them onto the front seperate part of the stage - that he's the only character other than Hamlet that does this in the play. It gives them an interesting connection and does make me sort of want to see a production where Claudius and Hamlet are played as father and son (so many possibilities, I sort of like the idea that Claudius and Gertrude have been having an affair for years).
GHOST:- I'm not sure whether I prefer the combination of the ghost with Claudius (like the RSC production) or as they do here pairing the ghost with the player - both have their benefits. I did love the way the ghost was done though, the stillness. And I loved that they played with the idea of Hamlet not being able to touch him, it's one of those things that really works for me and I loved the moment with the window.
POLONIUS:- Ah, I thought David Calder was excellent as Polonius and added a lot of depth to the part. I felt like he was a man plagued by doubts in his own actions, uncertain if what he was doing was right - which added a different feel to his absent mindedness. The pause at the end of 'To thine own self be true," for example. It made me wonder, for the first time, whether he knew about the murder - which is kind of interesting and something I'm not sure why I hadn't considered before. I also loved his obvious concern for his family. I was in the perfect position to see him with Ophelia before he left her with Hamlet and his obvious worry was very touching, even if he still did it. Families are complicated. :D
LAERTES AND OPHELIA:- I must admit that Alex Lanipekun didn't stand out for me much, despite Laertes being my favourite, I fear this is because he is not Ed Bennett (or Dyfan Dwyfor, but mostly Ed Bennett) - this, alas, is a problem that all actors face. Similarly Ruth Negga had a lot to live up to against Mariah Gale and Debbie Korley (I would do unspeakable things to see her do a full Ophelia one day). The performance didn't completely work for me, though I did think there were moments in the mad scene - when she very still and when she looked at Laertes - which were incredible. The bleakness in her eyes was heart shattering and I'd definitely love to see her in something again. I also really loved the original scene between the two of them, I thought they captured that feeling of family adorably.
ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN:- The thing I always secretly care about in any Hamlet, is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, partly because I think people have this weirdly skewed impression of them being very similar which I don't get at all from the text - though obviously you can choose to play them that way. So I am sort of gleefully happy this production gave me two very defined, awesomely acted characters. I was already very fond of Prassana Purwanarajah, who played Guildenstern since seeing him in the RSC's understudy Twelfth Night where he played both Antonio and Fabian - sometimes in the same scene. His Guildenstern was very buttoned up (waistcoats!), tense, nervous, slightly twitchy and uncomfortable with his hands constantly in his pockets or arms crossed. Ferdinand Kingsley's Rosencrantz in contrast is a lot more in control, relaxed in both clothing and body language, confident, smoother and wryly amused through most of the first half (also sexy!). Even better, they obviously had very different relationships with Hamlet - Rosencrantz obviously liked him and admired him a lot more than Guildenstern did (the shipper in me may have squealed more than a little - quietly). Besotted might even be the word. There was a moment when Hamlet is acting out the Priam scene and Rosencrantz was just gazing at him with a giddy look. His concern in the latter half was also tangible and his reaction to the news they would go to England, utter relief. Whereas, Guildenstern's reactions tend more towards frustration and downright anger. To this end, I think they even swapped the characters initial lines. It's a really fascinating approach for me, partly because it rewards careful attention seeing the different dynamics between the characters - but also serves as mirrors both both Hamlet's positive and negative sides - we get to see both sides of his character through his friends eyes.
Hearts in my eyes - all over this production.
No comments:
Post a Comment