Odd title, I know, but the poor, young sod died eight times before my very eyes so one must assume he is now dead and buried! Well, the whole production is now buried - in my theatrical memory, along with all the others. In retrospect, I am slightly surprised at how easy the play was to direct. I say that, despite the huge amount of work involved, because the play itself is rather simple. The plot is clear and uncomplicated; and the language, although rich in poetical terms, is perfectly straightforward. The metaphysics are straight from 'Philosophy 101' and easily understood by any audience. The first aim of the exercise, which I put to my cast, was that they tell the story clearly, swiftly and thrillingly. I think they succeeded in that but then I would say that, wouldn't I? However, our club magazine recruits outsiders to write reviews and I promised to give you their opinions whether they were "good, bad or downright ugly"! I do not know any of them or their backgrounds, although I suspect that some of them might be Drama or Eng. Lit. teachers.
Trevor Walker wrote: Strong performances from the cast of "Hamlet" in David Duff's latest production with evidence of a deal of company work on the text. The actors seemed very confident with the subtleties of meaning and at all times appeared in control of the language which was delivered clearly and crisply. I spent the first two months meeting up with the cast in ones and twos to go through the text almost line by line to ensure they understood the thought behind the words. How many times have you heard Shakespearean actors, pros as well as ams, declaiming away and had the suspicion that although they know the words precisely they probably do not understand the meaning? Walker pointed out, in effect, that to direct Shakespeare is to choose and that highlighting one scene risks shadowing others. I made a point of showing the Polonius family as a happy one in their first scene with the old man sad to see his son going abroad and Ophelia as a rather playful, mischievous, young girl. Walker took exception to this, writing "her later blind obedience to her father to betray her lover seemed to require a sudden character change." I'm not sure that is too valid because her very last words in the farewell scene are, "I shall obey." Also, he was not entirely convinced by my solution to the cutting of the play and wished that I had kept in the appearance of Fortinbras at the very end. Of course, he was unaware that I was limited by the committee to only 11 actors, 5 of whom had to play multiple roles so getting rid of one more character was a blessing. However, to tell truth, I do not rate the importance of Fortinbras as a character although I did retain his storyline. He criticised the pace that I insisted to the actors they maintain, complaining that "the problem with unrelenting pace is that it tends to flatten the experience and leave the audience behind."
Helen Nicholls began with a joke that even I would not have risked, describing the production as "a hit, a very palpable hit'. She went on to remark "There was a sense of excitement from the beginning. (This would have been a great performance to watch if one had never seen "Hamlet" and knew nothing about the play." I was particularly pleased with that observation. Our audience at the Mary Wallace Theatre is a fairly expert one. The Society produces two Shakespeare's a year quite apart from the West End which is close by. I remember warning my cast that they might well see audience members mouthing the words as they delivered them! However, I am also aware that there would be many people, especially young people, who may never have seen it; indeed, many of the friends whom I took had never seen it before. And anyway, whenever I direct Shakespeare, I always work on the basis that this is the first night and that no one is familiar with the plot. Ms. Nicholls finished her critique thus, "I congratulate those actors who multi-tasked so well, adding to the ensemble playing of the whole. And I congratulate the actors in main parts who did them so well. I think the Richmond Shakespeare Society can be proud of itself."
Finally, Robin Jones, who definitely comes under the heading of some one who has seen it all before, tells us that "I must have seen five or six [Hamlets] in the last eight years. Therefor it's not always easy to rate productions. Therefor one inevitably compares and contrasts - this held its own and was at least as good as many professional productions I've seen through the years." Later he wrote, and I was especially pleased to read it because it something about which I can 'Bore for Britain' (as my actors will affirm!), "The verse speaking was excellent throughout, clear and neither over or under played." (Incidentally, any reader with children/teenagers struggling to understand how Shakespeare's verse actually works, should feel free to e-mail me and I will send them my 'easy-peasy' explanation that will reveal all! I make the offer because I care about it.) Later, Mr. Jones was less pleased, telling us that "The staging was competent but lacked true originality; I was reminded of at least two other productions whilst watching (back-lit ghosts with echo-y voices and dry ice are becoming passe). I tend to agree with him but my original plan to have no ghost at all, just smoke and flickering lights, just didn't come off, so late in rehearsals I bit the bullet and had an actual silhouette of an actor with a voice over. He went on to criticise the set which he described as "functioning well, again lacked originality and was overbuilt for the size of the stage." He summed up his feelings thus, "All of this points to the issue with this production - I find it hard to criticise it and as a straight production of 'Hamlet' it was successful. If you've never seen 'Hamlet' before this would be an ideal introduction to the play. But that's what I mean about seeing 'Hamlet' quite regularly - one knows it so well and with this production my interest wasn't always held. So, to put it another way, it would have been excellent to take an A-level English set to, but perhaps not a Theatre Studies one!"
I should make clear that I have deliberately failed to quote the very many complimentary remarks made by all the critics with regard to the various actors because they would be unknown to all of you. So, there you have it! On the whole a good production but criticisable. I'll settle for that.
Recent Comments