review: hamlet

Last night I saw the Melbourne Theatre Company's production of Hamlet and was suitably impressed.  By far the most stunning aspect of the production was the set.  It was amazing.  There was a huge turntable (always a plus) and the stage was divided I think into four uneven quadrants that were delineated by floor-to-ceiling windows and mirrors that formed rooms and hallways.  They were mostly windows, but a few were mirrors and it was actually a bit hard to tell which were which.  It was spectacular.

The rest of the props and such were modern and snazzy (and, as Glen would like to point out, included some of the very same chairs that he has in his apartment) and worked very well with the set.  The lighting and sound were similarly good and unobtrusive, which is, of course, exactly as they're meant to be.  The costuming was modern and apt.  The scene changes were fantastic and flawless, with catchy music and no apparent movement.  They were a bit like magic, really (were those one-way mirrors?).

The acting was fine -- Hamlet was satisfactory, though a bit old.  The main problem was with him and Gertrude (his mother).  They were just really so close you had to question whether it was Hamlet or Oedipus you were meant to be watching.  Nobody's eyes got gouged out, though, so I guess it must have been Hamlet.

Ophelia did really well, and I think they almost expanded her role a bit.  She certainly got more stage time than other Ophelias I've seen.  Also, I think you could argue this Hamlet's interpretation was decidedly on the "he is mad" end of things.  Not entirely, perhaps -- that would rather defeat the purpose of academics arguing endlessly, wouldn't it? -- but closer to that end than the whole seeming in control of things end.

I found Rosencrantz and Guildenstern a whole lot less likable in this production than I have in the past (perhaps I was missing something in the past, come to think of it), but really like Horatio.  Laertes, too, I really liked and sympathized with.  Polonius was played by a guy I hear is famous, but I'd never heard of him.  Perhaps it's an Australian thing.  I thought he did well and never had an inkling he (and evidently most of the others) were double and triple cast, though evidently that was fairly obvious, too.

Claudius did very well -- the debonair modern-day politican -- though Hamlet, Sr.'s ghost annoyed me.  Too thin and pale, really.  He was clearly visible on stage, though I'm pretty sure he was always behind glass walls whenever anyone that wasn't Hamlet was around, which I thought worked quite well.

There was no sparrow in the production -- though there were, as the entrance signs warned, strobe lights and herbal cigarettes (why are cigarettes so popular to have on stage these days?!) -- as the show picture advertised, which was slightly disappointing.  It was fun to hear all the famous lines, though -- "the play's the thing," "aye, there's the rub," "get thee to a nunnery," "methinks the lady doth protest too much," "alas, poor Yorrick" and, of course, "to be or not to be."  The only one I really thought might have been missing was the one about there being something rotten in the state of you-know-where.  Actually, I think they edited out a bit of the political mumbo-jumbo no one ever really gets anyway -- I think, for example, Fortinbras was entirely done away with and the ending slightly more abrupt than the full text has it.  Honestly, I think it made for a better production, though, so I don't begrudge it -- though I still would have liked something rotten.