How To See Hamlet For The First Time

[+ Lucky]

Yes, it's true. Theater buff Lucky has never seen Hamlet. I'd say I am not a big Shakespeare fan. But a friend who was a theater critic says it is the best theater one can see. Assuming, of course, a good cast and good production values.

 

Knowing that the Writer's Theater in Glencoe, IL has those all lined up, I am seeing Hamlet there next month for the first time. It's a nice, intimate theater, and if the show is good, it should be the perfect place to see it.

 

So, here's what I want your advice on. Should I watch the Kenneth Branagh movie of Hamlet first? Should I read the script? How much knowledge of Hamlet would help me enjoy the show best? Go in cold? I don't know those answers, so invite my fellow theater buffs to opine, should you care to do so.

 

http://www.writerstheatre.org/boxoffice/production?id=0086

[tyro]

Hi Lucky!

Well, everyone has a different preparation ritual, but I'd suggest that you read the play and watch NO movie version. (Not even the one with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart, which I love.)

T

[+ sf westcoaster]

I agree with tyro, read the play and stay away from any of the movie versions. The printed editions of the play will probably have footnotes which will aid in understanding some of the older English words and phrases.

[Kevin Slater]

Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare is a wonderfool tool to help you understand the sometimes complex wording and intricate plots of Shakespeare. He also delves into the sources Shakespeare may have borrow from and offers intriguing interpretations of many of the works. Think Cliff Notes on steroids, for a more educated audience. If memory serves, he had a unique interpretation of Hamlet's motives and actions which I found fun to consider. Enjoy the play!

 

Kevin Slater

[+ Lucky]

It seems unanimous to stay away from the movie version. I did pick it up at the library, but haven't watched it, so that's that. And I think to know about the play before I go is helpful, so that will be my approach. Thanks for the advice, guys, and I will let you know how it goes!

[tyro]

Have fun!

T

[+ Lucky]

Thanks, tyro. As it was, I should have gone into Hamlet cold. Instead, I studied up on the play- the whole play. What Writer's Theater seems to have is Highlights of Hamlet, or Hamlet Lite. The movie version is 4 1/2 hours long, in Glencoe it takes 2 and 1/2 hours. I was expecting many scenes that never happened. The actors did not seem to be playing parts, but reciting Shakespeare. They sort of glided on stage, spoke, and glided off. Only Hamlet acted, and he played Hamlet as a snake, all slithery and conniving. He acted well, but did not present a likable Hamlet.

One actor kept everyone waiting as he was 30 minutes late to the theater. They performed at 2 and 6, so it sure a tight fit for the other actors. I can't imagine not being on time. I came from California, and I made it on time.

[tyro]

Oh boy. Do you recall what got cut? (Sorry, my Word Nerd's Enquiring Mind wants to know.)

T

[+ Lucky]

I am not astute enough to note all of the differences, but doesn't the play open with the guards seeing the ghost as one of them comes to replace another? And the actors for the play within the play had showed up by the end of the first act. A lot of the intrigue had been cut which would have explained what they were doing there at all. But again, I am not comfortable doing a detailed analysis, after all, I only read for a couple of hours!

[+ Cash4Trash]

There is some very good Shakespeare on film: 1) Ralph Fiennes Coriolanus from earlier this year 2) Ian McKellan's Richard III and 3) Julie Taymor's Titus. Many others as well.

 

It's thought that Shakespeare probably cut his plays as well. We have the original folio script but Shakespeare was the director and performer and probably trimmed his work as well to fit the conventions of

the day. 4 1/2 hours standing at the Globe would have been a bit much.

 

Sounds like Lucky's Chicago Hamlet wasn't trimmed, but butchered.