Hamlet

[beccaelizabeth]

is really very very good indeed.

Also, my seat was *awesome*. J56 on the aisle = no steps, short distance to the exit, and right by the disabled loo. Which I didn't actually need but it were close. Water is good, especially when you don't want to cough.

... there were a lot of other people coughing. maybe is too much smoke effect?

Best bit: I was close enough to the stage that any closer would be a bad thing.

This is what you get booking six months in advance with a nice person on the phone.

So the bits people actually care about: David Tennant is bloody amazing.
And apparently made out of springs or something.
... er, I have sudden amusement cause there's a bit with a spring in the play that would be an interesting visual to be made of...
He was throwing himself about all over the place, making big shapes, very cool. Also he has good eyebrows for the stage. I'm just saying.
He can do acting with his hair.
Also with his feet. I haven't seen anyone do acting with their feet much. But he has bare feet and they do quite a lot of acting.

My mum said in the interval that she was impressed with him playing depressed/anxious because... and I finished for her because he's doing stuff like *I* do, with the hands and the rocking in place a bit and stuff. And she was impressed because tense people try to calm themselves and he did that, not any big being more tense stuff. And she recognised what he was doing from people closer to home. So that were very good.

Also my mum knows more than I do about the hawk and handsaw line.
... which makes me all defensive for dumb reasons. Haven't studied this one, don't have to know it so minutely.

Have, of course, heard the thing quoted in parts and pieces a billion times. But even having (according to mum) watched the Mel Gibson film (which I apparently found unmemorable) I hadn't got a feeling for how it all stuck together, let alone how it flowed. Seeing this performance I feel kind of stupid for not getting it before. Everything leads on ... I was going to say logically, but that's a bit sideways... more leading emotionally. It all twists together until there's (almost) nowhere else to go.

The other thing about the multi-quote problem is it's like the whole play is hypertext and every other line links you to a billion inappropriate intertextual references, because they're all referring to this but this is now reminding of they. But that weren't a problem cause it always got my attention back.

Also the stage has lots of shiny things around but the people kept my attention more than even very shiny things.
... this is sadly not always the case even with very pretty people. This takes skill.

And then by the very end... I wasn't watching quotes or a play or something that was echoing out of before in my head. They were saying those things right there and then.

Brilliant.

Absolutely brilliant.


And I totally want to see it again and rewind and pause like I do TV but you can't.
And they're going to do that again tomorrow? And every night for how long?
Don't know how he manages the energy for one performance. Totally blinky at how much it'll take for a lot of this.



So, after, did not wait at stage door. Because more people were waiting there than I've seen at some signings, and I think the guy needs a rest more than I need a signature.



So then - this bit gets boring, review over now - we wandered off vaguely following the flow of people, and managed to navigate back to our hotel, via the chinese take away I'd googled yesterday, on foot and with looking at maps conveniently placed on useful corners. And, er, guessing a bit.

I get lost in *Norwich*, and I live there. I don't know how I managed that one. But it were good.

And I ate food and everything.

... I'm not sure my stomach appreciates it, but is a very good indicator of my mood that I can try it.



That was really really really very good.
I wants to write essays about it.

... the fact that this is now my first response to any cool thing suggests I'm getting over educated...

Comments

[beccaelizabeth]

I was thinking on this til three in the morning and still it falls out my head like water. I like recordings quite a lot. But then I was thinking the whole living in the moment thing is part of what the play is about, how he steps back and thinks and the times he doesn't take the time. So its interesting to see it live, because every moment only happens that once and slips past so quick and that's the point. The reactions make sense in that context. No time to think in the moments of opportunity and too much time out.

Also there's 'remember' and the cut hand. His hand does remembering while his mind doubts everything. And sometimes you see him rubbing at the wound. And its there quite clearly for long sections of play, so they either happen right quick or he's hurt himself more. But its interesting cause hand rub is comfort but hand is hurt so its not but it is because its tangible reality from the ghost but its not because he did it to himself... so its all the tangle right there.

Also there's the bit at the end where he cuts him with the poison sword and its the same like thing, cut hand.
There's more comparisons like that but I not notice them all.
Want to go again.

I was thinking how I've seen people play nuts or mad or unfortunately stage mad but this guy I'd buy as mentally ill. It was true enough to experience I'd call it that. Twitchy and... uncomfortably familiar at times, and a selfish jerk in that too stressed out way, and ...

[beccaelizabeth]

... me and mum just started a conversation about persons we know 'going mad' and the other train of thought got derailed and then crunched into again. Because we're talking about not interacting with humans -> going mad. I don't agree with mum's definitions. But if you've got a secret and withdraw then things go wonky as far as other people are concerned even if your thinking is still working.

So he had this bit of reality that some people could see and some couldn't and he poked it to test it and everyone thought that was most peculiar. I loved how DT said lines in this one to make it a game with some friends that he's taking the piss out of people who think he's mad but humour him, or just agree with everything because he's powerful, and he's just leading them around. I've heard the same things before and they weren't so clearly that. That was fun.
There was lots of laughing. Isn't what I associate with this.

And then there was that whole 'to be or not to be' which was totally depressed guy thinking about it.
Everyone does that speech. You've probably done bits of that speech.
That wasn't a speech when he done it, it were a whole complicated thought going on out loud and not resolving. Excellent.



The stage is fun. The lighting is great too. Stage reflects and right early on the only light is torches reflected off the stage. And the light stays simple. Not distracting. But still does things like DT and PS being in different colors when one is praying and the other thinking of killing him.

Have seen DT do 'going to kill you' several times and this time be different. Is good.

The stage is right in the middle of all the seats, not the behind the arch sort. So there's lots of walking on along paths and a bit of climbing up on to the stage and a whole lot of room to run around. It's way more 'happening right here' than 'happening over there'. Much interesting.

And there's bits where how people are getting on and off stage is quite interesting and involves gadgets like James Bond gets to play with, only the interesting bits of story keep your attention. Mum tried to watch how the flying man disappeared but the story got her to look at the stage again.
... I was looking at the stage anyway. Flying people is interesting but not essential.

There are signs up outside that warn about loud noises and flashing lights. This is very true. But I liked them this time. They fit in the story. I hate fireworks noise usually but story with fireworks in is a bit different.

I also not good with clapping noise. I mean, I want to do applause, but the loud random everywhere noise makes me a bit flappy, and I end up with my hands over my ears. But this time when the play ended I was doing applause same like others, long time.

It was very good.


And I'm sure it's falling out of my head already.

If I can't remember the play of the whole story well enough to be sure of the details, how much more fragile the memory of a ghost?

*wanders off thinking*

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I'm so glad you enjoyed it. I am very jealous that you got to go - I so wish I had been organised and decided I wanted tickets before it was all far too late.

If you want a DVD I can recommend the Kenneth Brannagh version (be sure to get the full cut, not the short release). Brannagh is not the most energetic Hamlet I have seen, but he is excellent at clarifying the presentation of the text so that I found even things like the 'Get thee to a nunnery' speech were understandable, whereas I'd never really understood it before. So I think his version is an excellent way to get to know and understand the play. The Gibson one is dreadful.

[beccaelizabeth]

I think I'm going to wait a bunch of time before I watch other people's versions, so this one can settle in, sort of thing.
But I will file that data for later.

[beccaelizabeth]

other people talking about it too

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2008/07/because_fans_can_often_be_idio.html#comment-28826

http://www.matthewswan.co.uk/2008/07/review-hamlet/

They're also talking about previews and opening in August?
Like "You can be sure, of course, that we’ll all be at Stratford for the RSC opening of the David Tennant Hamlet on August 5"

This to me is new language.
There was a play, cause I saw it. It was very cool.
Couldn't have gone any other time anyway, mum had respite care this week and she books the year in advance, no budging over to go see things.


There's also useful data around on how to be a nice polite fanperson and not a loud rude bad name making person. I was on the nice side of the advice. I think.

I hope.

I was mousey quiet and went away at the end. That's polite. Right?
Right.

[beccaelizabeth]

use of guns and swords - mostly it's being modern, so there's guns. but the final duel is set up right early when Laertes and a servant come on with luggage ready for him to leave. The servant carries his suitcases, but Laertes carries his bag with crossed swords on the end, his fencing stuff. Says what you need to know about his priorities right simply.

... I started in Highlander fandom, I'm always going to pay attention to the swords.

[beccaelizabeth]

I saw a picture of Hamlet standing over a kneeling Claudius about to stab him with a sword. It seemed quite wrong.

DT's Hamlet used a flick knife. It's small, concealed, you can put it away while having it in plain sight - fold the blade in - or you can wave the blade around with clear intent. A sword you carry at your side, it's always a potential. A knife that can fit invisibly in your pocket becomes more of a choice when you've got it showing. I like it. I also like how folding knives always make me worry about the wielders fingers, because how appropriate is that? So sharp he'll cut himself.

It goes well with the possibility that the madness is meant as concealment.
Though honestly, having been a bit looped myself, being mad only in one direction seems to me how the thing works. Plenty of sane and functional, and one wide road of nutsy.

I loved the clothes which translate the rumpled hose and all that description Ophelia was giving. If some dude comes on stage with his tights down it's not really going to give the impression of normal but disheveled. Wearing jeans and a t-shirt in a formal wear house does so perfectly. I liked the fake muscle print on the t-shirt, but I've been having trouble saying quite why. Fake naked? Artifice that seems to strip? Impression of strength? It seems to go well with the possible crazy. Even while looking, like my mum said, precisely like your depressed son you can't get out of his favourite t-shirt.

on the transience of memory and the transience of signs

[beccaelizabeth]

I started reading "Theatre as sign system" in the performance section and it quickly mentioned signs that may or may not be intentional, such as a bandage on an actor.

Which reminded me of Wednesday night where Ophelia's flowers did not quite get taken away.

Mum says this is obviously a mistake. The scene change was busy and many people moving and easy to leave a couple bits of green still in the middle. And she's probably right.

The thing is, it kind of works anyway.

Every major twist that hems the characters in to that ending has its reminder, half of them living, half of them not. Having the Ghost and new King played by the same man makes him a living symbol of that one act of replacement. Reminder in front of us often. And the same with the queen, she stands with the new King and we remember why Hamlet is upset about it. But after Polonius (?) dies behind the mirrors the whole back of the stage is the big cracked mirror. All the time, in front of us, that's there. So the last twist, Ophelia's madness and death, that is symbolised in the weird dead flowers... and leaving them on stage until they're replaced with her grave works whether intentional or not as a persistent symbol.


I was thinking about photographs, videos, DVDs, as persistent symbols. Except people perceive them as objective facts in themselves. They're reality, captured. And that must change the very nature of reality. Before such things were possible, memory was all you had, fallible and tricksy. You and your friends could get together and agree a thing is so or not so or was so. Hamlet and his friends saw a ghost. But then Hamlet saw a ghost and his mother did not. Her reality is different. As is the reality of the audience, cause we see his ghost. But with a stage play we can't go back and hit rewind and screencap it and show it later. I keep wanting to qualify everything with iirc, If I Recall Correctly. I do that a lot anyway. I have horrible anxiety about the way the world shifts and memory shifts and sometimes what I remember doesn't match what other people remember. I have in the past perceived things that even I decided were not in fact there, like the guy in the doorway with an axe who appeared on far too many mornings when I was not in fact awake. Having perceived such things, I doubt my senses. Hamlet's trouble with the ghost... well, it doesn't feel like a foreign country, you know? And I think having seen the story on DVD blunted my appreciation of that, because look, reality on disc, rewind record see. But they don't live in that world - no CCTV, just people behind curtains. Consensus reality the only possibility, no objectivity here. No illusion of objectivity neither. And that was the rule, the only possible situation, for all of human history... until the 19th century.

Most gigantic reality shift there.


I also think I worry too much about which reality I'm wandering around in. Sure I can't record every minute of it for later (unless I have more later than I have now, for rewatching it.) But ancestors managed that way for ages and ages... and, er, saw ghosts and demons in it...

[beccaelizabeth]

made of springs:
DT used more of the vertical than the others, bends and twists more than the others, runs around the most. Others run around following him, or he drags people around, but I'm left with the impression Hamlet is the source of most of the movement. From the others the lingering impression is formality. Very upright, very ... matching the suits and formalwear they usually wear. Except for Ophelia, who is rarely formal and quite a lot skippy bouncy. Somewhere between even when not being crazed. Also Hamlet climbs up on things that aren't usually steps, like boxes and racks and stuff. And he sprawls out on the floor, or crouches down, when everyone has been very upright up to then. But he's not the only one that crouches. Just if you add it all together, he's left me thinking he's mobile and they're formal.
Except for the dumb show in the play.

Interesting comparisons everywhere.


I want to see it again and take notes and stuff!

[beccaelizabeth]

Press night August 5th, so now DT's site have Press Night Reviews.

http://david-tennant.com/temp/id366.html

[beccaelizabeth]

The Guardian review - read it, I'm only quoting what I reply to:
"Immediately we sense Claudius's hostile suspicion towards, and cold contempt for, his moody nephew."
I didn't read it that way. I saw more velvet on it. That stuff is in there somewhere, he's totally snubbing him in public, haha who are you what do you do oh yeah that, sort of thing. But it's so incredibly polite. It contrasts with Hamlet's parodic mockery later, that's... I was going to say gloves off but it's not at all, it's something different. Taking the place of that skull dude jester. Bells on.

"And there is a tremendous shock in seeing how the lean, dark-suited figure of the opening scene dissolves into grief the second he is left alone"
Yeah... one of the reasons I want to watch it again was it was such a contrast it amused me and I was stuck on 'cheer up emo boy' and trying not to giggle. As the play goes along his initial reaction seems quite awfully appropriate instead. I want to see it in the right mind to see that.

"and the overwhelming impression is of a man who, in putting on an "antic disposition", reveals his true, nervously excitable, mercurial self."
*nods* yes, the way that jeans and t-shirt seem more natural than suits to most of us watching.

"the first half ends with Tennant poised with a dagger over the praying Claudius, crying: "And now I'll do it." Newcomers to the play might well believe he will."
No, better than that - even knowing full well you might believe it, like the moment the Doctor has the gun right after his Daughter died. Yes, a DW comparison, but to one of the really strong moments. Only there he was struggling with it, and here you go to the interval with Hamlet fully believing he's about to kill. Different. Powerful. You can believe it for that moment.

hmmm... I thought there was a bit about aught he leaves? I have no rewind.

*nods* to the bits about the rest of the people.
... I'm DT focused. Hamlet is too. Is my excuse...

They likes it. Yaays! I likes it too.
... hang on, I'm worried about someone elses reviews? Heh.

[beccaelizabeth]

The BBC New Online thing seems to be from a ... less technical angle? Of course all eyes are on Hamlet, it's Hamlet.

Also, minus points for Doctor comparisons. Yes he looks like the Doctor. We know that. General comparison not needed. (Specific could be useful, but it aren't a very specific review.)

I doubt there's any firsts left for Hamlet, including Parkas.
But the hair is indeed a powerful tool.

He lacks nothing in emotional intensity. Not when I saw it.

"And he delivers the play's most famous lines without fanfare. They are there, subtle and seamless."
Yes, that. He's not Doing A Speech Now, he's doing the play.

Also, it's only the Doctor Who Hamlet when you write it that way.
I'm pretty sure it's not the only DW connected Hamlet around right now, let alone ever.

http://www.thestage.co.uk/reviews/review.php/21131/hamlet
Louise Jameson (Leela, classic series) and Joseph Millson (Sarah Jane Adventures).
Finished in July I think it says.

ANYway... my point is, people are in Doctor Who and also in other things and this has been true of previous Doctors let alone previous DW 'verse people.

It is David Tennant's Hamlet. *nods*

Review thinks he's not the best Hamlet. I wouldn't know. But the way it says it is like 'may not be, could be, maybe someday' and it's a bit... blah.

Okay, so if you're trying to find out what the play is like, does this review help?
Yeah, a bit, I guess.
If you think it's like those first couple minutes where you're going 'look, Doctor Who! hehehe', which I think wears off quicker.

[beccaelizabeth]

The Times - starts with slamming DT's acting in DW, which suggests they don't watch much of it.

"Hamlet gives Tennant the chance to show the world that he has the range to tackle the most demanding classical role of all – and, praise be, he seizes it."

We knew he could. Fans who paid attention.
... oh dear, I'm going to get sniffy about these, aren't I?
They're nice to DT. They mention DW. Either they mention it to be blah at it, and then they're blah at what I like, or they mention it to be all he's better than it, which seems like blah again even when it's saying yaay DT.
I'm going to have to de-sniffy because is silly.
*meditates*

So it goes on to compare it to other Hamlets. Which sounds like someone did the homework.

"Nor is he one of those Hamlets who, while faking mad, actually becomes mad or half-mad."
Hmmm... I suspect they're working from different definitions. Because I do not doubt for one moment that Hamlet is mentally ill: depressed, stressed beyond belief, curled up on the stage saying about flesh melting and wishing suicide was god-legal. And that's *before* the ghost arrives, and not one of the scenes where anyone is watching. And I can only understand the play if he is doubting his own perceptions about the ghost, and how is that not mental illness, to believe oneself hallucinating? So I can't see that at all, that he's not 'mad' if mad means mentally ill. He's out on the raggedy edge, no doubt. Looked/felt so familiar sometimes I was hiding, hello mirror.
But people have odd definitions of madness. Hamlet is very, very sharp throughout, observing the same world everyone else is, giving it back to them with sarcastic spin. He's not lost in altered perceptions.
This Ophelia seems to be, with an arm full of flowers I don't recognise as matching the names she gives them. But then I don't know much about flowers. Still, a daisy doesn't look like that...
So, no, Hamlet isn't that kind of mad, but he's surely mentally ill by any definition I know.

[beccaelizabeth]

The Independent

Kicks off with a Doctor Who reference of win. Good trick. Picks out specifics of both Hamlet and DW, good stuff.

I'll quote it for it is fun:

He's alienated, adrift in an inimical universe, and subject to bouts of existential depression and to fits of larky lunacy. He gives the impression of knowing more than he can possibly tell to other creatures. From time to time, he exhibits a penchant for sporting student scarves and he exudes the air of a brilliantly batty, eternal undergraduate. Yes, it's clear that Doctor Who must have been a key role model for young Hamlet. Perhaps the Tardis touched down in Elsinore during the troubled Dane's formative years.

Go read this Independent one, it has knowings of things like DT's past acting and why not seeing past DW is Dumb. And says so.

"In the closet scene, Hamlet shoots the eavesdropping Polonius with a revolver and the glass crazes into a huge, psychologically suggestive spider's web of cracks."
I hadn't mentioned that bit because it was too cool. Like, no spoilers for Hamlet, that bit too good to put in the trailer.

"certain broad touches feel faintly gratuitous – such as taking the interval on an artificial cliffhanger with Hamlet's flick-knife suspended over Patrick Stewart's praying Claudius."
Disagree - where would you put it?
Cliffhangers are *always* artificial - you have to resolve them fast after the break because everyone else has had time to move on, but they have to grab you enough that you'll be thinking about it through the break.
That's a pure quality cliffhanger right there, that is.

"mangling "Three Blind Mice" on a recorder" you know I near forgot that, but it was well cool at the time.
And nobody's called it a DW ref yet.
2 FTW.

"It's diabolical cheek: a gesture of "good health" to a man who has only minutes to live because of the drinker's own machinations."
Oooh, shiny, I'd missed that.
(This is what good review is for)

What this review says is missing... I don't entirely agree. I already said there's bits that made me feel bits of me were up on stage; if that's not connection I don't know what is. And I know I don't know the play well enough to miss bits, but I thought it worked perfect well as was.

But read this one, cause it's informed and with examples, no sniffing.

Also I like the last line:

You never know, though, this Hamlet may switch some Shakespeare buffs on to Doctor Who.

Yes! Shakespeare would so write an episode if he were alive today. Most popular show on TV? He'd be there.
... now I wants a time machine...

[beccaelizabeth]

Telegraph:
Trying to be funny about DW and ST. *sigh*

But also "Nor should his performance as Doctor Who be mocked. Funny, clever and with sudden flashes of deep emotion, Tennant's time lord strikes me as a pretty good jumping off point for the most famous and challenging of all Shakespearean characters."
So yaays.

Doesn't think he's great. I think he's great.

It says To Be or Not To Be you never "feel that this is a man wrestling with the possibility of suicide." Only I did, so misuse of pronouns there.

I think the nunnery thing was quite intense and savage enough. He was making bitter sense she didn't have the puzzle pieces for. Worked fine.

Spiritual illumination is not something I'd connect with all that murder and death and all. so I don't see what's to complain of there at all.

"a Hamlet who makes you laugh" = yes, very, lots of dark funny.

Says good stuff about Patrick Stewart. I nod a lot to that stuff. Though I do not recall the hug-or-throttle moment that impressed them.

"you almost feel sorry for the bastard" - less of the almost.
I started wondering - if the old king is warlike and the new one a diplomat, well...


Everyone keeps saying 'could become great'. I still think is great already. DT could do more? But why, when it was just right?
Maybe it'll be better later. I hope I can get London tickets.

[beccaelizabeth]

The Stage

*nods a bunch*
"awesome in its intensity"
yep.

"Hamlet’s death (and how well Tennant plays the final speech)"
yes yes.

"handles so perfectly the play within the play (dazzling golden ruffs and long-skirted coats)"
Yeah, I hadn't said enough about that - I love the three different styles, the dumb show, the play-within-play, and the play we're watching. I love how shiny and elaborate the clothes are in the... pwp is not a useful abbreviation in fandom... tis kind of like they're going 'yes we can if we want to', and it makes the other stuff look entirely intentional, as well as ... well, you don't get the subtlety of signals from those clothes. You can read the costumes in the main Hamlet play. Lots of detail.

That's why I don't agree with the complain about Ophelia's clothes. They're appropriate to this Ophelia. She doesn't dress as formal as the main court, she's different, and so you can see how Hamlet could see her.

[beccaelizabeth]

The Birmingham Post

"And once again, the Courtyard itself, with its exciting relationship between actors and audience, is one of its stars. That is apparent from the very first scene, where as the sentries fumble in the dark there is a feeling of being right there with them on Elsinore’s battlements which I have never quite experienced before."
Yeah, I loved that, the theatre itself. I haven't seen anything quite like it. I want to go again.

" I’ve never heard the lewd insinuation of “country matters” made quite so unmistakable."
Heh, yeah, that weren't subtle... :)

"Patrick Stewart doubles the roles of Claudius and the Ghost, pointing up the contrast between Hamlet’s father and his bespectacled, peacemaking brother, who has the air of a benign politician or a philanthropic businessman. It’s an interesting and unusually sympathetic treatment of the character."
*nods nods*

... copying such huge bits just to nod be not so useful...


oh. now I've read the press night reviews.
that was fun.