The Thing's the Play: Thoughts on Hamlet

Performed by the Kentucky Shakespeare Festival

Central Park, Louisville, KY 12 July 2002

Rob Vest

L314 Late Plays of Shakespeare

Dr Annette Wyandotte

15 July 2002

This summer, I attended the Kentucky Shakespeare Festival's performance of Hamlet. This work will examine the use of staging, gestures, and props within the play, and will also look at how Prince Hamlet's indecisiveness was portrayed in this performance.

The staging of the play was a bit confusing, for a couple of reasons. First of all, the stage was broken up into several smaller pieces. Though the broken stage made the sword-fight at the end of the play more interesting, it was a distraction for most of the play, more so for the audience than the actors. Of course, the stage may have been cut like this to symbolize the declining kingdom, but I could have done without it.

The costuming also initially contributed to the confusion, as it was definitely post-Shakespeare. This is really a minor issue, having seen a fascist take on Richard III and a post-modern interpretation of Romeo and Juliet, but this performance of Hamlet was a bit inconsistent in regards to costuming, featuring castle guards in faux-mail coats and the Prince of Denmark in a wife-beater.

There were good aspects of the staging that helped to overcome the minor problems. The stage incorporated a sunken area on stage right to emulate Ophelia's grave, which lent a sense of realism to Act V, Scene One. The lighting was intensified when the ghost of Hamlet's father would appear, giving the occasion a sense the ominous.

The gestures used by the actors also helped to accent the scenes. Hamlet's use of wide, sweeping gestures conveyed madness, determination, and desperation to the audience. When I attended the opening night of the play a few weeks earlier, the actor's performance of the protagonist seems almost forced, but he seemed quite believable the second time I saw Hamlet. Ophelia's sense of madness came out in her empty smile and unnerving stare. The ghost's slow, determined stride and use of precise, measured gestures gave him a menacing aura.

Props proved useful in helping the audience grasp the action of the play. The duel at the end would have been useless without the swords and poisoned cup. The gravedigger was made more believable not only by his shovel, but also the dirt he cast from the "grave." One of the most impressive props I saw was Yorik's skull, which looked so real that I was almost repulsed when Hamlet spoke of having kissed the lips that once hung from it.

The worst prop was the ghost's helmet. Covered in aluminum foil, with a lopsided crest and bent face grill, the thing drew my attention like a herpes sore on a pretty girl's face. The ghost's appearance was not helped by the grey sash it wore, which looked like it was made from a plastic trash bag. The broad actor was also garbed in a white military uniform, which lent the ghost a passing resemblance to the Michelin Man. Luckily, the actor was able to overcome the shortcomings of the costume designer.

Hamlet is portrayed in this performance as a man of action. Though he does seem to show some indecisiveness, such as in his "To be, or not to be" soliloquy-without which he would not be Hamlet-the Prince of Denmark is determined to avenge his father's death. This was seen in the actor's somewhat exaggerated gestures, his constant motion and leaping about, and his general physicality. Hamlet was shown as energetic, brash, and somewhat foolhardy. In anger he throws his mother to the ground, threatens Rosencrantz and Guildenstern with his sword, and remains hostile throughout the play to Claudius. There is no doubt in Hamlet's mind that revenge will be had, no matter how many slings and arrows come his way, nor does doubt exist in the minds of the audience.