CM+Hamlet+Critique

Chris Muthig April 26, 2011 THEA2100 Dr. Richmond // Hamlet //Critique 1. Hamlet is one of the most difficult characters to depict in Shakespeare and also the character that will normally decide the caliber of the play overall. Edward McCreary, as Hamlet, was great. The thing to note most of all out of his performance was the way in which he brought modern gestures and tones into the Shakespearean lines. His motions were so smooth, and his communication with other characters was so fluid, that you felt he must speak like this in everyday speech. Also, because he incorporated these modern body motions and tones, it was easier for the audience to pick up what was meant by the difficult lines. 2. Not knowing that this was to be a more modern interpretation of the play on arrival, the set took me very much by surprise, but it worked out very well. It allowed for emphasis to be placed on the center stage, and for depth perspective to be easily conceptualized using the converging arches in the center. The set also used every inch of the stage, from twenty feet up to well below the stage, the design put every quality of the performance space into use. The blocks built up in the orchestra spacing brought the actors into the audience space, making soliloquies seem more intimate. 3. The lighting affects for the production were a spectacle. The floor lights, situated around the arches stage center, made a perfect emphasis with great color for entrance of characters that caught my eye. Also, I notice the lighting below the metal grating in the orchestra area created eerie shadows for the dark moments Hamlet encountered. I also include the hanging light bulbs in lighting, even though they were used more as the set. These light bulbs added some presence to the stage, but were put to better use when Hamlet interacted with them, giving them a purpose and life. 4. I also enjoyed many of the costumes for the production. The players’ outfits were grand and mysterious and perfectly fitting for the role they played in the performance. The detail put into them to show characteristics of each player and the uniqueness from each other made these costumes stand out to me. Also, Ophelia’s costume during her madness was well done. The colors and form of it matched her madness, and the hair and makeup accompanied her dress well. 5. A final touch from the director that I enjoyed was the role of the players. Having read and analyzed // Hamlet // a fair deal in high school, I remembered enough to pay attention to the details, and the players were one detail that I was drawn to greatly. This added role was intriguing to me because I wanted to grasp the entire meaning behind it. The players appeared throughout the production, watching the performance while they read it, practicing monologues from it after intermission, and seemingly preparing themselves to put on the production it later. It went right along with the well quoted “All the world is a stage” line, I felt. Their interpretation of the play at opening and also McCreary’s prologue were fantastically done. When the prologue was finished, I felt I must have already seen the best part of the play. 

1. As I mentioned, I ended up paying close attention to details of the play, and many of the shortcomings of the production come in these details. First, I must say that I did not enjoy the use of a flashlight as a spot light on Hamlet at all. I assume that is what was used. Because this light was handheld, it moved too much and could not keep a study light on Hamlet during his crucial “To be or not to be” soliloquy. To add to my frustration, this effect was used once more in the play after this. The position of the light was great, but the source and use did not match the high quality of the rest of the play. The light should have been somehow mounted so that the beam could be steady and keep the focus where it needed to be. 2. The use of a moving ladder came into the performance a few times. Two of these times were during major monologues performed by Hamlet. The use of the ladder did make these monologues slightly more dynamic, but outside of that did nothing to help the play’s progression. I have often heard that less is more in theater, and I feel this is one time it should have been practiced. Because the ladder did not add or detract from the play, it was superfluous and should have been dropped. 3. One action of Hamlet that did not sit well with me was his stomping during monologues. It seemed to be just too large of a motion and sound to be used during the performance. I do not think this was an inherently poor decision, but the stomping drummed out some lines and jolted me during these monologues. 4. Goblets should be loud and heavy. The swords used in the performance were very loud and seemed heavy enough, but it was obvious to me that the goblets were fake. This was evident when Hamlet poured out his drink and dropped the goblet onto a metal grating. This action should have created a loud bang, but made no sound at all and caused the play to lose authenticity. The goblets looked good, and I am not sure what they were made of, but I know that either they needed to be metal and loud or the action of dropping the goblet should have been removed. In this way, it would have been difficult to notice that they were fake, and the mood of the play would have been maintained. 5. My final qualm, while quite small, is that Claudius wore an earring in his left ear. It is true that he also wore other jewelry, but that was fine jewelry: large rings, ruby necklaces, and the stuff of kings. This earring was a simple one, diamond perhaps, that caught light when hit. I know this because from my seat in the fourth row, I kept seeing a sharp ray of light bounce off of his ear. If this was a choice by the director, designer or actor, to wear the earring, I think it did not fit the rest of his costume or character well.