The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0706 Tuesday, 1 August 2006
[1] From: Aaron Azlant <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 31 Jul 2006 14:55:51 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0703 Seattle All-Female Hamlet
[2] From: Jeffrey Jordan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 1 Aug 2006 01:01:37 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0703 Seattle All-Female Hamlet
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Azlant <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 31 Jul 2006 14:55:51 -0700
Subject: 17.0703 Seattle All-Female Hamlet
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0703 Seattle All-Female Hamlet
Just a quick and slightly tangential remark on the remarkably complex
reasons for the dramatic tension at "Give me some light, away":
In The Mousetrap, Lucianus is not just a character that, like Claudius,
murders a king in a garden by pouring poison in his ear-he is also the
nephew of his victim, like Hamlet*. The same thing is not necessarily
true of his analogue in the dumb show, which Claudius sits through
unperturbed. Claudius, then, could potentially be responding to what he
perceives as a veiled threat from Hamlet; if this were an active
possibility, it would also weaken the idea, immediately taken for
granted by Hamlet, that Claudius decisively confirms his own guilt by
abandoning the play.
Now, I don't think that an audience is ever in a position to dismiss
Hamlet's insistence that Claudius has confirmed the Ghost's word, but I
do think that it is at least slightly uneasy at Hamlet's reduction and
that its feelings at Claudius' last line in the scene are subtly multiple.
For whatever it's worth, all three of the characters in the Mousetrap
map to two different characters in Hamlet. Lucianus, like Hamlet, is
both a regicide and a nephew to the king; like Claudius, he is a
regicide that operates by pouring poison into ears. The Player King,
like Hamlet, is an erratic melancholic; like King Hamlet, he is poisoned
via his ear while reclining in his orchard. The Player Queen, like
Ophelia, attends to a character that is "so far from cheer and from [a]
former state"; like Gertrude, she remarries a regicide.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Jordan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 1 Aug 2006 01:01:37 -0500
Subject: 17.0703 Seattle All-Female Hamlet
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0703 Seattle All-Female Hamlet
Replying to Larry Weiss.
>... But to say -- not once, but twice -- that this and nothing else
>was what WS wrote confuses Jeff's directorial choice with the
>Bard's authorship. Before I can consider this as the one and
>only original intent I would have to see a stage direction
>placing the ghost in this scene, two scenes and about 250 lines
>before his entrance at III.iv.102.
There are two questions to be answered. One is, did Shakespeare intend
that, to have the Ghost rise at Ophelia's line? Of course it's a
personal judgment call, since the dialogue, and a few scattered stage
directions, are all we have of ~Hamlet~. There's no proof.
But then there's another question: could S have missed it? I don't
think he could have. S was marvelously sharp, and I don't think there's
any chance he could have missed having the Ghost rise at Ophelia's line.
"The King rises." It's right there. Others may think S missed such a
fine opportunity, but I refuse to believe he did. He was too sharp, and
it's good theater. And they had the trap door.
Replying to Donald Bloom.
>Jeffrey Jordan writes: ". . . Ophelia says 'the King rises.'
>Three little words, from the hand of S. When Ophelia
>says that, three things are happening. ...
>
>His point, I know, is otherwise, but as a matter of strict
>accuracy, there is more to it than that. Ophelia's line
>makes superfluous a stage direction to that effect, but
>the next line, Hamlet's "What, frighted with false fire?,"
>would seem to suggest the two of them glaring at each
>other (as in the old BBC version, and very effective it is).
Hamlet's "false fire" line is not in Q2. It appears first in Q1, then
the Folio. So, it's questionable on that basis, since Q1 is so iffy,
and is the ultimate source. The line may be authorial, or it may be
actorial. I'm not sure it's "Shakespeare."
The effect is better - in my opinion - if Gertrude's line, that you
mention below, immediately follows Ophelia's. King Hamlet is Gertrude's
precedent Lord. Gertrude's line acquires a dual meaning: first, of her
asking Claudius how he is, and second, as though she can see the Ghost
and is talking to him, asking how he's doing. S scattered such
ambiguity all through ~Hamlet~. How the image of King Hamlet would be
doing, is that he'd be grinning as his brother rushes out.
I didn't find the BBC version good at all, either in that passage, or
much of anyplace else. They ruined the effect of Claudius's exit, by
depriving it of all urgency. The way the BBC did it, Claudius might as
well have stayed, and ordered the show to continue, after inhibiting
Hamlet. In the BBC version, why did Claudius even leave? I know "art"
is whatever people like. But the BBC production, overall, is one of the
most horridly misinterpreted things I've seen. Golly. Derek Jacobi
wallowed around on the floor, not like a "mad" Hamlet, but like a Hamlet
who had a combination of a serious neuromuscular disorder, and an
alcohol problem. When he did stand, it was at the wrong time.
Dreadful. But sure, "art" is what somebody likes, and I know, some
people like that awful thing. I saw it as a waste of talent, and not
only Jacobi's.
Both Hamlet's "false fire" line, and a later "fire" line by Claudius are
not in Q2. Two "fire" lines, neither in Q2. It's interesting. A
person who engaged in wild surmise might wonder if actors were inclined
to add "fire" lines, so that they could yell "fire" occasionally to perk
up an inattentive audience, and have an excuse for it. If so, it would
be a wicked irony, since the Globe did burn in later years. Never mind,
just one of those thoughts. I wouldn't put it past the actors to do
that, tho.
And sure, the "fire" lines might be Shakespeare, although not in Q2.
Maybe. But Claudius's exit does need urgency, else there's no "stricken
deer." Stricken deer flee.
>Claudius could, of course, be rushing off, and the queen
>likewise speaking to his back ("How fares my lord?"), but
>Claudius himself says, "Give me some light. Away!" ...
He's calling for torch bearers to light his way through the dark
hallways as he heads for the door. "Away" means "let's go."
However, Claudius's "Away!" also works for the Ghost being there.
That's three almost-consecutive lines that work for the Ghost.
Ophelia says "The King rises," and the Ghost rises.
Gertrude asks, "How fares my Lord?" as if she's greeting the Ghost.
Claudius exclaims "Away!" as if he's telling his brother to get away.
None of them would see the Ghost, but it flows in undertone as if
they're all talking to him. Maybe it's coincidence, just one of those
things, that the dialogue works for the concept of the Ghost rising and
being there. I don't think it's only coincidence. S wrote it that way
intentionally. He was too good with words for the effect to be accidental.
It might be that the Ghost's rising is figurative. But they had that
trapdoor.
And anyway, that's nothing compared to how Polonius accidentally
summoned the Ghost in the Closet Scene by blurting out the secret
formula from the occult magic book, Ralph Roister Doister. S did a
tribute to RRD, the first comedy play printed in English.
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
