Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2012 :: June ::
Yale Repertory Theatre to Mount Hamlet in 2013

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0241  Wednesday, 13 June 2012

 

[1] From:        John Crowley < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         June 12, 2012 10:33:50 AM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Yale Hamlet 

 

[2] From:        Hannibal Hamlin < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         June 12, 2012 1:08:52 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Yale Hamlet 

 

[3] From:        Charles Weinstein < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         June 12, 2012 2:30:35 PM EDT

     Subject:     RE: SHAKSPER: Yale Hamlet 

 

[4] From:        Brian Willis < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         June 12, 2012 7:50:25 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Yale Hamlet

 

[5] From:        Hardy M. Cook < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         Wednesday, June 13, 2012

     Subject:     Yale Hamlet 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        John Crowley < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         June 12, 2012 10:33:50 AM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Yale Hamlet

 

I’m very much looking forward to Giamatti as Hamlet. He will (for one thing) provide support for that famous reading “Oh that this too, too solid flesh would melt”—and any strange Hamlet is illuminating. (I saw Diane Venora in a Joseph Papp production many years ago—I wept.)

 

John Crowley

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Hannibal Hamlin < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         June 12, 2012 1:08:52 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Yale Hamlet

 

Paul Giamatti may be a little lumpy-dumpy, but so is Simon Russell Beale, who was apparently brilliant in the role. As for the baldness, Richard Burbage, the first Hamlet, seems to have quite a receding hairline in the Dulwich portrait, though I don’t know how old he was when painted. He would have been 33 when Hamlet premiered, but people aged differently back then. (Remember the Sonnets, “When forty winters have besieged thy brows”). Ian Charleson was apparently a superb Hamlet at 40. Olivier was 41 when he played Hamlet in his own film (though I confess I dislike it). Gielgud played the role at 44. Hamlet’s own age is notoriously hard to pin down: he’s a student at Wittenberg, but the gravedigger says he’s 30. He seems to age 10 or more years over the course of the play. Giamatti is a brilliant actor, which is surely the main thing. I’m sure his Hamlet will be worth seeing, and I hope I can get to New Haven when it’s up.

 

Hannibal

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Charles Weinstein < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         June 12, 2012 2:30:35 PM EDT

Subject:     RE: SHAKSPER: Yale Hamlet

 

I thought there could never be a worse Hamlet than Simon Russell Beale, but Giamatti may yet prove me wrong. He’s a schlub, which Hamlet is not. (Neither, for that matter, was John Adams, which is why Giamatti was bad in that role as well).

 

--Charles Weinstein

 

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Brian Willis < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         June 12, 2012 7:50:25 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Yale Hamlet

 

“Call me old-fashioned, but if I were casting Hamlet I would try to find a skillful young fellow with leading-man looks and some star quality to do that heavy lifting. Paul Giamatti has neither and he’s forty-five. Indeed, his balding lumpy-dumpy look is plainly part of why he’s cast in the movie roles he gets. He has trunks full of awards, so it doesn’t matter that I usually don’t much care to watch him, but unless you can tell me he has a way with Shakespeare’s verse unmatched in the English-speaking world, I’m not really interested in seeing him play Hamlet anywhere.”

 

Has it come to this? Do we really require our actors to have “leading-man” looks, whatever that is supposed to mean? I thought being an actor - let me clarify, being a GREAT actor—is so much more than this. By this criteria, John Gielgud had no business playing Hamlet.

 

Let me add my own generalization: I usually find that actors with “leading-man looks” can’t handle the text because they rely on their looks, while actors like Giamatti, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Simon Russell Beale all invest a great amount of time, intellect, and emotional capital into their roles and know the scripts backwards and forwards. Give me the latter every time.

 

Brian Willis

 

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Hardy M. Cook < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Subject:     Yale Hamlet

 

As soon as this thread began, I was reminded of the discussion years back of the Simon Russell Beale's Hamlet. I am not disappointed.

 

I am also interested in how the “real” Hamlets (i.e., fixed and stable) are known, except through performance.

 

Hardy

 
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.