elaby | Hamlet Quarto

We went to see the Hamlet Quarto last night, which means (it being Thursday) no Nano-writing. However, I did get much more schoolwork done than I thought I would, because my Theory class in the morning was canceled. Usually I spend the hour and a half up until class re-reading what we had read for class to make sure I could say something intelligent about it, but this time, since we didn't have class, I got to work the whole time on other homework and stuff. Whee, productive!

So anyway, no Nano last night, but today there's no school, so I should have time to catch up.

The Hamlet Quarto is an earlier version of the Hamlet everyone knows. It's shorter, the lines are different, many speeches are left out, and much was changed for the newer version (the folio, or another quarto, probably). Quartos and folios, in case you don't know (and I'm sure some of you do), are the format that the plays were printed in during or slightly after their runs in the theatres. If I remember correctly, a quarto is a piece of paper printed with four pages of the script, then folded and bound and slit up the sides so that you can turn the pages.

So anyway, the version we saw was older and different from the Hamlet everyone is familiar with. The reason they were putting this one on is because it's called the "bad quarto" and they thought it wasn't so bad, and that it would illuminate stuff about the play that you take for granted since most people know it so well. It was very cool.

The costumes were really neat, mixing modern stuff with older-looking stuff (camouflage military fatigues for the soldiers, suits and ties for most of the men and half of the women who were playing men, modern clothes for Ofelia - spelled like that - but old-fashioned clothes for the royalty and a very Jackie O outfit for Gertred at the funeral scene). They didn't specify a time period in any way, so it wasn't a jarring difference. It was just kind of neat. The set was really nice, too, with a huge walkway balcony thing up top, stairs, and the floor with a raised platform. Simple, but perfect for all the scenes. They also had a trap door that the ghost came through :3

Weirdly enough, I've never SEEN an actual live performance of Hamlet, unless you count the Reduced Shakespeare Company's 15-minute Hamlet which I saw performed by high-schoolers at Festival once.

So, the actors: Hamlet was superb. I couldn't find anything I didn't like about his performance. He was funny and crazy and passionate, while still not being able to do anything. It was great. Ofelia was good too, and she played the role as the petulant sarcastic daughter rather than the "yes, Daddy, of course, Daddy, whatever you say, Daddy" Ophelia. I didn't really like the way she and Leartes (new spellings abound!) interacted, because it was more like she didn't like him very much and he was just kind of being her arrogant big brother, not uber-protective and cherishing, which is how I usually take it. But then again, I'm a huge Laertes fangirl, so.

Leartes was the only one who disappointed me, but then again, the speech that I've mostly based my interpretation of Laertes on was different, so it's totally understandable that the actor did it the way he did. Leartes was much more in control here, much more beard-stroking conniving, which I feel (as

caitirin put it) is Claudius's job. He also, I think, was going for the "twitchy and driven insane by grief" kind of thing, but it came off as just that he was smirking when told of his sister's untimely demise. He smirked a lot, and wasn't nearly as intense as I'm used to thinking of Laertes, but the character was different in this version, so again, it's understandable.

Speaking of smirking, the girl (yes, girl n_n) who played Horatio smirked a lot, which I don't think Horatio would do, but she did a great job. My version of Horatio is not really well-suited for stage acting, only for reading the play and for movies. When you're on stage, it's harder to just stand around and look worried and apprehensive (as I think Horatio would normally be) because you don't get to really DO anything. So it's more interesting for the actor to go along with Hamlet's schemes, making fun of the Polonius character (who had a different name, I don't remember it... Corabnis or something) and generally being smirky and amused by Hamlet's antics. I think this interpretation was less concerned with the class difference between Hamlet and Horatio, because they were very much on the same level most of the time... whereas I think their class difference figures a lot into their relationship, but it would be hard to work that well on stage.

We also had Slut!Gertred, trying to get into everyone's pants, which was a really interesting take. Gertrude is pretty vacuous to me, so the actor who played her, I think, did a fine job. She did have really interesting costumes at points, though. The only thing I didn't agree with was that she seemed genuinely upset about Ofelia's death, and I don't think Gertrude is that sincere about anything, really.

All in all, it was a REALLY awesome show, and I was very impressed. I don't think I could ever act Shakespeare. It was neat because a lot of the male roles were played by women, and so you got a lot of women hanging all over each other. The Player King and either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern (who had slightly different names... Rossencraft and Gilderstone, or something), who were both played by women, were totally macking on each other. *laughs* It was very nice ^_^