University of Virginia Library

STAGE

Jonathan Miller's Freudian 'Hamlet'

By Steve Wells
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

"Hamlet" is quite probably
open to more different, unique, and
original interpretations than any
other play in the English language.
And while some of the approaches
are successful and some not, most
are worthy of lengthy discussion.
Unfortunately, the art of criticism
permits only one man's views to be
projected at a time; there is no
opportunity for a spontaneous
interchange of opinions in print.

This, however, is what the
Oxford and Cambridge Shakespeare
Company's production of
"Hamlet" needs and deserves, and I
hope if my "dead" notice (dead
because there are no more
performances here in
Charlottesville) does nothing else, it
will make those who were in Cabell
Hall Auditorium on Tuesday
evening think about what they saw
and discuss it with others. By this, I
feel there is much to be gained and
learned.

Now, to the question at hand,
which is what has Mr. Miller done
to the play? Well, many things
which defy convention. First, he
has cut the opening scene and
started the play with the court
scene which follows, There is no
information imparted in that
opening scene that is absolutely
essential. But it does do one thing
which, as a result of its excision,
was lacking in Mr. Miller's
production: it creates a mood
instantly. The darkness, the
tenseness of Barnardo and
Francisco, and, later, the emergence
of the Ghost build a mysterious
intrigue which makes it easier to
accept the abundance of exposition
in scene two.

Attempted Mood

Hugh Thomas Flashing His Sword As Hamlet

Mr. Miller tried to suggest a
mood, but it was never as emphatic
as it should have been. Did Hamlet
stand out amongst the other
members of the court as well as he
would have if everyone had not
been costumed in black? Did
Claudius come across as well as he
would have if Jonathan
James-Moore had not spoken his
lines so rapidly and then exited in a
manner which almost suggested
that he was mad? I think these
things hurt this scene perhaps
fatally and, since just about all of
the costuming was black and white
and many of the actors did speak
their lines (until intermission) as if
they were racing to break a speed
record, the injury extended beyond
this one scene.

I also have grave doubts about
the manner in which Mr. Miller
presents Hamlet's confrontation
with his father's ghost. There was
not a single suggestion of the
supernatural in the scene. It was
played in bright light with Hamlet
and the ghost sitting down and
talking as if they were chatting in a
park. The ghost, played by Andrew
Hilton, seemed too self-pitying and
not thirsty enough for revenge of
his murder.

This brings us to Hamlet
himself. Mr. Miller and Hugh
Thomas' interpretation of this
tragic hero (or is he more of a
non-hero?) was rooted largely in
psychological theories and was
evidently influenced to an extent
by the writings of Freud. It was a
complex characterization. This
Hamlet was not the stereotyped
melancholy Dane; he came across
more like a spoiled child whose
uncle had broken his favorite toy
and now he was going to get even
with the meanie. Whether or not he
loved the toy is insignificant; it was
his.

This Hamlet was a precocious
child, though, often given to
making jest. The Oedipal overtones
were contained within him, and
exploded in the effectively staged
and acted closet scene with
Gertrude. Mr. Thomas was much
stronger as was all the cast in the
last half of the play. He brought the
character into sharper focus and
allowed us to peck inside his
psyche, a privilege which he denied
us earlier. Also, he spoke his lines
with a much greater range of vocal
inflection and pitch after
intermission.

Controversial

The most controversial
innovation in the production has to
be the ending. Neither Hamlet or
Claudius died on stage, and the
killing of the latter was done in
ritualistic fashion with the victim
offering no resistance. One piece of
staging which intrigued me occurred
after Claudius exited to his death,
when Hamlet stood in his place
while other members of the court
fell to one knee, for the first time
being aware of his sanity (there was
a strong hint earlier that perhaps
Hamlet really was imagining wild
fantasies, that perhaps Claudius was
innocent) and paying him respect.

If this production of "Hamlet"
did nothing else, it confirmed my
belief that Mr. Miller is a master at
evoking comedy and employing
humorous directorial devices, a
conclusion which I initially reached
last year upon seeing his "Twelfth
Night." There was much more
humor in this "Hamlet" than in
either of the previous two I have
seen, and I am not convinced it was
in the best interests of the play.
Even Hamlet's duel with Laertes
was staged with an eye to comedy.

Funny Moments

Of the cast, Mike Baker had
some funny moments as Polonius,
in a rich interpretation of the
character, although his visual image
was much too youthful. Christabel
Gardner did very well by her role
of Gertrude, as did James Harris as
Horatio and Keith Kirby as Laertes.
Claire Howard was rather
ineffectual as Ophelia in the early
going, but rates plaudits for her
mad scene. Mr. James-Moore
improved significantly as Claudius
after his first scene fiasco, but
somehow he just didn't "look the
part." As a general comment, I
don't think the cast created a
sufficient aura of nobility.

My overall impression of the
production is one of mixed
sentiments. It was more of a
director's "Hamlet" than an actor's
"Hamlet." More discussion is likely
to center around Mr. Miller than
Mr. Thomas, the latter ironically
not being the dominant force in the
production. It was, in many
respects, a cold "Hamlet." Much of
it was devoid of perceptive
emotion, and when the emotion
came, it came in quick tidal waves.

It was not a distinguished
"Hamlet," but a daring one, and I
admire Mr. Miller for trying
something new, something original,
even if the result was greatly flawed
and occasionally monotonous
(especially in that troublesome first
half). At least the Oxford and
Cambridge Shakespeare Company
gave us a production to think and
argue about, and we look forward
to seeing them again next year.