Seems, madam? Nay, it is. I know not "seems."

[lisa needs braces]

any1 else here like that play "Hamlet." What was that story about the woman who finally saw a production of Hamlet and whose response was "the whole thing was just a collection of famous quotes!" 


QUEEN GERTRUDE
Good Hamlet, cast thy nighted colour off,
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
Do not for ever with thy vailed lids
Seek for thy noble father in the dust:
Thou know'st 'tis common; all that lives must die,
Passing through nature to eternity.
HAMLET
Ay, madam, it is common.
QUEEN GERTRUDE
If it be,
Why seems it so particular with thee?
HAMLET
Seems, madam! nay it is; I know not 'seems.'
'Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected 'havior of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly: these indeed seem,
For they are actions that a man might play:
But I have that within which passeth show;
These but the trappings and the suits of woe.

[lisa needs braces]

Kenneth Branagh's 1996 film is excellent of course but my go to Hamlet is his radio production of it from a few years before that film's release with 60% of the same cast. This time it's John Gielgud as the Ghost instead of Brian Blessed, and Judi Dench as Gertrude instead of Julie Christie. Derek Jacobi is Claudius in each, and both productions are complete adaptations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfDCcJSW7yQ

[Rosalba]

Hamlet is my favourite play. I don't know of any production that matches up to the splendour and emotional resonance in my mind, but  I always enjoy the old Laurence Olivier film, shot at Elsinore.

My least favourite is probably the Mel Gibson version.

[Karl Henning]

My least favourite is probably the Mel Gibson version.

Why?  If you will entertain the question 

[Karl Henning]

Kenneth Branagh's 1996 film is excellent of course but my go to Hamlet is his radio production of it from a few years before that film's release with 60% of the same cast. This time it's John Gielgud as the Ghost instead of Brian Blessed, and Judi Dench as Gertrude instead of Julie Christie. Derek Jacobi is Claudius in each, and both productions are complete adaptations.

http://www.youtube.com/v/YfDCcJSW7yQ

I do love the film, so I shall check this out with pleasure.

[Rosalba]

Why?  If you will entertain the question 

I think Mel Gibson's acting lacks sufficient sensitivity for the introspective Hamlet. He has a brash face.

[Karl Henning]

I think Mel Gibson's acting lacks sufficient sensitivity for the introspective Hamlet. He has a brash face.

I can see that.  I have something of a soft spot for that movie.  There was an ex-pat English professor at the University at Buffalo who reported that "I went there prepared to scoff, and stayed to applaud," because Gibson had greatly exceeded his expectations.  I do think that Gibson made a brave go at it;  but, you are right, he is more at home in Lethal Weapon (and Conspiracy Theory) than in Elsinore.

[lisa needs braces]

http://www.youtube.com/v/YfDCcJSW7yQ

I do love the film, so I shall check this out with pleasure.

Cool.

Claudius's speech about the death of fathers is another favorite bit of mine...

KING CLAUDIUS

'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,
To give these mourning duties to your father:
But, you must know, your father lost a father;
That father lost, lost his, and the survivor bound
In filial obligation for some term
To do obsequious sorrow: but to persever
In obstinate condolement is a course
Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief;
It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,
A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,
An understanding simple and unschool'd:
For what we know must be and is as common
As any the most vulgar thing to sense,
Why should we in our peevish opposition
Take it to heart? Fie! 'tis a fault to heaven,
A fault against the dead, a fault to nature,
To reason most absurd: whose common theme
Is death of fathers, and who still hath cried,
From the first corse till he that died to-day,
'This must be so.' We pray you, throw to earth
This unprevailing woe, and think of us
As of a father: for let the world take note,
You are the most immediate to our throne;
And with no less nobility of love
Than that which dearest father bears his son,
Do I impart toward you. For your intent
In going back to school in Wittenberg,
It is most retrograde to our desire:
And we beseech you, bend you to remain
Here, in the cheer and comfort of our eye,
Our chiefest courtier, cousin, and our son.

[lisa needs braces]

And sorry if this is obvious, but the irony of Claudius telling Hamlet that is hilarious. That he does it in such an eloquent way just makes him come off as more villainous.

[Mandryka]

It's a strange play. I mean, why doesn't he just kill Claudius after The Mousetrap? And what exactly happens to his state of mind in England?

I do not believe it is a tragedy. I don't think Hamlet has a tragic flaw. I think it's a play where Shakespeare was exploring philosophical ideas, like Measure for Measure, a Problem Play. Ideas to do with whether it's ever right to be "scourge and minister", the most interesting lines in the play, the crux are, I think,

There is special providence in
the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to
come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come—the
readiness is all. Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows what is't
to leave betimes, let be.

[lisa needs braces]

It's a strange play. I mean, why doesn't he just kill Claudius after The Mousetrap? And what exactly happens to his state of mind in England?

And yet all his dilly-dallying set's up this epic soliloquy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CHUlE2wLAQ

[Mandryka]

And yet all his dilly-dallying set's up this epic soliloquy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CHUlE2wLAQ

I don't believe he dilly dallies. He has to see whether the ghost is telling the truth. As soon as Claudius's guilt is verified he's shipped off to England. The only opportunity he has is when Claudius is praying, but it may not be appropriate to kill a man for a crime he has committed while he is in communion with God, praying for forgiveness for that crime.

[Rosalba]

It's a strange play. I mean, why doesn't he just kill Claudius after The Mousetrap? And what exactly happens to his state of mind in England?

I do not believe it is a tragedy. I don't think Hamlet has a tragic flaw. I think it's a play where Shakespeare was exploring philosophical ideas, like Measure for Measure, a Problem Play. Ideas to do with whether it's ever right to be "scourge and minister", the most interesting lines in the play, the crux are, I think,

1. He doesn't kill Claudio after 'The Mousetrap' because he finds him praying, and says that he doesn't wish to send Claudius to heaven, though the truth may be that he recoils from killing a praying man. Ironically, Claudius isn't able to repent because he cannot give up the fruits of his crime, so he is not in a state of grace in any case.

Was just about to post, and saw that Mandryka has just made this very point.

2. Hamlet never gets to England, but during a sleepless night on the voyage, before he jumps on to the other ship, he discovers that his old school-friends have an official letter from Claudius and are taking him to his death. There is no evidence that they knew about it, but in his shock and desperation he changes the letter so that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern will be executed instead. So when he comes back, he has become both more ruthless and more fatalistic, as evidenced by his 'mighty opposites' speech, and his observation about the 'special providence in the fall of a sparrow'. He is more given to impulsive behaviour - jumping into Ophelia's grave, accepting Laertes' invitation to a fencing match, forcing the poison down Claudius' throat.

3. It can be discussed with the Problem Plays as it explores philosophic and psychological ideas - one of which is indeed why he delays, a question that puzzles Hamlet himself.
But 'problem plays' is a twentieth century coinage that to my mind doesn't take enough account of dramatic effect. We can study problems as we read the play, but when we watch actors on stage, we react to character and emotion.
Shakespeare's plays are grouped on a much simpler traditional premise - are they historic, in which case they are histories? Or are they fiction, in which case, how do they end, well or sadly?
Thus Measure for Measure is a comedy because it ends with marriage, and Hamlet is a tragedy because it ends with a heap of dead bodies. I also think that it produces the genuine tragic effect, 'catharsis', from having seen it numerous times on both stage and screen. However flawed the production, for me that never fails.

[Karl Henning]

It's a strange play. I mean, why doesn't he just kill Claudius after The Mousetrap? And what exactly happens to his state of mind in England?

I do not believe it is a tragedy. I don't think Hamlet has a tragic flaw. I think it's a play where Shakespeare was exploring philosophical ideas, like Measure for Measure, a Problem Play. Ideas to do with whether it's ever right to be "scourge and minister", the most interesting lines in the play, the crux are, I think,

The idea must be older, but I read it in one of Madeleine L'Engle's essays, that if Hamlet and Othello swapped protagonists, there would have been no play in either case:  Othello would not have hesitated to kill Claudius on the ghost's testimony;  and Hamlet would have waited things out, and discovered that Desdemona was innocent of the calumny.

[Rosalba]

The idea must be older, but I read it in one of Madeleine L'Engle's essays, that if Hamlet and Othello swapped protagonists, there would have been no play in either case:  Othello would not have hesitated to kill Claudius on the ghost's testimony;  and Hamlet would have waited things out, and discovered that Desdemona was innocent of the calumny.

Lovely idea!
Hamlet might even have wondered if there'd actually been any time for Desdemona and Cassio to have conducted an affair on Cyprus.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/othello/timeinothello.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/leithart/2015/10/double-time-othello/

[Mandryka]

I have a ticket to see the Ian McKellan Lear next week,

[Rosalba]

I have a ticket to see the Ian McKellan Lear next week,

Envy!!!
Hope it's good - let us know what you think.

[Mandryka]

The Lear with Ian Mckellen.

They played it explicitly for laughs, this was the comedy of King Lear, Lear light, Lear superficial. This was absolutely earth bound, there was nothing cosmic or spiritual or psychological or metaphysical about it.

The best acting by far was Sylvester McCoy's Fool. He was funny and natural and humane.

Edmund and Edgar were certainly tolerable, though neither plumbed any real depths. Goneril was a vulgar charicature, Lear was a ham - totally shallow and unsympathetic, more bluster than madness, when he does go mad it's more bluster and bad temper, or more comic madness than tragic, he often reminded me of Clive Dunn in Dad's Army. Lines which Shakespeare just hands to actors like a gift from heaven, like

O, let me not be mad, not mad, sweet heaven
Keep me in temper: I would not be mad!

were in McKellen's hands, a complete non-event. He's just a voice beautiful actor who doesn't have a specially beautiful voice.

They said the verse clearly, but not at all poetically or meaningfully. The daughters especially were really inexpressive at best, vulgar and cartoonish at worst. 

The set was utterly conventional, unimaginative and bland. Somehow it was too big for a small theatre, the theatre needed something more intimate.

The production was really an exercise of dumbing down. It was as if there was a wall between audience and players. When Gloucester says "The army of France has landed" soldiers marched across the stage;  when Lear says

Poor naked wretches, whereso'er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
Your loop'd and window'd raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these?

a bunch of poor wretches pop up behind him Les Miz style. There were other musical theatre tropes too, synchronised moving , choral singing. Some of the fights were choreographed in a realistic way which reminded me a bit of a bunch of 6 year old boys play fighting; other fights were in modern soldier dress and weapons like a Hollywood film, with a synthesised drum beat to add to the excitement.

The storm was like a wet Wednesday in Manchester or Seattle, totally external too - this was no storm in the soul.

The theatre was noisy with tube trains passing, but there's nothing they can do about that. There was also noise of phones from outside, and glasses being collected etc -that's disgraceful. The audience were pretty well behaved.

It was pretty terrible. I was, however, pleased to have heard McCoy's Fool and to be reminded of how great the play is. The constant reference to eyes and sight is really interesting - it's as if the play is about seeing yourself for what you really are. These words, which Edgar says to Gloucester, stuck in my mind

What, in ill thoughts again? Men must endure
Their going hence, even as their coming hither;
Ripeness is all: come on

[Rosalba]

Oh dear - that does sound dire!
Despite your pain, it's a very entertaining review, though - thanks!