Variety: "Something smells sweet in the state of Denmark.
The Jude Law 'Hamlet,' set to open Oct. 6 on Broadway, grossed an encouraging $236,145 in its first two previews. It’s safe to say that since this London transfer opened to upbeat reviews at the Donmar Warehouse, those two New York perfs did not include many ambulance chasers in search of a movie star’s onstage car crash."
12 comments:
I definitely feel "commercial" theater usually fails at Shakespeare because it doesn't take the time to actually understand the story. It's assumed commercially people just want the bang for their buck, complete with famous actors to boot. This is obviously incorrect, as time after time famous actors attempt Broadway with the end result of a poor, badly-received show. The most important thing for any play is not the actors cast, but the story itself. True with Broadway musical poor story is always overtaken by brilliant effects, but with Shakespeare's material if there's not close attention to the story the audience will not enjoy the performance.
I wish more Shakespeare productions could last on Broadway without having to rely on the fame of the lead actors. Not that Jude Law isn't a good actor, I think he's a very good actor, but I think a good portion of audiences are going to go see Hamlet because he's in it. I saw a preview of a new movie coming out called The Boys are Back, and i stayed behind to give feedback afterwards, and one of the questions we were asked was how many people came just because the lead actor was Clive Owen, and the majority of the people there raised their hands. I wish a show could be popular without big actor names helping it along.
I feel like one of the reasons Shakespeare does so poorly is because it doesn't appeal to every audience. Some people, especially younger audiences have been beat over the head and had it forced on us ever since middle school, which I think is a shame. By the time we are done studying it we have had too much of it.
I think it is a little over exaggerated to say that "time after time famous actors attempt Broadway with the end result of a poor, badly-received show." Not that that hasn't happened...it has happened to a good many theatre actors as well. But over the past decade there have been a number of successful performances delivered by big name actors, whether they started out in theatre or in movies. These include Mark Ruffalo, Christina Applegate, Jennifer Gardner, David Hyde Pierce, Allison Janney, Geoffrey Rush, John Goodman, etc. I am not advocating publicizing plays with big name celebrities...but I have to admit...it kind of helps. Although the story is always number one, that does not sell tickets unless it is an established and long running show. It makes no sense to say the audience will come for the story rather than the actors. This is why so many musicals are being redone from movies, audiences know the story. If an original musical comes out, and the synopsis on broadway.com tells me something vague about a group of people who have a problem and sing about it, I am not going to spend 80 dollars because the story sounds interesting. I am going to go see it because it got great reviews, and is starring Sutton Foster (for example). That is my very personal opinion. Seriously, I do not think you could sell Shakespeare without a big name and sell tickets today. Yes it's unfortunate, but what can you do?
When reading this article, the strongest reaction I had was in the form of even more respect for Anne Hathaway. I didn't know that in addition to their weekly paychecks, most headlining actors were also taking a portion of the gross profits, which kind of negates their involvement in the project as being purely motivated by the art. With Ms. Hathaway, I am pleased to see that she took part in a Shakespearean piece that paid her minimally. It's refreshing to see that some actors are still mostly concerned with creating art instead of getting money.
It appears, for the most part, that Broadway has become to low-class for Shakespeare. When I read about the days of Edwin Forrest and the Shakeapeare fever that once rocked this country I cannot help but feel our society has swung the opposite way, even making Shakespeare seem inaccessible with its poetic language and late educational introductions of the material. Even now, look at the actors Broadway is putting in these shows: screen celebrities. It's only a way for Broadway to look like a class act, but truly it's a cheap gimick. It's always up to the directors to make the most of it.
I don't see a problem with big name stars doing Shakespeare, especially if that person will attract people to come see the show. I think that Americans are put off by Shakespeare because of junior high and high school. While I can understand why, I think its sad and that more people should actually see a Shakespeare show. Also, since this show is imported from across the pond its keeping with how they did Hamlet. David Tennant played Hamlet and he is a big star mainly because of Doctor Who and Blackpool. Granted, he was trained as a Shakespearean actor - most people came to the show to see him. That doesn't mean that they didn't see a fantastic show.
While I can see how assumptions can be made about famous big-name actors doing Shakespeare could be unfortunate, I think that's unfair to say.
Just because you're a big name actor doesn't mean you can't do Shakespeare. I am happy to see at least some assemblage of an attempt to do Shakespeare on Broadway--if nothing else, having big names is able to pull in an audience to see classic theatre. It beats seeing another "Shrek."
Shakepeare can be done in a relevant way and be quite appealing to the masses; so, hopefully, this kind of thing will keep happening, despite people's failures.
I think that although Broadway has turned into a machine that churns out crowd pleasers (to pay the bills), it must be remembered that it also provides a forum where resources unlike any regional setting can be used to forward and enhance the telling of a story. When used in the right way, the machine that is Broadway could be used to shed a completely new light on the timeless stories that are Shakespeare.
Also, by using “big name” actors, it brings in an audience that would otherwise be totally uninterested in anything having to do with Shakespeare. For example, Macbeth on Broadway attracted people who love Patrick Stewart and would not have otherwise wanted to see the tale of the Scottish King.
I am sad to say that Broadway is too commercial for Shakespeare. I am of the belief that there are two types of theater people out there. Those who like that art of theater, and those who know every line to Rent. Now, there are combinations of the two, but only the artistic purists are the people who would go see Hamlet. Because not enough of them exist to make 2.5 million dollar productions profitable, these Shakespeare plays cannot exist on broadway without some type of draw to pull members of the other group in.
I have no problem with big-name film actors transitioning into the theater, whether or not it is Shakespeare. It probably is very true that this is an attempt to gain more money, but that doesn't mean the production has to lose any credibility. This isn't one of the latest Broadway musicals that appears to only be written to draw in an audience- this is Shakespeare. It is well respected, and any production of it deserves a shot.
What I find most interesting about this particular production is not the fact that "big name" Jude Law is starring. No, what I find most interesting is that the entire cast was shipped over from the UK because the director of the Donmar production wasn't available to mount a new production in NYC. For the producers, this was worthwhile because they didn't have to pay rehearsal costs for the cast, just "shipping and handling," but the fact that this took potential jobs away from dozens of qualified NY actors is unfortunate, and should not be overlooked. This may be a good show with a big name, but it is certainly not homegrown.
Post a Comment