Chicago Reader: When we first see Scott Parkinson's Hamlet, he looks exactly like a Hamlet is expected to look. Leaning against an upstage wall, dressed all in black, his backlit face obscured by moody shadows, he's the very picture of the melancholy Dane. There's even an homage to Laurence Olivier's 1948 film performance suggested by the glow of his Nordic-blond hair.
11 comments:
He does make some good points. A closeted Hamlet would explain all of his extremely angsty tendency's and monologues. Modern subtext for Shakespeare plays are always quite hilarious to me and they keep the shows fresh. I wonder how much the author was reading into this piece and how much is actually true. If the actor is just very flamboyant and is a really terrible actor that could explain it too. If nothing else it is quite funny to think of Ophelia as a beard.
Well, I didn't see that coming. I mean, I did with the title, but I didn't see how well that fit into Hamlet's character. Turning a character, especially a well known character like Hamlet, gay is not something that I immediately do. That being said, it is refreshing to know why some aspects of Hamlet could possibly be cleared up if he was a closeted gay. Definitely makes sense as far as Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship goes. There was also speculation about Shakespeare himself to be gay and I wonder if he purposely left Hamlet to be ambiguous. He does that with a lot of characters though, as well as theme. We can really read any way we want into his plays and I'm glad that there is a new twist in Denmark.
The theatre offers endless possibilities for interpretation through words, context, subtext, delivery, design, etc. It is great that we use this to our advantage to look at things from new angles. I have to say that Hamlet being homosexual fits surprisingly well into into mannerisms found in the existing text - the indecisiveness, questioning, and intense concern for the actions of those around him, or the lack of concern in Ophelia's case. I would enjoy seeing the production and I commend the director for being brave enough to tryout the interpretation.
This is an extremely interesting and fascinating take on Hamlet. I have never really enjoyed Hamlet. I have always found him extremely talkative, cold, flat, and to some extent, emotionless. This however does open my eyes just a little bit to the character. While I do believe that in theater there are an infinite different number of ways one could interperet a role, this one truly does make the character for me. Hamlet's mannerisms are unique in aspects not found in other character's of Shakespeare's.
This article pretty much listed everything I love in this world: Andy Warhol, square-jaws, and the gays.
I love productions that severely stray from typical interpretations - especially productions of plays as tried and true as Shakespeare. I think there is plenty of evidence in the text to support this idea. I'm not convinced that this is the most radical interpretation of Hamlet ever to be conceived. In fact, I doubt its even the first to portray him as a homosexual. But it's still relevant and interesting. Or maybe I'm just biased because part of me thinks that everyone is gay and every production could be improved by throwing a few gays in there.
Regardless, I wish I could see this, but it seems unlikely, considering that its playing in Chicago.
I feel like you could take any classic text and make it relevant to modern day society by adding an element of homosexuality. Which isn't at all a bad idea, since making a choice like that would definitely allow for creative exploration for everyone involved in the production, especially Hamlet in this case. I also feel like Hamlet's an appropriate show to use this perspective with, since the text does not at all negate the possibility for homosexuality to be a factor in Hamlet's character.
Anyone up for a road trip to Chicago?
I don't understand why this interpretation is considered a "Redefinition" of Hamlet's sexual preference. Yes, it's an interpretation, but who is to say that it wasn't the intended choice? Just because it is the minority presentation of the play does not mean that the majority has the "correct" or "definite" interpretation. The homosexual subtext of theatrical characters through time is EVERYWHERE. Sometimes it much more obvious, but that doesn't mean that they aren't repressing some homosexual tendencies. Lots of people are, in plays and in life.
I too think that this provides some interesting answers to some of the questions that the play raises. When I first heard of a gay hamlet I thought that it might be a stretch but the more I read about this production the more I found that I was agreeing with their interpretation. I think that this interpretation is an interesting way to tie in some of the issues that are in debate today.
Nevermind a Gay Hamlet; let's discuss the horrible medium by which we learn about this "new" interpretation of a classic Shakespearean character. This review reads more like a sixth grader's english class paper than written by someone getting PAID by a fairly reputable online paper. Only two paragraphs say much of anything about the production itself; the rest seems more a struggling burnt-out theatre artist, commenting more on how HE would have cast or justified his own production rather than any merits of the production he did see. You didn't like Ophelia? Great, tell me why. No? You'd rather just say she was bad in less than a sentence after you've prattled on for two paragraphs about how you don't understand Hamlet's obsession with Death? Ooookay.
The tone as a whole is lauded with insulting tones, too; towards homosexuals and actors alike.
I think Hamlet could work portrayed as a gay man but that doesn't EXPLAIN his moroseness. Gay or otherwise, what Hamlet is expected to do and what he feels is his responsibility as a son & heir to a slain king is the cornerstone to that character and I don't see what Hamlet's sexuality has to do with that.
Adler seems to get a lot of mixed reviews himself but still seems to be fairly intelligent regardless of his uncared-for opinions. This review just seems like lazy reviewing for a show that COULD really work well.
Interesting. Interesting. I'd love to see this production to see whether the characterization of Hamlet was something that supported and enhanced the text, or whether it was a "gimmick" or "concept" in order to attract publicity and fuel the director's ego. In the production's defense, just because the review focuses so heavily on his sexuality doesn't mean the production put the same emphasis on it. Hopefully, his sexuality was explored as a way to further justify his actions, relationships, and thought process, and didn't transform Hamlet into a play fueled by his homosexuality. Hamlet is not about sexuality in any sense, whether hetero or homo. Again, this is something that caught my interest, but I would want to definitely see the production for sure before forming any definite opinion.
This interpretation that the director has made is an interesting one that makes the character fit, but the author of this article has connected some points that do not fit. The author went as far to reference the death of the college student Tyler Clementi and simplify it as sexual shame. Tyler's death has nothing to do with sexual shame and the authors interpretation of this is not ok. Tyler died thanks to students who thought it would be o.k to broadcast his personal life over the internet. This is cruel to anybody no matter their sexual orientation. In our modern society it is not shame of sexual orientation that kills people it is the actions of other about their orientation that kills. Hamlet may have been set in a setting where it would have fit, but in a modern setting sexual shame does not fit.
Post a Comment