Sunday, September 06, 2009
Hello, Sweet Prince - Jude Law Brings His Hamlet to Broadway
NYTimes.com: "THERE could be no more apt and atmospheric place to play Hamlet than at Kronborg Castle, built here in the 16th century at the edge of the sound separating Denmark from Sweden. Laurence Olivier did it and so, over the years, did Richard Burton, John Gielgud and Kenneth Branagh."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
First, i need to say that thanks to my high school senior english teacher i am a fan of hamlet. I feel like i understand the play (more or less). Yet i think that seeing it at Elsinore, in Denmark, at a castle like it was imagined to be set at, would be a different experience entirely. it takes a play that is not site specific, and turns it into site specific theater. I am looking forward to (hopefully) seeing Mr. Law play this role in New York in the next few months, but i still feel that (no matter how powerful) it will not be the same as seeing it at Elsinore.
I think that this transition from West End to Broadway is interesting. I wish that the artical would have gone into more technicalities of this move. It seemed to focus overly on just Jude Law. I also think it would be incredible to be able to see parts of the shows in all three locations to see the change in dynamics based on site.
As it says in the article, Jude Law was just cast in this part to appeal to younger audiences that don't really want to go to the theatre. In one way this is a good thing because it makes people go to the theatre. But looking at it from my perspective I think that having such a main stream actor takes away from the show. All of the screaming little girls just go to see Jude and not Shakespeare.
I feel like Jude Law does have that appeal, but if the intention is just to get a younger audience, why Hamlet, and not something more appealing to the mainstream? Plus, to me, Jude Law has enough credibility to be taken seriously. Casting somebody like Robert Pattinson would make me wonder about the itentions though....
I personally want to go see this but because I like Hamlet (and Jude Law).
Throughout the article, I had this tied sense of respect and betrayal ofthe art form. While yes, the casting of Jude Law was a move to get many younger teenage audiences into the theater and make Shakespeare's plays more popular. But at the same time, there is a certain betrayal of the art form because it seems at points that he was cast strickly because of the name. I am in no way discrediting the talent or validity of the performance, but at times the name overcomes the play.
I'm no fan of Jude Law, but I quite like the video included with this article. The set is beautiful and intensely chilling. As always, Hamlet is an extremely difficult play to produce, not only for its legacy as mentioned but for the extreme intricacies of the characters and the challenges presented by the action.
The article makes claims that Jude Law is "authentic" due to his history on stage...honestly, I don't find his stage credits all that impressive. It feels much more like an attempt for publicity or humoring a star who wants a more traditional portfolio.
Watching the video on the site of Jude Law was haunting. Seeing him jump between emotions, in and out of darkness and his physicality is great. Although London audiences loved it I am not sure how New York audiences will respond. People packed it in for Equus simply because of Daniel Radcliffe, and I believe that will happen here. The theater space may also affect the show. The castle described in the article seems to heighten the atmosphere, where as a closed theater in New York seems to stifle that atmosphere.
I agree that having an actor like Jude Law can overshadow the production. When this show comes to New York, i do want to see it. Its interesting how this article points to Jude Law as just being a way to attract younger audiences to the theater. I think that if that was the case they would pick a more main stream show. I also think thats unnecessary. There are young audiences for theater so i don't think thats an issue.
I find ti interesting that they are performing this at a castle in Denmark. Watching the video really shows how gorgeous a place it is to have Hamlet performed. The article also included a lot of Law's opinions on how the show is going for him. Reading that he was intimidated by the "to be or not to be" line was interesting. I wasn't expecting him to step up so eloquently to the lines, saying that they are famous for their beauty!
It is refreshing to hear an actor talk so honestly about the challenge of acting. Lately all the big names stars and talents have been devoted to flashy Broadway versions of Hollywood movies. Here however is a well respected film actor talking about the difficulties of a live performance and his approach to it. I am also a big fan of performances in found spaces (ie the castle) rather than a traditional theatrical space. I would have loved to see the castle's production. Another interesting point this article brought up was the differences between London and American audiences. I understand exactly why Frost/Nixon had two different focuses, but in a play without the obvious national affiliations of characters, how do the audiences differ? This is something I would love to have learned more about.
I am curious to see how Jude Law fairs in this role. I have never considered Jude Law to be an exceptional actor and the role of Hamlet demands serious acting chops that I do not believe Jude Law has. Movie actors often have a difficult time making the transition to the stage. Going from subtle acting to acting big can lead to an limp noodle stage performance. It saddens me that we need to use a mainstream actor to attract audiences to see Hamlet.
I watched a clip of Mr Law's performance and now really want to see it in New York. Hamlet is not one of my favorite Shakespeare plays, but that may be because I've never seen a performance of it live onstage, which I think is the best way to see any Shakespeare play. Also, it would have been an incredible experience to see the performance in Denmark at Elsinore because the setting would create such a fantastic atmosphere for the play.
I understand Elizabeth's point about how it is a little insulting to the play to be "relying" on a celebrity's audience to follow a show. However I think that in this case, although Jude Law is a film star, he is also a respected theatre actor who is doing the role justice. So I prefer to look at the situation as: Here is this wonderful actor, let's cast him. And he also brings with him a strong audience.
I think it's good to use celebrities to bring people who normally wouldn't see theatre to the theatre. But, it only works if these audience members keep going to theatre even if there isn't a big-name star playing a lead role. I think this only works some of the time, though.
What a gift it would be to se this performance at Kronburg Castle—such an ideal setting for this show, given its context. As an admirer of Law’s work, I would be greatly interested to see how he tackles such an iconic role, and this article does a nice job of giving the reader a taste of how he goes about it. Speaking nearly half of the lines in the entire show, not to mention the emotionally exhaustive journey that an actor much undergo, Hamlet is a role tailored for the seasoned actor, thus Law seems like the perfect fit. What really resonates with me is the organic process of developing the character, and constantly finding the humanity in such “cliché” lines where it can be easy to go into autopilot. While Law mentions the transformative experience and the feeling of often being dominated in a sense by the character, there’s an underlying understanding that the actor must be in tune enough to master the lines while leaving room to organically play in the moment.
Post a Comment