Hamlette

Alexis Hopper

CineTrek #5

As an avid reader of Shakespeare and a particular fan of the play Hamlet, I was overjoyed to have the opportunity to watch the action where it originally first took stage. Before attending the play, I tried to throw out any pre-expectations because of our pre-show field trip to Shakespeare’s Globe. On that field trip we discussed the “cons” of having plays performed on the Globe stage. With the history and rich feeling of originality the stage possess there also comes challenges that we are not completely used to. These differences such as lack of lighting, lack of backdrops, no use of microphones and the directors own twist on a classic were part of the struggle of not being critical on the play. To expand, I love Shakespeare because of the language, satire and drama and I had expectations that the words from my favorite play would play out as is on the stage. Of course, there are factors that change and I personally did not prepare myself enough for that. With this being said I left the Globe more confused and distracted rather than inspired and connected. I blame my millennial mindset that entertainment has to be grand and engaging at all moments. I felt myself being overly critical of the actors, the way they delivered their lines, their costumes and more. I usually do not bring high expectations when seeing a live action play because I consider myself a in theater, on screen fanatic. I am frustrated with myself with this because after reading the different post articles about our female Hamlet and the play itself, I understand the choices made. If I was not so overly expecting the play to play out exactly how I thought it would, I think I would have caught these moments. I think back to when Professor Nericcio told us to think about what is entertaining and why do we spend money on performances such as Hamlet, at the Globe. How does this compare to my first Shakespeare encounter in London. Shit-Faced Shakespeare had its entertaining aspects in the form of alcohol consumption messing with the traditional Shakespeare content. Hamlet though kept all my favorite aspects of what I love about Shakespeare WITH adding twists. The authenticity of the words on the pages was there but I was too closed minded to appreciate the changes made to the choice of actors. In which now I would like to applaud our as I like to call her, Hamlette. Michelle Terry, impressingly enough, is currently Hamlet, a role in another play and a mom. I think back now to her performance of Hamlet and I reflect on how she commanded the stage unapologetically. One aspect I did absolutely appreciate right away without a judgemental bone was her choice to costume Hamlet as a clown when in the play he is beginning his spiral into insanity ultimately leading to his death. Her clown outfit was a perfect copy of how Hamlet acts when the play is being shown to his mother and uncle. Another immediate appreciation I felt was the actor chosen to play Claudius. I feel as though this might be an only me observation, but that hairstyle really brought Claudius into a sleazy persona. Why not give Claudius a more subtle hairstyle? Because he is a psycho, power hungry, sleazy monster! Too much? Overall, I take responsibility for not being open to the possibility of change in a play I hold close to my heart and taking time to reflect has given me the chance to appreciate what I witnessed.