Webbready

This is yet another excerpt, a review of a performance called Hamlet: first cut. This is one of the worst reviews I have written, and by that I mean the quality of the review itself is bad.

January 20, 2000

Adapting Shakespeare to have a modern feel is a lot like gambling — sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes you break even. Surprisingly enough the odds of “breaking even” are high in the case of putting a twentieth century spin to a play written in the Elizabethan (and early Jacobian) era. Most attempts are neither exceptionally wonderful nor terribly bad, but are merely moderate to good. Hamlet: first cut is no exception and fits squarely in the middle.

This evening, at the Bloomsbuy Theatre, the Red Shift Theatre Company performed its production of Hamlet: first cut. Directed by Jonathan Holloway, this rendition of Hamlet is based on the often ignored and forgotten First Quarto. As a result of this, the play is significantly shorter than most productions and many of the familiar lines are truncated or left out.

The shortening of the play is not the only change made. Brought into the twentieth century, the setting is radically different. Guns are now carried instead of swords and modern military garb replaces suits of armor that are still referred to in the dialogue. Some things remain the same, especially the familiar story of a man bidded by his father’s ghost to avenge a murder and the tragedy that follows. The theme of revenge and how it catches the innocent in its wake is still strong.

Acting, for the most part, is relatively good, although some may have qualms about the casting. While Hamlet was certainly not an old man, his portrayal by Peter Collins gives the impression that he was younger than he should have been. Part of what makes Hamlet’s indecision so odd, at least in the familiar text was that he was well into adulthood, not some young man unsure about his way. This change, though, makes the audience more sympathetic to the young hero.

The only major concern, as far as acting was concerned, was the relatively small cast. With the exception of Collins, all of the other actors had two or more parts. The actors, in general, performed these double duties excellently; they were able to convince me they were different people portraying the parts they did.

If the acting was good enough to put this version of Hamlet in the more memorable and wonderful of productions, there were several factors making the performance average. I do nor know how much input the composer, Jon Nicholls had with the music, but many of the scores, while appropriate, were annoying. Most nerve racking were the banging against metal which happened between certain scenes. The actors, who “played” these instruments, did their job well, but it was still a unpleasant sound. This was a big detriment to the entire performance, and also gave me a reason to dislike the versatile metallic stage. Unlike yesterday’s performance of The Merchant of Venice at the Olivier Theatre. the set was relatively static, the sky represented by grey metal clouds. Through the use of four objects that look like ladders with covered metal edges on two of the adjacent sides, every scene from the queen’s bedroom to the main hall is captured. Because of the simplicity of the set, the actors are a great aid to the imagination.

In the end, Hamlet first cut is a moderately good performance. While it is definitely worth spending he night at the theatre, if you are expecting a fantastic performance, you will be disappointed. On the other hand, if you keep your expectations reasonable, you might be pleasantly surprised.