#literally a play about this called Wittenberg | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

butchhamlet · 4 years

Note

Can i get your hamlet thoughts? both about the play and its themes in general and the character? Especially on hamlet/horatio and hamlet/ophelia?

hell YES you can. have some assorted hot takes which i did not organize at all. tw for some suicide mentions

[particularly for this bullet point] ...because it’s a suicide play. june sent me a really interesting article once and idk... i think of all the plays i’ve read it deals most directly w suicide and i know hamlet objectively doesn’t kill himself but i think he knew what he was doing

i also think it’s hugely about generational differences! i know there’s a lot of debate about hamlet’s age (and personally i am FIRMLY in the ‘hamlet is sixteen and just fucked up really bad’ category, like, pry that from my cold dead hands <3) but i think no matter how old hamlet is there should be a very clear disconnect between the younger & older generations. this is a play about parents not understanding their children

among other things, i mean, hamlet’s a play about everything -

i think we should talk about hamlet’s relationship to religion more. i do not say this because i have a complex relationship with religion myself or anything. i’m uninvested in this personally

hamlet was mentally ill before his father died, he just hid it really really well up until then + the symptoms manifested differently and not so debilitatingly

specifically hamlet has ocd

that one i can’t even pretend to be uninvested in but it’s also just a fact and i swear to god i will make that post on it someday

like he just. he JUST does i’m sorry. the way he thinks? the way he talks through his own thoughts? the constant doubt and inability to make a decision? he JUST does have ocd i don’t make the rules

i hate polonius i think he’s a fucking bastard and a terrible parent

i really like “king hamlet SUPER sucked” interpretations and i’ll admit i kind of like claudius if only because he is so fucking funny as a character. no morals + horny

gertrude is one of the most fascinating characters in the play and is CRIMINALLY underutilized and underanalyzed especially in her parallels w ophelia. also if you tell me hamlet wanted to fuck her i get to mince you

hamlet x horatio is peak im sorry it just is. it JUST is. it’s about the mutual respect & the seeing each other as people beyond social class and their vastly different circumstances & the way that horatio is the only one who can still joke around with hamlet after his father’s death

that said i very much want to think that before hamlet’s father died, their relationship was more... equal? if that makes sense? bc i think horatio tends to bend to hamlet in the canon of the text, and he tends to put hamlet’s needs before all else, and that’s completely understandable seeing as hamlet’s dad died literally two months ago and now he’s in a mental illness spiral with his horrible horrible family. but under more normal circumstances i want to believe horatio is less... self-carelessly selfless and actually calls hamlet on shit when necessary

thinking about hamlet and horatio pre-canon being roommates at wittenberg and sometimes kissing while they study latin declensions or whatever the fuck... this gives me brain damage. don’t talk to me </3

i think ophelia and hamlet are FAR more interesting when considered as foil characters rather than lovers. like i’m not saying i don’t think they should have a romance (i think it’s interesting to explore) but i just think they are so much more interesting when looked at in terms of the way they mirror each other over and over again

particularly in regard to the fact that they both lose fathers & they both at least consider suicide

and maybe my seeing them as foils is even part of the reason i don’t particularly... ship them? (at least not in canon.) because i HAVE to wonder if ophelia’s madness and suicide are influenced by hamlet’s madness, performance or not. and i have to wonder how things might have gone differently if they hadn’t both spiraled at the same time yknow

that said. outside of canon / in an au where hamlet isn’t so actively destructive to the people around him... horatio/hamlet/ophelia as an ot3? god tier

i know hamlet is four hours long. i know. i still think cutting horatio and/or fortinbras is a mortal sin

i think hamlet hooked up with everyone his age in that play but he had messy breakups with everyone except horatio

yes this includes fortinbras

hamlet’s not real as a character, like, he’s infinitely interpretable on PURPOSE and it’s very hard to pin down more than a few concrete character traits for him (especially because we never see him before his father dies) which is why we all kin him

that SAID. when i made my post about that macy said smthn really insightful in the tags which was that hamlet’s not real on a TEXTUAL level but he should be real in a production, like, there are infinite ways to characterize him but if you’re actually... playing him... you have to pick one... if HAMLET in hamlet is boring you’re doing it fucking wronggggg

hamlet is trans. “what flavor of trans” literally any flavor of trans makes his relationship to his father & his misogyny 10x more interesting. goodbye

points at him. bottom

#max.txt #im so sorry for how disorganized this is..... i just Started #and my hands took me here #i hope this is at least a little in the ballpark of what you hoped for <3 #hamlet #asks #Anonymous

217 notes · View notes

swordandstafforder · 4 years

Text

Introduction

Is Halloween just a continuation of Samhain? Are Christians accidental Pagans by participating in things such as trick or treating and dressing in costumes? Should Christians partake in celebrating Halloween?

These types of questions are questions that I seem to be receiving more of the longer I’m in the ministry. Christians seem to be truly confused on the topic of Halloween.

Usually, around this time every year, I share a short article called Concerning Halloween by James B. Jordan. I have always appreciated Jordan’s brief, reasoned defense for why Christians can consider celebrating Halloween. However, this year I wanted to take a stab (Get it?) at writing my own that is a little more contextual to the questions and objections I’ve received. I also want to engage with some of the more recent things I’ve come across over the years as well.

Samhain

So, to begin, we must answer the question: Is Halloween just a continuation of the pagan harvest festival Samhain (Pronounced SOW-IN, not SAM-HAIN)?

The short answer is no.

Samhain was an ancient festival with Celtic origins that marked the end of the harvest year and welcomed in the dark half of the year. It has traditionally been celebrated from October 31st to November 1st.

It was believed by the ancient Celts that during this season the point or veil between the seen and unseen realms became thin. Because of this thinning, this meant that the spirits could easily cross between the realms and could enter our world.

The ancient Celts felt the need to please the spirits that crossed over in order to ensure that their families and livestock did not die during the harsh coming winter. The Celts would offer up food and drink for the spirits, and occasionally an animal was sacrificed to appease them as well. It was also believed that the souls of the departed were believed to revisit their homes seeking hospitality. In some cases, a place setting of food or drink was put on the dining table in anticipation of the visit. Mumming or wearing disguises were part of the festival and involved people going door to door in costume or disguise, reciting verse in exchange for food.

While it is clear that Samhain and Halloween share at least some connection points such as dates, an emphasis on disguises or costumes, and harvest decoration, that’s about all they have in common. No one celebrating Halloween is celebrating for the purpose of welcoming in the dark half of the year. Nor, are they making sacrifices to appease spirits because of the metaphysical belief that the veil between the seen and unseen realms is thin.

All Saints Hallows Eve

So then, if Halloween, as we know it today, isn’t necessarily continuation of Samhain, then where does it find its origins?

The answer, surprisingly, is with Old Mother Church.

Halloween was never a pagan festival. It has always been distinctly Christian. Indeed, even the name “Halloween” is a contraction of “All Hallows Eve” which was the night before “All Saints Day.”

Steven Wedgeworth brilliantly notes this in further detail in his article Halloween: It’s Creation and Recreation. He writes:

“Halloween, as its name should make clear, has a distinctively Christian genealogy. Nicholas Rogers, in his book Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (a title more sensational than its text), explains: “…[Samhain] did not offer much in the way of actual ritual practices… Most of these developed in conjunction with the medieval holy days of All Souls’ and All Saints’ Day” (22). The name “Halloween” is, as is well known, a contraction of “All Hallows’ Eve,” the night before All Saints’ Day, but we have to take into account the series of All Hallows’ Eve, All Saints’ Day, and All Souls’ Day to form the entire picture. Each of these days, in slightly different ways, celebrated the Christian departed and established the memorialization of the dead as a key part of Halloween.”

Not only are Samhain and Halloween different in terms of origins (Samhain being of Pagan origins and Halloween being of Ecclesiastical origins), but also the intention behind the practices on the days are different as well. Again, while it is clear that Samhain and Halloween share at least some connection points such as dates, an emphasis on disguises or costumes, and harvest decoration, the intention behind the practices is entirely different. And, that’s important. Intention is always important.

James Jordan in his article Concerning Halloween expands on the intentions behind the practices of the Christian Holiday of Halloween. He writes:

“The Biblical day begins in the preceding evening, and thus in the Church calendar, the eve of a day is the actual beginning of the festive day. Christmas Eve is most familiar to us, but there is also the Vigil of Holy Saturday that precedes Easter Morn. Similarly, All Saints’ Eve precedes All Saints’ Day.

The concept, as dramatized in Christian custom, is quite simple: On October 31, the demonic realm tries one last time to achieve victory, but is banished by the joy of the Kingdom.

What is the means by which the demonic realm is vanquished? In a word: mockery. Satan’s great sin (and our great sin) is pride. Thus, to drive Satan from us we ridicule him. This is why the custom arose of portraying Satan in a ridiculous red suit with horns and a tail. Nobody thinks the devil really looks like this; the Bible teaches that he is the fallen Arch-Cherub. Rather, the idea is to ridicule him because he has lost the battle with Jesus and he no longer has power over us.

(The tradition of mocking Satan and defeating him through joy and laughter plays a large role in Ray Bradbury’s classic novel, Something Wicked This Way Comes, which is a Halloween novel.)

The gargoyles that were placed on the churches of old had the same meaning. They symbolized the Church ridiculing the enemy. They stick out their tongues and make faces at those who would assault the Church. Gargoyles are not demonic; they are believers ridiculing the defeated demonic army.

Thus, the defeat of evil and of demonic powers is associated with Halloween. For this reason, Martin Luther posted his 95 challenges to the wicked practices of the Church to the bulletin board on the door of the Wittenberg chapel on Halloween. He picked his day with care, and ever since Halloween has also been Reformation Day.

Similarly, on All Hallows’ Eve (Hallow-Even ‘ Hallow-E’en ‘ Halloween), the custom arose of mocking the demonic realm by dressing children in costumes. Because the power of Satan has been broken once and for all, our children can mock him by dressing up like ghosts, goblins, and witches. The fact that we can dress our children this way shows our supreme confidence in the utter defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ ‘ we have no fear!”

Once one begins to understand the origins of Halloween, it becomes quite clear that there’s nothing sinister happening here. Subversion and appropriation? Sure. Seeking to view everything, including the seasons in light of the Lordship of Christ? Absolutely. But, accidental paganism? Not a chance. These things are two entirely different beasts, with two entirely different purposes, and two entirely different origin stories.

The Lordship of Christ Over The Seasons

Now at this point, I want to anticipate some arguments I am likely to receive and offer some counter arguments.

Some have argued that while it’s okay for God to mock His enemies, it’s unbiblical for Christians to mock Satan.

However, the problem is that it does not take into account the fact that we have been united to Christ (Rom. 5:1–5), and Christ is Lord over everything, including the seasons and His enemies (Col. 1:15–23). Because of our union with Him, we share in an organic union with Him in the same way that branches share in organic union with the vine (John 15:1–8), and in the same way that the body shares in organic union with the head (Col. 1:18). We are one. Also, because of our union with Him, we also share in His rule and reign. Paul literally tells Timothy that we will reign with Christ (2 Tim. 2:11–13). So then, if Christ mocks His enemies (And He does), then it follows that we share in His mockery of them as well. And, if He is Lord over the seasons (And He is), then it follows that we ought to do all that we can to subvert them for the Kingdom of Light.

A second argument offered (and the most common objection to Christians celebrating Halloween) is that Christians should have nothing to do with anything that may have pagan overtones or connections.

However, there are various problems with this.

The first problem with this argument is that it seeks to abandon things to the Kingdom of Darkness. It gives too much ground to the enemy. This is not the way that Chrisitianity has historically functioned. Because of Christ’s Lordship over everything, Christians have always sought to bring all things under His feet. Even pagan thought, if it could be redeemed.

The way that Christianity has historically done this is through the paradigm of bless, baptize, or burn.

In practice, when Christianity encountered pagan thought that was true, it blessed and accepted it, for all truth is God’s truth. When it encountered pagan thought that could be redeemed and used to extend the Lordship of Christ, it baptized it and accepted it. When it encountered pagan thought that could not be blessed or redeemed, it burned it and did not accept it.

Commenting further on this paradigm in his book Back to Virtue, Peter Kreeft writes, “From the beginning there were three different attitudes on the part of Christians to the pagan world in general. (1) Uncritical synthesis, (2) critical synthesis, (3) criticism and anti-synthesis. Christian thinkers accepted either (1) all, (2) some, or (3) none of the Greek ideals. . . The greatest and mainstream Christians like Augustine and Aquinas, took the second way . . .”

A second issue with this argument is that it simply isn’t what we see in Scripture. It appears that it wasn’t just Augustine and Aquinas who took the second way, but also the Apostles themselves.

The first example I’ll point to here can be found with the Apostle John and his use of the term Logos. If you are unaware, Logos was a greek pagan category that was used by the Stoics. The Stoics believed that there was a Logos which was the ordering principle of the world. The problem however, was that the Logos was unknowable. John, however, in John 1:1–5 baptized this greek pagan category by telling his readers that there is indeed a Logos who is the ordering principle of the world. However, contrary to what the Stoics said, the Logos — who is Lord over all of creation — is knowable because He has revealed Himself by taking on flesh and dwelling among us. His name is Christ Jesus.

The second example can be found with the Apostle Paul addressing the Areopagus at Mars Hill in Acts 17:22–34. In this scene, Paul makes his way to the Areopagus, stands in their midst, and beings preaching to the men of Athens. Paul says as he was passing through considering their objects of worship, he found an altar with the inscription TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Paul, then, took this category of the unknown God, baptized it, and proceeded to tell them that The One whom they were worshipping without knowing was the True God, the Lord of Heaven and Earth — The God of Israel. He then critically synthesizes and quotes a the semi-mythical poet Epimenides and the Stoic philosopher Cleanthes to drive his points home even further. Christ is Lord not only over Hebrews, but the Greeks too. It’s just like their own poets said — “in Him we live and move and have our being, and we are his offspring.”

A third problem with this argument is that engaging with things that may have pagan connections does not make one an accidental pagan. This is just plain superstition.

Lets say for the sake of argument that Halloween is pagan (It’s not, as I’ve already demonstrated).

Even if it were, one cannot accidentally become a pagan anymore than one can accidentally become a Christian. Things just don’t work that way. As I said above, intentions matter.

I hope that after these few examples that it’s clear that if Christians should have nothing to do with anything that may have Pagan overtones or connections, then John 1:1–5 and Paul’s sermon at the Aeropagus would not exist. But, however, they do exist. And, it’s because Christians over the centuries have taken the call to extending the Lordship of Christ seriously. This is a vocation we must pick back up. The crown rights of King Jesus must be proclaimed over every area of life — Even the seasons. And, for these reasons Christians can feel confident in baptizing pagan ideas and concepts they come across for the purpose of extending Christ’s Lordship over every area of life.

Conclusion

So then, that leaves us with the question: Should Christians celebrate Halloween? Ultimately, I believe the answer is a matter of conscience.

Personally, I have no issues celebrating Halloween. Not only do I believe that it’s a practical and effective way of extending the Lordship of Christ over the seasons, but I also believe that it’s also a great way to live a life that’s on mission.

Halloween is one of the last communal holidays we have in our culture. It’s not often that folks from the neighborhood come to our doors anymore. So, we view it as an opportunity to model gospel-hospitality and to ask the question “do you know why we’re celebrating this as Christians?”

This question leads us right into the heart of the Gospel message — That Jesus took on flesh, that He lived the perfect live we could never life, that He died for our sins, that He rose again from the grave on the third day, and that He also vanquished the Kingdom of Darkness by triumphing over His enemies and putting them to open shame.

As people who are united to Jesus, we’re called to take part in this victory. It’s not just Jesus’ victory. It’s ours too!

So with that in mind, lets tell our families the Christian history and meaning behind Halloween. Lets dress up. Lets mock the enemy. Lets sing imprecatory Psalms (Psalm 2 is a good one). Lets remember the great cloud of witnesses made up of the saints that have passed on to the unseen realm before us. Lets model hospitality to our neighbors. And, lets invite them into the celebration too.

Lets be Christians that do what Christians have always done for centuries, which is take ground for the Kingdom.

Happy Halloween.

#Halloween #Chritianity #Jesus #God #Holy Spirit #Pagan #Paranormal

0 notes

solo1y · 7 years

Text

A Hawk from a Handsaw

A big problem facing any actor who wants to play Hamlet is that many of the lines are so well-known that they pop out of the text, drawing attention to themselves in distracting ways. I can only imagine how irritating it would be to hear a murmured sign of recognition from a thousand people when you’re trying to portray a serious emotion.

Even worse, the recognition many of us feel for certain lines of Hamlet is sometimes misplaced, as in the following examples, in order of where they appear by act and scene:

1. III “Neither a borrower nor a lender be”

This comes in the middle of a boring, platitudinous speech by Polonius which is supposed to sound like spurious old-fashioned gibberish for the purpose of humour. Sadly, in our enlightened times of selfies and mix tapes, almost everything said by every character in the play sounds like spurious old-fashioned gibberish, so it’s hard to get the joke.

In fact, some modern viewers (and even actors and directors) seem to think this passage is meant as genuine advice for the young, and turn it into a sincere litany of sensible and timely warnings to Laertes.

Spoiler alert for these people: Laertes will spend his time at university drinking and whoring around (or as Ophelia delicately puts it, “the primrose path of dalliance”).

1. IV “... to the manner born.”

I have more than once seen this mistaken for an admission of a wealthy upbringing, presumably mistaking “manner” (style, fashion) for “manor” (big house), an impression which can have been in no way helped by a popular BBC sitcom which intentionally misspelled the quotation.

In reality, Hamlet is explaining that he is predisposed to the tradition (of drunken carousing).

1. IV “More honor'd in the breach than the observance”

The general impression is that this refers to a custom that no one follows anymore, even though that interpretation makes no sense. What Hamlet is actually saying is that the tradition (of drunken carousing) is so stupid that it is more honourable to not follow it. “Honor’d” in this case means “bestowed with honour” (like “garlanded”) rather than the past tense of “to honour”.

1. V “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”

This is often taken to mean that the world is full of strange things, certainly more than Horatio can imagine. In fact, it’s more likely that we can take it literally. Horatio has just come back from Wittenberg, where he was probably studying philosophy, because everyone studied philosophy back then, because philosophy included everything we consider science today.

It’s very possible Hamlet was making fun of his friend in the way, these days, a parent might say to a student on their first weekend home, “Not everything is covered in your fancy book-learnin’ classes” before launching into a speech about the University of Life.

2. II “..brevity is the soul of wit”

This line is spoken by Polonius and has nothing to do with laconic comedy. The word “wit” here refers to intelligence or general wisdom, and the joke is that Polonius delivers this line in the middle of a long, rambling speech that no one asked for. This is called irony.

3. II “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

For some reason, modern audiences feel that this means that the lady in the play within a play is protesting too much, or in denial of her love. In reality, as the action of the play within a play makes clear, it’s the opposite. The lady in the play within a play is professing her love for the villain too eagerly, which Gertrude reasonably feels is a calumny on her honour, and even then, only when Hamlet asks her directly.

3. IV “Hoist with his owne petar”

This phrase is frequently taken to mean “stabbed with his own sword” or something like that. In fact, it means “blown up by his own bomb”, by which he means that the plan Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had to kill him will be used to kill them, to “blow them at the moon”. Which is fair.

#Hamlet #translation #shakespeare

3 notes · View notes

pinkislouder · 7 years

Note

Hey Leonie what's your favourite Shakespeare play?? Mine's probably Much Ado About Nothing hahah

Okay from the comedies, I think it’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Shakespeare wrote it (presumably) after he wrote Romeo and Juliet, and A Midsummer Night’s Dream is literally the opposite of R&J. The rebellious teenagers escape (successfully) into the woods, lovers reunite at the end, the societal demands at the end, etc. also Hermia & Helena are totally lesbians. From the tragedies, my favourite is either Hamlet or King Lear. King Lear is the only play that has a fully developed second plot, we can’t even really call it a subplot because of how much it influences the Lear plot and is intertwined with it and it’s just so incredibly well timed and composed. Also Lear literally goes and yells at a storm and a mad leader yelling for seemingly no reason is very topical right now I’d say. But Hamlet is just,,,,, it’s so intense and all the characters are fucked (also Hamlet is definitely in love with his best friend Horatio, in Act III, scene ii he goes on and on about how amazing Horatio is and goes “Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice and could of men distinguish, her election hath seal'd thee for herself” ,,,, Hamlet my dude, that’s gay. They went to university in Wittenberg together before the play starts. there is also fic about them on ao3. rip.)From the Histories it’s probably Julius Caesar because of the amazing rhetoric. Marc Anthony is such a sly genius, and also Brutus and Cassius are in love. Conclusion: i like all the plays that has a little gay in it.

0 notes

larryland · 5 years

Text

by Barbara Waldinger

Gertrude and Claudius, Barrington Stage Company’s newest offering by Mark St. Germain, based on John Updike’s 2000 novel by the same name, might well have been called simply Gertrude, for this is her story. A prequel to Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the play traces thirty years in the life of Hamlet’s mother.

The action opens with a loud confrontation between the young Gertrude (Kate MacCluggage) and her father (Greg Thornton), who insists that she marry the man to whom she has been pledged: Amleth (Douglas Rees), subsequently King of Denmark and father of Prince Hamlet. Gertrude balks. Although the play is set in the Late Medieval and Early Renaissance age, Gertrude’s feminist attitude would appear to sprout more properly from the #Metoo era. Eventually submitting to her father’s demands, the unhappy bride spends much of her life (and nearly the entire play) struggling against a husband she finds “unsubtle,” (nicknamed “the Hammer”), having married her for a “crown and a country,” a man whom she does not and never will love.

Finding herself alone (King Amleth is off fighting wars, and her son Hamlet [Nick La Medica], who ignores or mocks her when he’s home, is off studying perpetually at the University of Wittenberg), Gertrude trades letters with the King’s younger brother, Claudius (Elijah Alexander), who journeys abroad in a vain attempt to cool his love for her. Jealous of her brother-in-law’s freedom to travel and miserable on her own, Gertrude commands Claudius to return and initiates trysts in a hunting lodge owned by her adviser, Polonius (Rocco Sisto). Their liaison, unwittingly revealed to the King via a religious confession by Gertrude’s serving woman, Herda (Mary Stout), leads to an angry confrontation between the brothers that in turn results in the orchard-poisoning of Amleth, the “o’erhasty” wedding of the newly-crowned King Claudius and Gertrude, and the return of Hamlet—all events familiar to us from Shakespeare’s tragedy (including substantial quotes from that work).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Although the play offers a window into Gertrude’s motivations in an apparent attempt to justify (or at least explain) her actions, we don’t learn much about the world around her, except for some talk about different approaches to Christianity, whose followers include Amleth, Polonius and Herda (complete with the reflection of a cross on the great wooden door of the castle), and a fascinating (if seemingly digressive) discussion—and demonstration—of falconry. Plaudits to Brandon Hardy, the puppet designer, for his work on the birds, and on the puppet stage with its Commedia characters–Punch and Judy—and their slapstick. St. Germain attributes to Hamlet (based on the affinity of Shakespeare’s character for a travelling troupe of actors), an interest in puppetry and a desire to be an actor, both on and off stage. But what important light does this play shed on the story that Shakespeare has not already illuminated?

Director Julianne Boyd (Artistic Director of Barrington Stage Company) and her design team have created a sumptuous production, from Lee Savage’s gorgeous stone castle with its columns, crenellations, archways, arrow-slit windows, and tiny lights embedded within its walls, to Sara Jean Tosetti’s magnificent fur-lined, bejeweled costumes and dazzling, flowing capes, to David Lander’s striking lighting above and along the castle walls, through its small windows, lanterns, and large chandeliers descending from the flies. In an attempt to establish different locations, stagehands (and sometimes actors as well) are required to remove and replace set pieces after each scene. Despite the lovely, period-sounding music (by composer Jenny Giering) covering these changes, it might have been better to use the whole stage where designated areas could remain throughout the production. In that way, Boyd, who directs the action mostly downstage center, could have used every part of the stage.

With the help of medieval accoutrements (including deer heads, bear rugs, a mounted tapestry used for embroidery, armor, banners, thrones), the sounds of crowds, trumpets, horses (provided by sound designer Lindsay Jones) and period wedding-dance choreography by Barbara Allen, the actors looked good and adapted well to their surroundings. However, although they achieve the broad outlines of each scene, even eliciting laughs at times (especially Stout’s Herda, a descendent of Juliet’s nurse, and Sisto’s Polonius, whose second act ramblings finally begin to resemble Shakespeare’s addled old man), the actors need more rehearsal in order to mine the relationships in the play. MacCluggage’s Gertrude seems to care more about proving herself superior to men—witness her insistence on receiving the three gifts promised to her by Alexander’s Claudius–rather than entering into a loving relationship with him. Then at the end of the first act, as the actors literally move towards one another, they each stop and turn to the audience to declare overblown passions that we haven’t seen developing. A similar problem exists in the encounter between Amleth and Claudius–there is much more baggage between them that should have been revealed in this scene.

Patrons of Barrington Stage Company have long enjoyed the excellent plays of Mark St. Germain (Freud’s Last Session, Dr. Ruth, All the Way, The Best of Enemies, Dancing Lessons, Camping with Henry and Tom). Gertrude and Claudius, having won the 2018 Edgerton Foundation New Play Award and premiering earlier this year at Orlando Shakes in Florida, though well-written and beautifully designed, is so dependent on Shakespeare’s masterpiece that it has difficulty standing on its own.

Gertrude and Claudius runs from July 18—August 3. Tickets may be purchased online at barringtonstageco.org or call 413-236-8888.

Barrington Stage Company and Sydelle and Lee Blatt present Gertrude and Claudius by Mark St. Germain. Directed by Julianne Boyd. Cast: Kate MacCluggage (Gertrude), Greg Thornton (King Rorik), Douglas Rees (King Amleth), Elijah Alexander (Claudius), Mary Stout (Herda), Rocco Sisto (Polonius), Nick LaMedica (Hamlet/Yorick). Choreography: Barbara Allen; Wig Designer: Anne Ford-Coates; Composer: Jenny Giering; Puppet Designer: Brandon Hardy; Sound Designer: Lindsay Jones; Lighting Designer: David Lander; Scenic Designer: Lee Savage; Costume Designer: Sara Jean Tosetti; Production Stage Manager: Geoff Boronda.

Running Time: 2 hours 30 minutes, including intermission. Boyd-Quinson Mainstage, 30 Union Street, Pittsfield, MA., from July 18; closing August 3.

REVIEW: “Gertrude and Claudius” at Barrington Stage Company by Barbara Waldinger Gertrude and Claudius, Barrington Stage Company’s newest offering by Mark St. Germain, based on John Updike’s 2000 novel by the same name, might well have been called simply…

0 notes