Shakespeare Study: The Tragedy Of Hamlet, Prince Of Denmark (revisited)

In my initial three-and-a-half-year Shakespeare study, I read one play a month, and watched film adaptations and read books of critical essays on each play. I hadn’t yet finished my three and a half years of Shakespeare study when I decided that I would be revisiting key plays. Basically, what I decided is that whenever I acquired more Shakespeare DVDs, I would re-read the play or plays in question. I first returned to A Midsummer Night’s Dream, then to The Taming Of The Shrew  and The Tragedy Of Romeo And Juliet. And now I'm returning to The Tragedy Of Hamlet, Prince Of Denmark.

This time around I actually went back to the Signet Classic Shakespeare edition, which is the first edition of Hamlet that I ever read (when I was fifteen or sixteen). And actually, it is that particularly copy that I re-read this time. This edition was edited by Edward Hubler, and originally published in 1963. The edition I own is from 1987. It includes an introduction by Edward Hubler, as well as a collection of criticism on the play. In the introduction, Hubler writes: “And there will be no laughter at all when, at the close of Hamlet’s interview with his mother, he drags the body of Polonius to the exit, remarking, ‘I’ll lug the guts into the neighbor room.’ Then he pauses at the threshold to say, ‘Good night, Mother.’ And he says it with all the tenderness he has, for she has looked into her soul and repented, and in the contest with the King she is now on Hamlet’s side. Mother and son are again at one. Bringing this about has been the essential business of the scene, and the dragging of the body (though the body must somehow be removed) is in no way necessary to it” (p. xxii). Later in the introduction, Hubler writes: “He has seen the body of an old friend dug up to make room for the body of the woman he loves. He has looked on death at what is for him its worst. It is after the graveyard scene that the man who had continually brooded on death is able to face it” (p. xxx).

In the section of criticism at the end of the book, A.C. Bradley writes: “That Hamlet was not far from insanity is very probable. His adoption of the pretense of madness may well have been due in part to fear of the reality; to an instinct of self-preservation, a forefeeling that the pretense would enable him to give some utterance to the load that pressed on his heart and brain, and a fear that he would be unable altogether to repress such utterance” (p. 210).

Robert Ornstein writes: “When he exposes his inner feelings in the first soliloquy we realize that Claudius has completely missed the point. Hamlet’s problem is not to accept his father’s death but to accept a world in which death has lost its meaning and its message for the living – a world in which only the visitation of a Ghost restores some sense of the mystery and awe of the grave” (page 261-262).

Carolyn Heilbrun writes: “At the play, the Queen asks Hamlet to sit near her. She is clearly trying to make him feel he has a place in the court of Denmark” (p. 269).

Related Books:

- Hamlet Before During After  by Ben Crystal  -  This is a volume in The Arden Shakespeare’s Springboard Shakespeare series, and offers a good introduction to the play.  Regarding Hamlet’s soliloquys, Crystal writes, “something takes place in the middle act of the play that drives the Prince to talk to us more frequently; and then the need to talk to us seems to evaporate in the final act” (p. 10).   Regarding Hamlet’s switch from “thy” to “your” in “Go thy ways to a nunnery. Where’s your father?” Crystal writes: “It’s a fascinating switch. In many productions, it’s the point when Hamlet becomes aware that someone is watching him – either from the way Ophelia behaves, a noise from where Polonius and Claudius are hiding, or simply a realisation that he’s been left alone with Ophelia for the first time in a long time, and that that’s unusual…” (p. 18). Regarding Hamlet’s writing, Crystal writes, “And when he asks Horatio to tell his story so his name won’t go down in history as a mad, murderous Prince, but an avenging, honourable son, does he pass on his notebook to his friend?” (p. 29). About the Ghost, Crystal writes: “Marcellus’ line Thou art a Scholar, speak to it Horatio is fitting. Scholars knew Latin, and Ghosts were supposed to be talked to in Latin (as Hamlet later does). Also, they weren’t supposed to speak first; humans had to start the conversation” (p. 31). Regarding Ophelia returning the letters to Hamlet, Crystal writes: “I like the fact that Polonius only asked her to sit and read, and hopefully talk to him. It’s Ophelia’s own idea to use the opportunity – presumably the first in two months – to formally bring their relationship to an end” (p. 63). And regarding Laertes and Ophelia, Crystal writes: “A thought – towards the end of the scene, were it not for Claudius keeping him behind, with his Laertes, I must commune with your grief, perhaps he might have run after his sister, and been there to save her from her fate…?” (p. 90). And regarding the setting itself, Crystal writes, “The Royal Castle Kronberg, in the town of Helsingor, north of Copenhagen in Denmark, is the basis for Shakespeare’s Castle Elsinore” (p. 127). He continues: “A huge maze of a castle, Kronberg – the seat of Denmark – is a dramatic place with long corridors, tapestries on every wall. While the towering cliffs Horatio warns Hamlet of don’t feature in the real Denmark, other features are incredibly accurate. Visiting Elsinore, there is a set of stairs going up into the lobby, and the casements (the tunnels underpinning the four long exterior walls) were originally used to house the army, and later, as gaols. It gives Hamlet’s line Denmark’s a prison a different resonance. Three actors who later become colleagues of Shakespeare performed at the Castle in 1585, and many understandably guess that they told the budding young actor-writer about their trip” (p. 128).

This book was published in 2013.

- Stay, Illusion! The Hamlet Doctrine  by Simon Critchley and Jamieson Webster  -  This book, by a husband and wife team, has some interesting thoughts and interpretations. Some of it I agree with, some I don’t. Regarding the play within the play, they write: “What are the sufferings of Hecuba or indeed Hamlet to us? Yet, Hamlet would seem to be suggesting that the manifest fiction of theater is the only vehicle in which the truth might be presented” (p. 8). Regarding the Ghost, they write: “The ghost is nothing, of course, so Barnardo confesses that he has seen it, that is, not seen it” (p. 26). Maybe, maybe not. But an interesting idea. They write: “Might not Horatio be Fortinbras’s spy? Think about it: the play finishes with a cordial exchange between Horatio and Fortinbras where the latter declares, ‘Bear Hamlet like a soldier to the stage.’ But in this interpretation, such magnanimity is not surprising because Hamlet has served as the perfect, albeit unknowing, conduit by which Fortinbras could accede to the throne of Denmark. The pretender Hamlet murders Claudius but has the decency to kill himself in the process and with his ‘dying voice’ says ‘th’ election lights/On Fortinbras.’ Take it a step further: let’s imagine that Horatio and his paid accomplices, Marcellus and Barnardo, agree to concoct the story of the ghost in order to dupe an already intensely fragile, grief-stricken, and almost-suicidal young aristocrat. Hamlet unwittingly adds the patina of psychotic delusion to their deception, and this is more than enough to motivate the young prince to kill his uncle and clear the path for Fortinbras. Horatio knows everything from the get-go because Hamlet is his puppet and the ghost is his ruse” (p. 49). On the next page they admit that this idea is far-fetched. No shit. It’s an interesting thought, but Bernardo is clearly nervous and frightened by the Ghost before Hamlet ever appears. There is a lot of stuff in this book about Freud and psychoanalysis that is loosely related to Hamlet. And the writers don’t understand what the word literally means. They write, “The person identifies with the lost object and is literally crushed by it” (p. 123). Wrong. And then again: “The lost other is literally composed of desire” (p. 136). I don’t think anything can be literally composed of desire. They draw a parallel between Hamlet and Laertes: “So if Laertes is Hamlet’s double, then it is no surprise that the play ends with their double murder. We have two groups, one a reduplication of the other: Polonius, Laertes, Ophelia; and Claudius, Hamlet, and Gertrude. By the end of the play Laertes is uncannily in the same position as Hamlet: he has a father murdered, Ophelia lost, the support of the rabble for the throne; he acts as an organ for Claudius’s scheming, and he desperately seeks revenge” (p. 139). About Ophelia, the authors write: “She is always taken as something to be used, as bait. No one ever asks her what it is that she wants. In her madness we see her desire explode onto the stage, immersed in a voracious sexuality invariably denied to her” (p. 147). As for the book’s title, it comes from a passage quoted from Nietzsche: “Knowledge kills action; action requires the veils of illusion – that is the Hamlet Doctrine” (p. 195). The authors write, “Hamlet’s inaction is caused not by a lack of energy but by the knowledge that action is futile” (p. 202). And in their conclusion, the authors state, “For us, at its deepest, this is a play about shame, the nothing that is the experience of shame” (p. 228).

This book was published in 2013.

- Murder Most Foul: Hamlet Through The Ages  by David Bevington  -  In the preface, author David Bevington explains: “The central argument of this book is that the staging, criticism, and editing of Hamlet go hand in hand over the centuries, from 1599-1600 to the present day, to such a remarkable extent that the history of Hamlet can be seen as a kind of paradigm for the cultural history of the English-speaking world” (p.vii). Regarding the earlier Hamlet, Bevington writes: “The likeliest candidate for authorship of a lost Hamlet play in the years around 1589 would appear to be Thomas Kyd. His profile fits Nashe’s satirical description of one who has left the trade of ‘noverint’ or copier of writs to become a hack writer turning out whole Hamlets, that is to say, handfuls, of overwrought tragical speeches” (p. 17). Regarding the end of the Ghost scene, Bevington writes, “Hamlet makes a point of exiting with the soldiers and Horatio together, rather than allowing them to yield him precedence, as a way of insisting on their brotherhood of secrecy” (p. 35). Regarding the Ghost’s line “Unhousled, disappointed, unaneled,” Bevington writes: “The terms here, ‘Unhousled, disappointed, unaneled,’ have precise technical meanings in Catholic theology. To die ‘unhousled’ is to die not having received the Eucharist in the sacrament of Last Rites or Extreme Unction. This sacrament requires an anointing by the priest of a person in danger of death, accompanied by a set form of words, aimed at ensuring the eternal health of the soul. To be ‘disappointed’ is to be inadequately furnished for one’s journey into death. ‘Unaneled’ again means to have died without receiving Extreme Unction. Shakespeare does indeed show here his familiarity with Catholic practice” (p. 63). Regarding Hamlet’s supposed madness, Bevington writes, “Whether he is ever truly mad is a question much discussed, as we shall see, though the text gives little if any support for the notion that he really is so” (p. 68). Regarding the killing Polonius, Bevington writes: “Hamlet appears to derive two insights form this miscarriage of his plans. One is that swift, resolute action is not the uncomplicated solution one might have hoped. The other is that he, Hamlet, will have to pay for this killing of Polonius, just as Polonius has paid the price of his meddling” (p. 70). Regarding the Restoration, Bevington writes: “Restoration spectators and readers of Shakespeare generally applauded ‘improvements’ to his text designed to elevate him to the high poetic status he deserved. Actors and editors alike excised secondary characters, unified action according to the classical unities, and attempted to render Hamlet and other plays more symmetrical and spectacular by the incorporation of scenic effects” (p. 92). He then writes, “The early eighteenth century is also the era in which scholarly editing of Shakespeare’s texts began” (p. 93). He also writes, “Hamlet criticism and editing in the eighteenth century, then, is generally neoclassical in tone and method, preferring classical regularity and decorum, albeit with some large exceptions made for Shakespeare’s genius. Criticism of this period manifests an abiding interesting in character more than in plot or theme. It seeks to appraise and understand the moral purpose of the protagonist, and to measure the validity of the play’s denouement by the standards of poetic justice. At the same time, the late years of the century exhibit signs of change” (p. 106). About Henry Irving, Bevington writes: “Irving’s interpretation of Hamlet was of a man stricken with love for Ophelia – a not surprising emphasis, given the sympathy expressed by many nineteenth-century critics for the suffering of such a tender, innocent, and beautiful young woman. Even as Hamlet mocked her in their painful overheard conversation (3.1), Irving’s Hamlet could not hide the depths of his feeling for her; in the words of a contemporary reviewer, ‘his whole frame seemed to tremble with heartfelt longing.’ To put this failed love relationship in a fuller perspective, and to bestow on Hamlet the emotional sensitivity worthy of such a lovelorn young man, Irving followed some of his predecessors in deleting Hamlet’s soliloquy of implacable determination to send the kneeling Claudius’s soul to hell” (p. 125). Regarding Bernardo, Bevington writes, “This anxiety can explain why Bernardo asks the opening question, ‘Who’s there?’ when it is Francisco, the guard currently on watch, who should issue that challenge” (p. 130). Regarding Mark Rylance as Hamlet, Bevington writes: “In the Globe space that invites chumminess and overstatement, Rylance was resourceful in developing a rapport with audiences. He pointedly hurled at them Hamlet’s line about how ‘groundlings’ are ‘capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb shows,’ then adding, after they had objected vociferously at this, ‘and noise’” (p. 180). Bevington writes: “The phrase ‘Hamlet without the Prince’ has entered the language as signifying a performance or an event lacking the principal actor or central figure. The origin of this phrase is an account in the London Morning Post, September 1775, telling of a touring company which suddenly discovered that its leading player had run off with the innkeeper’s daughter. The company had to announce to the audience that ‘the part of Hamlet is to be left out, for that night’” (pages 198-199).

This book was published in 2011.

- John Gielgud Directs Richard Burton In Hamlet  by Richard L. Sterne  -  This is a really interesting book, detailing the rehearsal process of a production of Hamlet. Richard L. Sterne secretly recorded the rehearsals, and so much of the book is actual transcripts. Early on in the rehearsals, Gielgud says: “All the people in the play are shut up in this castle. You play that, really, all through the play. There is this curious feeling, except on the battlements and in the churchyard, that they are all really locked in the castle, in a miasma of corruption and sensuality. It isn’t until Fortinbras comes at the end that the whole thing opens and all are free” (p. 17). Regarding Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Gielgud says: “When Hamlet says ‘What a piece of work is a man,’ they are the men he is referring to, and he plays it to them as an expression of what he wants them to represent. Otherwise, they just stand there with nothing to do and look like supers” (p. 29). Regarding the scene where Claudius is trying to pray, Gielgud says to Richard Burton: “Hamlet is hurrying to his mother and stumbles on the King, and in a frenzy grabs the sword and almost kills him without reflecting. The lines and business must all go rapidly. I think you should whisper the speech” (p. 53). Regarding Hamlet’s departure and return, Gielgud says: “The fight with the pirates and Hamlet’s departure are in the play to show the feeling of a journey. Shakespeare does the same in Winter’s Tale and Tempest. He was fascinated by journeys because they were so much more important then and took so much longer. And it has a tremendous effect on Hamlet in this play because he comes back fantastically ready to carry out his mission without complications. It’s only the sight of Ophelia’s body and Laertes jumping into the grave, in which Hamlet suddenly sees this young man whom he always had liked behaving exactly as he had done when his father died, in a sort of hysteria of grief. That makes him jump in and do all that violent stuff” (p. 56). The book contains the entire play as performed in this production, with lots of notes on stage directions. They had an interesting take on the “Words, words, words” line: “Words. (POLONIUS starts to speak, but HAMLET cuts him off by repeating more sharply) Words! (POLONIUS again tries to explain, pointing at the book and taking a step toward him) WORDS!” (p. 186). The book ends with the transcripts of interviews done with Richard Burton and John Gielgud. Regarding the duel with Laertes, Gielgud says “That’s just a game, like football is to us. But he knows the end is at hand. The King very cunningly sent Osric to play the fool in order to divert Hamlet’s suspicion so that the wager will seem trivial and so he won’t take it too seriously” (p. 297).

This book was published in 1967.

- William Shakespeare’s Hamlet  adapted by Rebecca Dunn; illustrated by Ben Dunn  -  This is a volume in the Graphic Shakespeare series by Graphic Planet. It’s only forty-eight pages, and so is little more than an outline of the play, just a few lines from most scenes. When the Ghost tells of his murder, there are illustrations of Claudius flirting with Gertrude and pouring the poison in the King’s ear. The Ghost doesn’t urge the others to swear, and so the “Rest, rest, perturbed spirit” line is cut. Shockingly, a bit of the Reynaldo scene is included. Because so much is cut, there are short descriptions to fill in some of the information otherwise lost. However, we also get this: “At the castle, the queen hires two of Hamlet’s friends to spy on him” (p. 15). That’s making a bit of a jump from the information given in the play. Many of the most famous lines are cut, including Polonius’ “brevity is the soul of wit.” Oddly his “Though this be madness, yet there is method in ‘t” is left in, but not Hamlet’s lines that lead him to say it. So it comes out of nowhere. I think this book might be quite confusing to any people who are not already familiar with the play. The “What a piece of work is a man” speech is cut. It goes from “all custom of exercises” straight to “Man delights not me,” an awful cut. Only the beginning of “To be or not to be” is included. It ends with “mortal coil,” which is odd because that is mid-sentence, mid-thought. The authors of this book clearly do not understand the play. No noise from behind the arras alerts Hamlet to the presence of Claudius and Polonius, so Hamlet exits, seemingly unaware of being watched. All the stuff about the recorder is cut. The scene where Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ask Hamlet the location of Polonius is cut. The “How all occasions do inform against me” speech is cut. Ophelia’s mad scene is completely cut, which is ridiculous, especially as Laertes still says “a sister driven into desperate terms” (p. 34). Act IV Scene ii is cut. Another insane choice is that everything regarding Yorick is cut. The gravedigger holds up a skull, but the next panel shows the funeral procession. Hamlet puts his hood up and sneaks over to the coffin and sees Ophelia, rather than learning of her identity through Laertes’ lines. All of the dialogue between Hamlet and Horatio is cut (so no “special providence in the fall of a sparrow”), as is Osric. Instead we get a very misleading panel: “Laertes and Hamlet take their fight back to the castle…” (p. 40). Wrong, wrong, wrong. That is so far removed from what Shakespeare wrote that all copies of this book should be force-fed to its authors. Hamlet says “Is thy union here,” though all of Claudius’ lines about the union are cut. More crazy cuts are at the end. Gone is “The rest is silence.” Gone is Horatio’s famous speech. But Fortinbras is left in. This is an absolutely terrible book and should be avoided.

It was published in 2009.

- Wittenberg: A Tragical-Comical-Historical In Two Acts  by David Davalos  -  This play takes place before the events of Hamlet, with Hamlet at school, his major as yet undeclared. The focus, however, is the dialogue between John Faustus and Martin Luther. Faustus teaches philosophy, and Luther teaches theology at the school. There are anachronistic jokes, such as “Two-stein minimum” (p. 9), and references to The Who’s “The Seeker,” Robert Palmer’s “Bad Case Of Loving You (Doctor, Doctor)” and “Que Sera Sera.” There are plenty of references to Hamlet. For example, Faustus says: “…despite this being a Catholic university, we are not going to be restricting ourselves to studying the philosophies of the Church. There are, after all, more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in its theology” (p. 12). At one point Hamlet says, “Being and not-being,” to which Faustus responds, “Those are the questions, yes” (p. 18). And in that scene, there is some business with a skull. There are more references to that famous speech. Faustus says, “To believe or not to believe,” and Hamlet responds, “That is the question” (p. 19). Still later, Faustus says, “To be or not to be,” and Hamlet asks, “That is the question?” (p. 46). Faustus also says, “You must shuffle off this moral coil” (a play on “mortal coil”). There are plenty of other references to the play, including a reference to The Murder Of Gonzago, with Faustus saying, “I hear they’re making it into a play” (p. 24). Hamlet and Laertes play tennis, and of course there are several references to their duel in Hamlet. For example, Laertes says, “These racquets have all a length?” (p. 37). The Judge says, “An out! A very palpable out” (p. 37). The ghost of Mary appears to Hamlet much the way the ghost of his own father appears to him in Hamlet. She even bids him, “Remember me!” And the word association game has many references to Hamlet. Faustus also says, “After all, there really is no ‘good’ nor ‘bad,’ but thinking makes it so” (p. 50), and Luther says, “His Providence is found even in the fall of a sparrow” (p. 50), so clearly both of them have an impact on Hamlet’s thinking. There is also a reference to The Tempest, with Hamlet saying, “No more than such like stuff as dreams are made upon” (p. 10). In the play, Faustus nails Luther’s points to the church door. At the end, Hamlet learns of his father’s death. There is also a joke on Shakespeare’s play, with Faustus saying to Hamlet, “Live your life so that I may never have to read of the tragedy of King Hamlet, yes?” (p. 61).

This book was published in 2010.

- Ghost Light  by Tony Taccone  -  This play is based on the experiences of Jon Moscone, whose father, Mayor George Mascone, was assassinated along with Harvey Milk by Dan White in 1978. Hamlet is a significant part of the story. In an early scene, Jon gets a message on his machine about costumes for a production of Hamlet. He teaches a master class in acting, and talks to his students about the Ghost in Hamlet. About Gertrude in the final Ghost scene, he tells his students: “She’s watching her only son lose his mind right in front of her very eyes. Her heart is breaking. And here’s the real deal: she is actively trying to stop that from happening. She tries to control him, to keep him from losing it, to keep her pain at bay” (p. 17). Jon’s advice to the guy playing Hamlet, regarding the character’s seeming inability to act, is: “You know somewhere, somewhere you know that in order to kill your father’s murderer you have to kill off a part of yourself. The best part of your deepest self. You have to learn how to hate. Become a villain to kill a villain. You have to learn to hate yourself” (p. 28). References to the play are made by other characters. For example, Prison Guard says, “Come on, let’s lug the guts out of this here limbic system” (p. 20), a reference to Hamlet’s line about Polonius. Louise says to Jon: “You were making a case for the time of the play being a time of darkness and despair, and that if the court was really that corrupt then Hamlet’s father had to be implicated as well, that he might have been something less than the hero his son wants him to be. Which explains why Hamlet is so completely paralyzed” (p. 48). Toward the end of the play, there is a series of auditions for the part of the Ghost, and then Jon reads part of the Ghost’s speech: “I am thy father’s spirit/Doomed for a certain term to walk the night…” (p. 93).

This book was published in 2011.

 

(Note: I've been posting reviews of film versions of Hamlet as separate blog entries.) 

Romeo And Juliet (Shakespeare Center Of Los Angeles 2014 Production) Theatre Review

Every good Shakespeare production will show you something new, even about the most familiar of plays. The new production of Romeo And Juliet put on by the good folks at the Shakespeare Center of Los Angeles is set in the 1920s, a setting which gives a different tone to many of the characters, particularly Mercutio and the Nurse, and makes us look at them in a fresh light.

The space is set up as mainly theatre in the round, with the audience seated on all four sides of the center stage. So it has a wonderfully intimate feel, while still seating a good number of people (the capacity, as I was told, is 409). And as mentioned on the company’s web site, no seat is farther than six rows from the center stage. The whole space is surrounded by trees, adding to the sense of intimacy – like a magical clearing in the woods. There are also set pieces at two of the four corners, behind and above the audience, so while the audience surrounds the center stage, the audience is also surrounded by the set as a whole, which gives a sense of being in the middle of the action. The actors are miked, so that they are audible even when facing away from you. The only problem with that is that you sometimes lose the sense of direction. So in a moment where an actor is hiding among the audience members, you might not be able to immediately place him.

This production begins with a bit of 1920s-type jazz playing as the Chorus steps onto the stage. The Chorus in this production is played by a woman, Cristina Frias, dressed in a black dress. While she speaks, Montague and Capulet stand at opposing corners, which is interesting because it immediately sets them up as being responsible for the play's events. We have the faces of the two households even as the Chorus describes them. (Capulet is played by Elijah Alexander, who played Macbeth in this year’s A Noise Within production.)

The opening brawl scene is mostly cut. Benvolio (Wyatt Fenner) and Tybalt (Christopher Michael Rivera) enter as newspaper boys, hawking their papers by shouting lines from the Chorus’ speech, but then quickly go into their dialogue. Sampson, Gregory and Abram are cut completely, so there is no biting of the thumbs. Benvolio talks about keeping the peace, but he hasn’t broken up any fight. This opening scene is very rushed, and Prince Escalus shows up almost immediately. Interestingly, the Prince is a woman in this version (also played by Cristina Frias, who in addition plays the Apothecary). Lady Montague is cut completely from this production.

The newspapers are then used in the scene with Benvolio and Romeo. Benvolio playfully whacks Romeo (Jack Mikesell) in the behind with the paper on “tyrannous and rough.” This production follows the Q2 reading of “I have lost myself.” There is quite a bit of interaction with audience members in this production. When Benvolio urges Romeo to “examine other beauties,” he points to a woman in the front row. Then when Peter receives the list of guests to invite to the Capulet party, he shows the list to a few audience members, seeking their help before turning to Romeo. Romeo gives a wonderful pause before reading Rosaline’s name.

When we first meet the Nurse (Kimberly Scott), she is up on the balcony, dancing to jazz. Then when she is dismissed by Lady Capulet (Tracey A. Leigh), she is slow to exit, and does so comically before being called back. On “’a was a merry man,” she does a brief dance step. It’s a playful performance. Some of what the Nurse does is absolutely wonderful, but there are times when it’s a bit over the top, as her reaction to the idea of Juliet getting married. By the way, in that early scene, Lady Capulet gives a slight pause before “Marry, that ‘marry’ is the very theme/I came to talk of.” That’s wonderful, for it’s as if she hasn’t been listening closely to Nurse, which shows that the Nurse has a habit of rambling, but then suddenly realizes she has a way to get to her point.

As I mentioned, the 1920s setting gives Mercutio a different feel. Mercutio (Gregory Linington) has a walking cane and glasses, seeming like a writer who might have hung out with the Algonquin Round Table and written for The New Yorker in its infancy. He interacts quite a bit with the audience. On “ladies’ lips who straight on kisses dream,” Mercutio goes into the audience, asking a woman for a kiss (and getting it). Later Mercutio actually pulls an audience member up onto the stage for the conjuring of Romeo.

The 1920s setting is perhaps most brought to the fore in the Capulet party scene. It is all fun, flappers and feather boas. The dancers freeze when Romeo sees Juliet (Christina Elmore) and delivers his lines about her. After “For I ne’er saw true until this night,” everyone goes back into motion. And Tybalt then has his lines about recognizing Romeo’s voice. This is odd for two reasons. First, Romeo is not masked. And second, Tybalt and the others were frozen in place during Romeo’s speech, the conceit being that they did not hear or see what took place. It’s as if the world stops, and so the world can’t be aware of anything that happens while it is stopped. And yet somehow Tybalt is aware.

The others exit as Romeo approaches Juliet, as if the party is over. Romeo and Juliet slow-dance as they say their lines (“If I profane with my unworthiest hand...”). Romeo is delightfully youthful and nervous and excited in this scene, as he is in the balcony scene. Romeo stands and reveals himself on “I take thee at thy word,” causing Juliet to scream and retreat into her room. Romeo gives a great honest reading of “What shall I swear by?” He truly asks the question, a sweet touch.

Benvolio and Mercutio wait for Romeo in silence for a while, as Mercutio works on a crossword puzzle in the newspaper (crossword puzzles became quite popular in the 1920s). Mercutio pauses before “butt-shaft,” hitting on it for a laugh, which he gets, but the meaning then taken by the audience is not the meaning likely intended by Shakespeare. (A butt-shaft is an unbarbed arrow used for practice at targets.) (And earlier Mercutio jokes around with the “open-arse” line, as if diving headfirst into someone.)

Having established the Nurse as a pretty lively woman (when we first see her, she is dancing), this production has her actually rushing back to Juliet with the news from Romeo. She comes in behind Juliet, thus overhearing the last part of the girl’s impatient speech. So when Juliet says, “but old folks,” referring to the Nurse, the Nurse suddenly slows, pretending her lower back hurts. This is a really nice way of doing it, and something I hadn’t seen before. (There is still the question of why it’s taken so much time, but this production creates an interesting relationship between Peter and the Nurse, so perhaps they took a little detour to enjoy themselves.)

As always, when you change the time period of a Shakespeare play, some problems arise. In this production it is mainly the lack of swords that causes some issues. For example, Tybalt’s “turn and draw” doesn’t quite work. And when Tybalt says to Mercutio, “I am for you,” he and Mercutio begin getting ready for a fist fight – rolling up their sleeves and so on. It’s cute, and gets some laughs, but this moment should be more intense. After all, this scene is really the point on which the play turns, and comedy becomes tragedy. Mercutio does have a sword hidden in his cane, so it is with this one sword that Tybalt ends up slaying Mercutio. It is a bit awkward, and there is a bit too much silliness as Mercutio dies. His comedic lines should be in contrast to the very serious thing that has just happened. But adding physical comedy to it takes away from the moment.

When Romeo says “Mercutio’s soul/Is but a little way above our heads,” Tybalt gives a small, surprised glance to Benvolio, which is a really nice touch, showing that Tybalt certainly did not mean to kill Mercutio and is shocked by his death. After Romeo kills Tybalt, he immediately regrets it, cradling Tybalt in his arms, which is another nice touch. So when Romeo says, “O, I am fortune’s fool,” you believe he really feels it.

This production cuts almost all of the Prince’s role, including the scene where he (or she, in this case) banishes Romeo. Juliet at first doesn’t believe The Nurse when she says, “he’s dead, he’s dead.” She thinks the Nurse is teasing her, which is an interesting take. I like it, because it more naturally comes from the great mood Juliet was just in while waiting for night to come (the “Gallop apace” speech). It isn’t until the Nurse says she saw the wound that Juliet takes her seriously.

One of Romeo’s toughest scenes is that at the Friar’s cell when he learns of his banishment. And this is perhaps the weakest scene of this production. Romeo is at one level through most of the scene – loud, upset, whiny. He even pushes the Friar before falling to the floor. And because of the lack of swords, Friar’s “Tybalt would kill thee” doesn’t quite ring true. Would Tybalt have killed Romeo? It seems like they would have had a first fight. But Tybalt had no sword, and he already regretted his unfortunate slaying of Mercutio, so it’s unlikely Tybalt would have killed Romeo in this version.

There is an interesting dynamic in the Capulet home. The relationships among the family members are well defined, with the actors making strong choices (including the relationships between the Nurse and the various family members). When Lady Capulet asks, “Can you love the gentleman,” Juliet looks to the Nurse for guidance, a very nice way of showing she’s closer to the Nurse than to her mother. Lady Capulet is angry with her husband’s haste in marrying Juliet to Paris, and actually slaps him, which is interesting. So Lady Capulet’s lines to Juliet about the “sudden day of joy” carry a certain amount of bitterness. And when Capulet enters and asks “still in tears?” Juliet rushes into his arms, showing that she is closer to her father than her mother. It is a wonderful moment, for we know that it is her mother that perhaps would be more understanding of Juliet’s situation. This also gives Capulet a place to move from when he becomes upset. Before Juliet takes the potion, Lady Capulet’s “need you my help?” is perfectly sad. She really wants to help; she wants desperately to connect with her daughter in a way in which she perhaps hasn’t before, which is heartbreaking.

Quite a lot is cut from the fifth act. Balthasar is cut, and it is Benvolio who arrives to give Romeo the news. Paris’ Page is cut, as are the Watchmen. Balthasar (or Benvolio in this case) is also cut from the scene at the tomb. All of the dialogue about the statues, as well as Friar’s explanation of events, are cut. Chorus enters after Juliet’s death. Montague and Capulet enter as they did in the opening of the play. And the Chorus repeats the opening speech. While I do miss the Prince’s admission of culpability, it would have seemed to come out of nowhere, given the small role the Prince plays in this production.

This production of Romeo And Juliet was directed by Kenn Sabberton. The music was composed by Brian Joseph, a singer/songwriter I’ve had the pleasure of seeing perform in concert. There is one intermission, coming after Benvolio’s “Why dost thou stay?” in the first scene of Act III. The production runs through July 26, 2014 at the Japanese Gardens on the grounds of the VA West Los Angeles Healthcare Center Campus (just off of the Wilshire exit from the 405).

By the way, it’s a pretty area. There are several picnic tables for those who want to take their dinner with them and eat it before the show. It seems a good portion of the crowd does this, for I arrived more than an hour early, and all the tables were already occupied.