Hamlet- Shakespeare's Globe 2018

An All-Inclusive Hamlet

The Globe's 2018 Production is diverse, comprehensive...and not a lot else.

It's 2018, which means the majority of people are challenging the way they think about society, politics and identity (and rightfully so.) With the recent London Pride celebrations, and thousands taking to the streets to protest Trump's visit, the country has never been more prepared to speak out against injustice. Yet, such a seemingly positive concept is distorting the agenda of many creative directors, leading them to produce work that screams out equal representation, whilst plot and technique take a back seat. For my first ever review of a live performance, I'm going to explore why this could be detrimental for literature.

Seeing Hamlet marks my second visit to Shakespeare's Globe, and one that was greatly anticipated following the captivating production of King Lear that I took in last year. After meticulously studying the text for A-levels, (including watching countless film versions and scouring critical commentaries), Hamlet is no stranger to my analysis. And I wasn't put off by the idea of a female Hamlet- in fact, the example of Maxine Peake's performance back in 2015 remains one of my most highly praised. In short, I had high hopes that this production would show me a Hamlet that was new, exciting, and complimentary of 2018's inclusive attitudes.

Be careful what you wish for. I certainly received a fresh casting perspective, but perhaps lost some crucial elements of the play that I have come to know and love. But before I turn to play-bashing, I'll start by outlining some of the production's redeeming features. Due to the eponymous nature of the play, it of course stands or falls based on the performance of the young Prince of Denmark himself. The audience must endure several of his long-winded soliloquies, and survive his procrastination, so the actor/actress needs to be half decent. I have to admit that in this case, Michelle Terry did not disappoint.

Her Hamlet was intelligent, thoughtful, overcome by grief one moment, and fiery with aggression the next. I think that this captured perfectly the conflicting emotions of the character, yet of all such feelings portrayed- her sadness was the most compelling. Upon her encounters with the ghost, her confused sorrow was enough to numb the audience. At several times, I felt that her brooding gaze was threatening to penetrate straight through my soul, (accentuated by the fact that I was only a row from the front, and hence was subject to much eye-contact.)

In addition to this, another actor who gained my admiration was Richard Katz, who proved to be the first Polonius to date who has not bored me. Instead of being old and foolish, he was dry, sarcastic and self-righteous, quite literally rolling his eyes at the stupidity of the court around him. I felt that his scenes marked the only truly comic element of the play, superior to the often misplaced humour littered around in other places.

Indeed, other elements of the play in general kept the audience entertained, including a brass quartet which heralded poignant moments, and scenes that naturally flowed into each other, creating a Royal Court teeming with secrecy and mistrust. However, other elements of the general set-up were clumsy and ill-thought out. Despite opting for traditional dress, there was the classic throw-in-a-modern-reference-for-no-reason that is now frequently used in Shakespeare (the grave-digger in a high-visibility jacket, for example.) What does it mean? Some pretentious, bespectacled theatre fanatic would probably try and explain the symbolism behind it. But for me, it's just unnecessary.

And on the subject of the unnecessary, I will return to my criticism of the casting decisions. First: please understand, I am not opposed to equal representation in any way, shape, or form- and am always keen to prove that characters can be universal, regardless of gender or ability. But in this case, I believe that the Globe's incentive to create a diverse cast overtook its ability to maintain a decent plot. Shubham Saraf, for example: the male, 5 foot 11 Ophelia, possessed little to no relationship with Hamlet, or with any other characters for that matter. A combination of cutting some of the crucial lines between the couple, as well as Saraf's watered-down-performance, left the character as no more than a disappointing pit-stop in the play's journey.

Similarly, Catrin Aaron's Horatio was also explored in a half-hearted manner. Instead of displaying the intelligent, passionate and ocassionally confrontational traits that I believe are essential to the character, Horatio was merely used as a comfort-blanket for Hamlet, to literally "hang on" to. It was this dosile element that made Horatio's 'antique Roman' comment during the finale seem unconvincing, as the first and final attempt at passion that the audience had been craving since Act One, Scene One.

Beyond this, whilst some characters were gender-swapped, others were not, and in fact remained just as poor. James Garnon's Claudius made no attempt to be evil, nor did he make any attempt to repent in the chapel scene, and turned many desperate lines into clumsy jokes. This is perhaps typical of 21st Century entertainment, in which the audience must laugh, and must leave the theatre with a smile on their face, even when the content is not remotely funny. This Claudius was verging on slap-stick, bumbling around in front of Gertrude, and appealing to the audience when in need. Whilst, I admit, it was interesting to see a Claudius that was so out of his depth, and far from the cunning politician, this again took a great deal away from the substance of the play.

And as for Gertrude, there is little to say really, as Helen Schlesinger gave the most bog-standard, and typically "Gertrude-ish" performance that I have ever encountered. Is there a factory somewhere that creates these Gertrudes that appear in every production, all conditioned to look, sound and act completely the same? It certainly appears that way. Once again, I fail to see the point in trying to create a fresh and exciting cast,  with a perfectly unexciting Gertrude.

Yet, as I wade my way through criticism after criticism, there remains one casting decision that I must praise. The move to cast Nadia Nadarajah, a deaf actress, as Guildenstern, was not only inspiring, but also totally complimentary of the original plot. Her lines were signed, with Rosencrantz often translating them, yet not always. This gave the effect of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern communicating in a way so cunning and secretive, that not even all members of the audience could understand it. Other actors on stage would also sign their lines whenever Guildenstern was present, and the way in which they did so was crafted to subtly reveal something about their characters. Claudius, for example, was clumsy and often made mistakes in his signing, exposing his careless attitude towards his servants. Polonius, on the other hand, did not even attempt to sign, and simply shouted his lines angrily towards Guildenstern, showing him to be the most ignorant and base of characters. Hamlet was among the most skilled in his communication, in line with his persona as the intelligent philosopher. Thus, this extra theme added so much more to the play, which unfortunately was perhaps the only time that the Globe managed to get the casting exactly right.

All in all, the play was a patchwork of inconsistency, with a minority of characters stealing the show, and the rest appearing as if they'd wandered onto the wrong set. I believe this occurred due to the unwavering desire to create something that represents everyone, includes everyone, and suits everyone. And therein lies the danger: delivering a mass-produced, standard stock issue play that ignores crucial elements of the plot and dissolves the true characters behind their representative labels. The potential for an extraordinary production was there, yet the delivery simply did not follow through.

I'm looking forward to a day when the conversation about equal representation is no longer necessary, because it has become reality.  I want to go and see a production of 'Hamlet' with compelling characters of all different abilities and genders, just as I want to live in a world where all such individuals are recognised and celebrated. But as for this production? Well, it just wasn't that good.