I think Tennant gets better as he goes on with this particular speech. It's not that he acts it badly or anything because his performance is excellent. It's... not that his performance is insencere or anything, but... gah! It's hard to describe. I'd say that in general, his performances have more discipline and pitch and self-control. He has that core of strength within him that makes him an incredibly effective performer and a joy to watch.
Whereas John's strength is that when he gets emotional, you always get this impression that he's *just* about to fall apart into a million pieces. Of the two Hamlets, you see that tension in his body and how difficult it is for Hamlet to keep his rage in and how ultimately incapable he feels of letting all that rage out. He's so, so frustrated and it locks his body up and makes him all cramped, whereas Tennant's body language is smooth even in its flailing and the angst flows naturally, precisely out through his weaving limbs and messy hair and staring eyes. And both are pretty valid ways of interpreting Hamlet, which is of the good.
Oddly enough, even though I found Tennant's *performance* more calculated in some ways, when I saw Simm in the theatre, I thought Simm's Hamlet was a very cerebral one. He writhed and flailed himself, but overall I could constantly see the cogs turning inside his head. Whereas Dave!Hamlet was constantly possessed by this energy of stormy emotion and was kind of carried by it. So it's interesting that even with their different acting styles, Dave!Hamlet was the more insane of the two and John!Hamlet was the more clear-headed one--and ultimately pretty damn heartbreaking because of that, because he kind of knew what was coming while Dave was still busy chewing the scenery (brilliant chewing though it was).
Aaah! They were both so good. And I love them so hard it feels a bit wrong to compare them, but it's kind of irresistible. Someone on Tumblr said that they understood John's Hamlet better than Tennant's (language-wise), and I guess that says something about how they both deliver the text--and yet, I love Tennant's old-fashioned delivery as well. But I guess John definitely wins here when it comes to emotional veracity.
Ah, yes. Both ways (So tense you can barely move, and so full of restless energy that you can't stop moving) are actually true ways that different people feel/express their anxiety.
So neither performance is more "right," or "correct" in performing that scene. It's just that each actor is interpreting the character as a different type of person...
when I made that comment about sincerity vs. eloquence, I was actually talking about the text of the soliloquy, not about how it was acted (How come this actor, who's making stuff up, convince people how hurt he is, while I, who actually do feel hurt and rage, can't get anyone to take me seriously? Oh, gawd, I'm a fraud and a failure and and coward, and I deserve to be beaten up, because I can't fight back...)
And that's the point that Shakespeare makes over and over and over in his plays and sonnets. Kind of ironic that "Shakespearean eloquence" is used by so many as a yardstick for how much someone supposedly loves you. If "Will" were around to see it, he'd probably be permanently head-desking.
Whereas John's strength is that when he gets emotional, you always get this impression that he's *just* about to fall apart into a million pieces. Of the two Hamlets, you see that tension in his body and how difficult it is for Hamlet to keep his rage in and how ultimately incapable he feels of letting all that rage out. He's so, so frustrated and it locks his body up and makes him all cramped, whereas Tennant's body language is smooth even in its flailing and the angst flows naturally, precisely out through his weaving limbs and messy hair and staring eyes. And both are pretty valid ways of interpreting Hamlet, which is of the good.
Oddly enough, even though I found Tennant's *performance* more calculated in some ways, when I saw Simm in the theatre, I thought Simm's Hamlet was a very cerebral one. He writhed and flailed himself, but overall I could constantly see the cogs turning inside his head. Whereas Dave!Hamlet was constantly possessed by this energy of stormy emotion and was kind of carried by it. So it's interesting that even with their different acting styles, Dave!Hamlet was the more insane of the two and John!Hamlet was the more clear-headed one--and ultimately pretty damn heartbreaking because of that, because he kind of knew what was coming while Dave was still busy chewing the scenery (brilliant chewing though it was).
Aaah! They were both so good. And I love them so hard it feels a bit wrong to compare them, but it's kind of irresistible. Someone on Tumblr said that they understood John's Hamlet better than Tennant's (language-wise), and I guess that says something about how they both deliver the text--and yet, I love Tennant's old-fashioned delivery as well. But I guess John definitely wins here when it comes to emotional veracity.
Reply
So neither performance is more "right," or "correct" in performing that scene. It's just that each actor is interpreting the character as a different type of person...
when I made that comment about sincerity vs. eloquence, I was actually talking about the text of the soliloquy, not about how it was acted (How come this actor, who's making stuff up, convince people how hurt he is, while I, who actually do feel hurt and rage, can't get anyone to take me seriously? Oh, gawd, I'm a fraud and a failure and and coward, and I deserve to be beaten up, because I can't fight back...)
And that's the point that Shakespeare makes over and over and over in his plays and sonnets. Kind of ironic that "Shakespearean eloquence" is used by so many as a yardstick for how much someone supposedly loves you. If "Will" were around to see it, he'd probably be permanently head-desking.
Reply
Leave a comment