when the melancholy Dane meets the Oncoming Storm

[tempestsarekind]

What with the Greg Doran interview and the first promotional photo of David Tennant as Hamlet floating around, I figured I might as well go ahead and post this thing I wrote back in August but wound up not posting, for one reason or another. It's an odd, disjointed ramble about why I love Ten (which I haven't posted about really; so many of my

Comments

[lareinenoire]

I would like to start by saying I love this post and am adding it to memories.

And that's a really brilliant observation about Hamlet that I haven't seen come across in performance either -- most people don't seem to think to use Ophelia as a reference when considering whether or not Hamlet is mad.

See, I adore Richard III, but for many assorted reasons. If you start with the Henry VIs, you get a far more rounded picture of him, and he can be a lot more complicated, especially in performance. The RSC production gave him so many incredible layers, just in the way Jonathan Slinger performed some of the big speeches. It was breathtaking.

[tempestsarekind]

Thanks!

I'm pretty sure that there's been work done on the different kinds of madness conceived of in the Renaissance--male vs. female, how lovesickness is different from the other kinds; I've got some on my reading list, to say nothing of the fact that one of these days I really do need to get around to reading The Anatomy of Melancholy. So that may be a factor I haven't considered. But Hamlet's madness always seems so pointed; a disguise for commentary rather than real madness. (And other characters see that in him too, especially Claudius.) Ophelia's madness is in danger of being *interpreted* as commentary, if we believe Horatio, but I don't think it really is. (Despite the wishes of some of my students who have wanted her to be more proactive and deliberate in her mad scenes

[lareinenoire]

Yes, Hamlet's madness has always struck me as calculated, especially when you put it next to Ophelia's. I could see Ophelia's madness as a commentary on a metanarrative level, but certainly not deliberate on her part.

His evil just seems so legible to me. And that in itself is quite interesting, but I can never figure out why everyone is so willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Well, part of it -- at least in my view -- is that Richard's evil doesn't actually pop up until well into the 'story' as it were. And *everyone* in that tetralogy is tainted by ambition and general nastiness (except poor, dear Henry VI), so I could see people taking a certain amount for granted. But so much of it really stems from the performance. I think what makes Richard such a daring character is that he never lies to the audience, so they're never fooled. Unless you do what Jonathan Slinger did and show just how deeply damaged and desperate he is, lying to himself and the audience and neither able to buy it. Which I loved beyond words.

[tempestsarekind]

That makes sense re: Richard III. I'm not that familiar with the rest of the tetralogy, so I tend to approach the play on its own--I know the backstory, but it's not as immediate for me.

And the Jonathan Slinger interpretation sounds fascinating.

well done

[anonymous]

thanks much, brother

Re: well done

[tempestsarekind]

Thanks!

[tempestsarekind]

Thank you so much for commenting!

I finally got to see this Hamlet once it was released on DVD in the US, and I loved it--though I don't think I've gotten to the bottom of it yet! But one of the things I really loved was that David Tennant as Hamlet was genuinely funny. People forget that part, so often, but it was wonderful to see it here.