« The universal language of film | Main | Jesus for mature audiences »

April 18, 2006

The new Guthrie opens with an old classic

Columnist

Shakespeare’s Hamlet is considered by many to be the greatest play ever written. It is a complex and layered story of obsession and madness, love and revenge, all amidst a doomed royal family. The Guthrie Theater is currently half way through its run of Hamlet, which continues playing through May 7. Directed by Joe Dowling and starring Santino Fontana in the title role, this production provides some new, and not always welcomed, twists to this classic.

The costumes and sets are some of the first things that stand out. The main set is a large, opulent, moving backdrop of a castle with a usable staircase and balcony. The sets are rather timeless, but the costumes are distinctly World War II era. While these costumes evoked a far gone glamour, they essentially felt pointless and slightly confusing. The problem is that the play was clearly set during WWII as far as looks are concerned, but thematically it was hard to find a reason why this was done. If something is being done just to be different, I’d rather it not be done at all, especially when the source material is a 400-year-old classic.

The acting, for the most part, was rather good, as the actors were able to tackle this difficult material and language. It is rare to find a production of Shakespeare where all the actors are able to clearly deliver their lines. Here they managed to speak in a way that sounded almost modern, while still strictly following the script. Emotionally, the actors gave quite a range from slapstick comedy to cries of anguish. I was especially impressed with Markus Potter as Laertes, who had such a natural and charming presence he stole most of his scenes.

But often with a play like this the fate of the entire show can fall on the shoulders of the lead, and this was no exception. Most of the actors played up the comedy in the script with body pantomime in place of wit. I found this to be a rather low-brow approach to high art, but audiences generally enjoy being pandered to in live theater. As Hamlet, however, Fontana took it several steps too far and was obnoxious, over-the-top and his performance underwhelming. In both comedic scenes and in portraying Hamlet’s insanity, Fontana acted in a way that could only be compared to Adam Sandler’s antics in Happy Gilmore, except not funny or appropriate for the material. In dramatic scenes he was unable to bring out the raw emotion the part required. It was more than a little irritating that the only time he cried was when he took his bow at the end.

Hamlet remains a great play, and this production was entertaining enough that it hardly felt like the three and a half hours it was. They had impressive sets, and a good supporting cast. But the low-brow humor, poor casting of Hamlet, and bizarre costumes made it less satisfying than other productions I’ve seen. I might suggest going if you are familiar with the play and think it sounds intriguing. But if you’ve never seen it live before I recommend waiting for Jeune Lune to put it on again, as their version is every bit the tour de force this one was not.

Posted by dwright at April 18, 2006 12:36 PM

Comments

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?