By Jane Mattingly
In this age of experimental theatre, it is always refreshing to revisit the classics. For their second production of the season, the University of Louisville’s Department of Theatre Arts is featuring William Shakespeare’s tragedy “Hamlet,” directed by Theatre Arts Associate Professor Rinda Frye. While the production is not experimental in nature and there is no evidence of an attempt to “modernize” it in any way, the show presents a slightly different approach to the play, particularly the character of Hamlet.
According to Frye’s director’s notes in the program, she directed the play based on the concept of English dramatist William Poel (1852-1934).
“I share Poel’s vision of Hamlet as a man of action, not as the depressed aesthete,” wrote Frye.
This notion was impeccably communicated in Brandon Meeks’s acting. He did not play the typical angry, angst-filled Hamlet but instead, all of his dialogue and action had a clear purpose, and was not rendered just to inspire sympathy. Instead of portraying Hamlet simply wallowing in self-pity, Meeks listens, understands, and reacts to action based upon what has unfolded in front of him, and even a Hamlet expert in this audience may not expect what he will do next.
Another actor with an especially notable performance was Sarah Carleton’s Ophelia. All of her emotions were very genuine, and she is fascinating to watch even when she is standing off to the side. There is a clear transition in her character before and after her father’s death, and Carleton captured Ophelia’s anguish, confusion and desperation in the scenes prior to her tragic end.
Each and every actor was fully committed to their character though, with generally excellent stage chemistry between characters. Standing out among these were the relationships between Hamlet and Horatio (DeAldon Watson), Ophelia and Laertes (Jared Hanlin), King Claudius and Queen Gertrude (Obadiah Ewing-Roush) and especially Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (Colby Ballowe and Corey Music).
The play also featured live musicians Marisa Barnes, Kate Holland and John Aurelius, which was a nice addition to the mix.
What is especially difficult about performing Shakespeare (speaking from experience) is the temptation to recite the lines with vague dramaticism but no real emotion. Every actor in this production seemed to have a clear understanding of what their lines meant, and were able to communicate that onstage in a way that a playgoer could understand.
Even if the words were difficult to understand, the audience could still comprehend what the was happening based on how the actors were delivering the lines. Still, the beauty of the poetic language was not compromised and there was a balance of dialogue, soliloquy, action, emotion and comic relief.
There is no question that Shakespearean theatre is very intellectual; the audience is often required to do a little work. Instead of letting the words wash over them, they are required to pay close attention, think and interpret. But this production makes the cerebral process of watching Shakespeare well worth it, and even though it dates back to about the year 1600, the themes of the play are not too far removed from the troubles of society today.
“I am always impressed by how modern the play seems,” Frye wrote. “The selfishness, greed and lack of foresight of the older generation in the play seems torn from today’s corporate scandals, making the waste and destruction of the youth and hope of this society all the more poignant.”
