Review: Hamlet at the Guthrie Theater
Written by: Claire Ferguson ‘15
April 26, 2014
On April 26 a group of Carleton students, myself included, saw Hamlet, directed by Ian Belknap, at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis. As one of the students who went on the London program for theater and literature this past winter, I was asked to use my newfound theater experience to write this review. Here, I humbly offer you my thoughts.
For the most part, this was a very competent show. The acting especially showed proficiency. This may sound like faint praise, but I have seen so many frustrating performances of Shakespeare that at this point I can truly appreciate how difficult it is to do our favorite Bard justice. That said, I’ve also had the privilege of seeing some wonderful shows as well. In London, we saw David Tennant in Richard II, Jude Law in Henry V, Tom Hiddleston in Coriolanus, and Simon Russell Beale in King Lear, just to name a few. And even in such an incredible theater city as London, the success of different shows varied greatly. So when I say that this performance was decent, I mean I really was impressed.
I was especially impressed with the actors. John Skelley’s Hamlet was a bit too stiff for my taste. He seemed at times to be self-conscious, and could have benefitted from relaxing a little, but he was nevertheless entertaining. He was dynamic, energetic, and his line delivery demonstrated that he understood the complex meanings behind his lines. This may seem basic, but trust me, it’s not.
Particularly notable for their performances are Grant Fletcher Prewitt and Ian Gould, who played Rosencrantz and Guildenstern respectively, as well as the gravediggers. They managed to take advantage of every comedic opportunity in their roles. I suppose they would have to be good in order to keep it together for two shows. They didn’t fail to deliver. (I can’t wait to hear how Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead was!) Claudius as played by Patrick Lane and Gertrude as played by Jacqueline Correa were a pompously artificial couple. Their performances suited their costumes, which appeared to be straight out of Alice in Wonderland, and the Escher-esque set design by Neil Patel.
The costume design by Candice Donnelly was all over the place. It ranged from the fantastical to the typically Elizabethan to the I-don’t-even-know-what. Visually, the whole design led to a rather nauseating mise-en-scène, full of conflicting elements that didn’t seem like they should’ve existed in the same place at the same time. That said, I believe the acting made up for these rather strange choices. But then again, I’m a very patient person.
Basically, if you can handle the ghost shrouded in an oddly conical suit of rags, unable to properly move his arms, and Laertes, clothed in an alarming shade of green, giving his overly-peppy sister an awkward sex-talk (as you do), then this is a production worth seeing. Yes, it had some issues, but I think it was performed with a level of intensity, passion, and intelligence that is rare in (American) performances of Shakespeare today.
[We are grateful to the Elizabeth S. Thompson Memorial Fund for making these theater trips possible.]