DISCUSSING SHAKESPEARE

A couple of nights ago, with the easing of the lockdown, and after many many months, we had an evening meal in our home with three guests, and were thus one under the permitted indoor limit. The windows, of course did remain open until such time as the evening air turned inclement. The talk was very varied in nature and at one point, as is usual in the company of actors, the topic drifted on Shakespeare.  Various performances were discussed and the matter of casting women in men’s roles (bearing in mind in Shakespeare’s day young boys played women) and of casting roles generally without regard to race or gender.

Views were expressed about how well could a male youth perform the role of certain women characters, given their youth and clear deficiency in truly understanding a woman’s feelings.  That was not to say that they could not appreciate femininity, but actually being female was another matter. Likewise, whilst some would praise Glenda Jackson’s portrayal of Lear, others did not.

I have not seen the performance. I can however, surmise that maybe the portrayal of such a character may have more to do with age than with masculinity; however, is being an old man more complex in nature than being an old woman?  The menopausal condition in women is an actual physical transformation accompanied by additional mental effects, whereas the andropause, or male menopause, is a far more gradual physical process, but equally accompanied by additional mental effects. Those physical and mental effects are of a very different nature, and perhaps are not so easy for either gender to include in a performance, e.g., of a male actor portraying a woman or a female actor portraying a man.

But I digress, there was also a question as to whether or not the plays had to be staged or indeed performed to be fully appreciated. I was of the view that they did not. My premiss is that the language itself, the words alone, had sufficient power to perform by themselves.  One did not need to see a performance to appreciate the genius of the writing. Reading them was sufficient to be conscious of their depth of meaning.

At the time I did not fully express this view. I stated that it was sufficient to just listen to the language, one did not need to see a performance; however, in saying that, I was wrong, the mere fact of listening indicates that one is listening to someone else performing the words. So, listening to the plays, however they are presented, stage, screen, digital device, recording etc. is taking in a performance, which is something else entirely.

The power of Shakespeare is the writing, and thus in the reading of the writing. The words perform in our minds. There are  many monologues in the plays, so much so, that one could classify them as novels as well as plays. They stand alone, and have been preserved and nurtured over four centuries for that very reason.

We are what we think, is a corollary of, I think, therefore I am. The spoken thought of the characters, their monologues, exposes their nature and gives the readers insight, not only in respect of the character, but of themselves. Who needs a shrink when you can read Shakespeare?

Hamlet clearly has a personality disorder with borderline features. His contemplation of self-harm (one of the distinct borderline features of personality disorder) is one of the best analyses of suicidal tendencies ever written. It is certainly one of the most famous. Have a close read for yourself, either aloud or in your head, listening carefully to yourself as you read:

To be, or not to be, that is the question,
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.

It is a short, clear and concise line of thinking, no matter how one choses to read it.

Here are a few versions, each with their own particularities.

                                              Laurence Olivier

                                              Christopher Plummer

                                              Richard Burton

                                             David Warner

                                             David Tenant

Having read the text to yourself, out loud or not, you form an opinion as to the meaning of the text as well as an insight into the performer. How the performer chooses to speak the speech to reveal the nature of the character of Hamlet is a very individual exercise, and, in making choices, the actor also reveals a personal view of himself as the character. As to the editing of the text, that is again a matter of choice in determining the essential content and meaning of the text. However this is done, editing can either enhance the overall effect of the text or diminish its power, but the text has and will always survive the performance.

And for another interesting view: