collisionwork | Entries tagged with questions

Christiaan Koop emailed me today about some schedule issues and further asked for some clarification on her part as Voltimand in Ian W. Hill's Hamlet:

I'm excited to be playing jerry's right hand woman. it's cool!

do you think voltimand has been claudius' "rhw" for a very long time- like, does voltimand know "what really happened" to bring claudius to the throne? during the reading i was playing with ideas that voltimand is a sort of secret service agent/security guard/silent partner, but more intimate - heh - maybe she even kinda wishes they were more intimate!?! maybe they are?

ck

CK,

Thanks for the [schedule] info.

As for Voltimand -- I think she's been a bit of an up-and-comer in the court pre-Claudius' reign, but never really noticed (except by "Secretary of State" Polonius).

When Claudius took over, there was a bit of a housecleaning in the diplomatic staff -- Polonius wanted to shake things up a bit, maybe reorganize the political machine a bit to be more under his control, and I think the diplomatic assignment to Norway is a BIG THING for Voltimand, a giant step up. I don't think she really knows where it's coming from, Polonius or Claudius, but she's very pleased with the leap in status.

So she doesn't have a history with Claudius -- he's been career military prior to this, she's been completely on the politics/diplomacy track. She's been doing a good job, and has been noticed, and has been assumed to be very loyal and faithful to the new regime.

And not intimate with him -- she may be interested in that, she may wonder a little if she got the position due to some interest of his (she didn't, and he isn't interested). She may wonder if there was foul play -- as does EVERYONE in the court and kingdom -- but she's in the position she's in partially because Polonius is sharp enough to know that she'll be loyal to Claudius whether he killed his brother or not.

She knows her job well enough to give her report to Claudius in proper diplomatic words, while imparting a bit of subtext to them -- when she remarks about Old Norway looking into Fortinbras' actions and saying "he truly found it was against your highness," there can be just a hint of "if you can believe that, and don't think he knew about it all along and just got caught."

Even something like the "in brief" she throws in about Fortinbras' obeying of his father can have a lot of weight and irony -- as though not wanting to go into extent of the argument between the two, while getting across that Fortinbras' ultimate submission to his father was not an easy one.

She also tests how chummy she can get with Claudius by taking on some of the qualities he uses in his own speech -- her referring to Old Norway's "impotence" is a direct reference to Claudius referring to him as "impotent" in his opening speech -- a phrase which is an off-the-cuff improv by Claudius in that part of the speech, and slightly inappropriate for a King to be using (and for you to be using in your report - it's an innocent enough word, yes, but I think you both give it a slight nasty spin). So you're parroting some of the tone you got from him in the opening back to him, consciously or not.

So that's a start,

see you Friday,

IWH

Current Mood: creative
Current Location: Portland, ME
Current Music: Blondie - "X Offender" - Blondie

Email questions and thoughts come to me from the cast of Ian W. Hill's Hamlet.

Edward Einhorn (Guildenstern) asked me something yesterday morning:

Quick question: what's the concept behind making R&G Jewish? Not that I mind particularly, but what made you think to portray them as Jewish?

Response from me, also cc'ed to Daniel McKleinfeld (Rosencrantz) to bring him in on this issue of interest to him as well:

Not so quick answer:

The concept was sort of reverse engineered, as with making Horatio black -- I was interested in the actor for the role first, then realized that people would wind up taking it as a "statement," and realized that I had to be in control of the statement, so I should actually make one. I saw you and Daniel in the parts, realized this would be "taken" a certain way, and had to take the idea throughout the script to be in control of how it might be taken.

Since this is a WASPy-world, country club/yacht club HAMLET, I was interested in different classes and how they interrelate -- somewhat as I saw in my own wealthy hometown . . . [personal information about myself, Greenwich, Connecticut, and being both “on the inside” and an “outsider” at the same time, redacted].

In this production we see classes from Royalty down to Commoner, with many stages in between, and see all of them react to the death of a king and the fumbling attempts to keep the country together when he's gone. Hamlet's friends play different roles in this. Horatio is given a certain leave as Hamlet's "black friend from school," as he is well-educated, well-spoken, etc., but because of his color and background, he will only ever be able to rise to a certain level in this world. As a result, he is not perceived as (nor is he, or wants to be, I think) a social climber to be watched out for. He is treated somewhat openly.

R&G come, I believe, from several generations of getting-wealthier-and-wealthier merchants -- shopkeepers who have expanded and expanded into a wholesale-retail-mailorder empire -- possibly wealthier and "more powerful" than the Lords and even Royalty (powerful as in "if we don't get something we want, we may not help you out with the money and supplies for this war here"). I think R&G were the first generation born into their family as already fabulously, disgustingly wealthy, and have grown up around the Court, and their friend Hamlet, and want more than just "being rich," they want respect, and a position within the Court the same as anyone else with not only their money, but their talents and abilities. There has NEVER been any overt anti-semitism at work at them, but there has been a definite "you are not one of us" attitude that they're trying to get through.

I honestly think well of R&G (as I do NOT of Hamlet himself), and think they're simply trying to kill two birds with one stone: They ACTUALLY DO want to help their old friend out here, AND if they can use this to get in better with the Royal Family and The Court, what's the harm in that? Frankly, they probably think that they're "playing" Claudius and Gertrude by giving help to them that they would have done gladly for Hamlet's sake anyway.

They don't get, horribly, fatally, that they are dealing with a fanatic who sees these two goals of theirs as incompatible: If they're helping out Claudius and Gertrude, as far as Hamlet is concerned, they are his enemies. End of story. And as Hamlet pushes them away, they resent him more, and more turn to Claudius, which Hamlet sees and gets meaner and nastier to them, which send them . . . well, you see.

So, that's what came out of simply looking at/listening to you and Daniel years ago and thinking I'd like to see you in these parts someday.

IWH

Thoughts from Daniel in response:

Ian:

Thanks for the note! That's pretty much what I had been thinking---that Ros and Guild have fielded a lot of questions about money management (on the assumption that they'd just *know* what to do with money), but have never encountered straight-up vulgar anti-Semitism in the court (which is why Hamlet's display of it is so unpleasant). They sorta seem like the two faces of assimilation---Guild is obsequious and eager to be in his place (an aspiring dentist, I'd think), while Ros has a somewhat ironic attitude towards the court, his life, and himself. He plans to fuck around for a few years after college, and then go into investments, smirking ironically even as he becomes part of the system.

I'd been thinking of playing the first meeting with Hamlet---"my most dear lord!"---for irony, with a heavy helping of rich-kid sarcasm From the instant he walks in , they're doing routines, like kids reciting Firesign Theater records, and there's not a word that doesn't come out with raised eyebrows and a lilting inflection. By the later scenes, he's become more direct as he starts to realize that something's really wrong---by the post-Mousetrap scene, it seems like he's started to worry that Hamlet's genuinely going mad. Now he thinks it's his turn to step
up---he's always been smarter than these courtly dipshits, and by the time it comes to dealing with the body, he's convinced that he's the only one who can straighten this mess out. If anything, he's a little impatient with having to rely on Claudius---who he's always considered a half-wit----to solve the problem, even though he knows that's Claudius' job.

Does that sound about right to you?
D

A final comment from me:

Yup, sounds about right to me, thanks!

There's also a notable difference between R & G as their arc goes on -- Guil begins to try to play too much on R&G's past friendship in ways that are improper in dealing with Royalty. Maybe once they could, as friends, but I think Ros senses a bit before Guil not to push the friendship thing too much. As important as the anti-semitic flip Hamlet gives to them about "trade" is the fact that he pulls out the royal "we" with them in the previous line - he may have never done that before, and he almost never does it elsewhere in the script. He only does it when he wants to MAKE A POINT about being a fucking Prince.

I have CONSTANTLY used, in auditioning people for this show, and talking to others about it, your line as reported to me by Berit regarding all the auditioners who wanted the title role in your HENRY V, "Kings don't SLOUCH!"

That phrase has become central to dealing with the royalty here. Gertrude NEVER slouches, and is a Queen through and through (even with Claudius, being his Queen comes before being his Wife). Claudius only slouches in private with Gertrude -- he somewhat got out of the whole "Royalty" bag that he disliked by going into the military, but knows when and how to turn it on as a King. Hamlet slouches a bit, and more and more as he is seen as "mad" (part of what is taken for "madness" is simply "not behaving like a Prince ought to"), and he affects a more intellectual, artsy demeanor, but he has been raised since birth to be a King someday, and will turn it on when he "needs" to.

Ros sees Hamlet's back straightening before Guil does, and pulls back.

IWH

Current Mood: rushed
Current Location: Gravesend

Questions, I get questions. So many questions, troubling the minds of the modern-day-a-go-go American Youth, what with their rock-n-rolls and their grand-theft-autos and their baggy pants and their interest in Elizabethan dramas.

I now have 22 actors who have expressed their interest to me regarding Ian W. Hill's Hamlet, 9 who have said they definitely can't do it, 3 (including myself) who are definitely in, 2 who are in pending final check on schedule conflicts, and 19 people who haven't responded. Not bad.

And I get questions. Here's one from the probable Guildenstern (pending, as always, schedule conflicts), on reading my draft of the script, from an email he titled "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Jews," and my answer:

Just a quick question, out of curiosity -- how's your conception of R & G affected by your choice to make them Jewish? Do you see them as very Jewish -- slight Yiddish lilt?

Yes, VERY slight - more noticeable on one than the other (haven't decided which yet, depends on which actor it sounds better on). They are definitely out for assimilation - I don't think they're "observant," but they may keep some trappings of "Jewishness" about them because it's expected of them.

And from another actor:

I've been so hung up on my obsession with playing Laertes that I forgot to ask the obvious question, that being what you're looking for in Laertes as a character. I noticed you wrote up a little something for someone who asked about Claudius (I'm a faithful reader of the blog), so I was hoping you might be able to do the same for me and Laertes.

Sure. Laertes is probably everything Hamlet would like to be. Talented, quick, decisive, non-neurotic, able to enjoy life, smart, handsome. They probably grew up around each other at Elsinore, Laertes getting all the advantages of living in a royal environment with a respected father in a high position without the disadvantage of actually being royal and having to live up to your responsibilities (not always a disadvantage, to be sure, but for someone as insecure as Hamlet, disastrous). Hamlet has always probably felt somewhere that Laertes would make a better king than he. If they played together as kids, Hamlet would conceive the fantasy game they would play, and Laertes would star in it as the hero. The negative side to Laertes is that the world of privilege has left him with a certain sense of entitlement, and he has a nasty temper when he feels he (or his family) is not being given the proper respect - a kind of nouveaux-riche insecurity (he's a bit of a self-righteous, priggish hypocrite, too - he's very serious about keeping his sister's honor pure, but he feels he has every right to whore around). His temper has probably gotten him into more than a few scraps (Hamlet's probably helped him out of some of them). While he has these problems, he's probably one of the most mentally healthy of all the main characters of the play -- almost everyone else in this version wants to be something other than what they are. He's perfectly happy being what he is, he just wants more respect for that.

I've had an extended dialogue with another actor, through email and a bit in person a couple of nights ago, mainly regarding Claudius, his guilt (or lack thereof), his competence (or lack thereof), and audience sympathy for Hamlet (or lack thereof). It's a bit long to excerpt here, perhaps, and unlike other people I've quoted here, I'm not sure of his feelings about it, so I won't include it -- but I will post a poem by Cavafy, from 1899, that I sent in my last email to him, which is not exactly in line with my take on the play, but it comes close in some ways, and has the feel of some of what I want:

KING CLAUDIUS

My mind moves to distant places.
I'm walking the streets of Elsinore,
through its squares, and I recall
the very sad story—
that unfortunate king
killed by his nephew
because of some fanciful suspicions.

In all the homes of the poor people
secretly (because they were afraid of Fortinbras)
he was mourned. A quiet, gentle man;
a man who loved peace
(his country had suffered much
from the wars of his predecessor).
He behaved graciously toward everyone,
the humble and the great alike.
Never high-handed, he always sought advice
in the kingdom's affairs
from serious and experienced persons.

Just why his nephew killed him
was never satisfactorily explained.
The prince suspected him of murder;
and the basis of his suspicion was this:

walking one night along an ancient battlement
he thought he saw a ghost
and with this ghost had a talk;
what he heard from the ghost supposedly
were certain accusations made against the king.

It must have been a fit of fancy
and an optical illusion
(the prince was nervous in the extreme:
while studying at Wittenberg
many of his fellow students thought him a maniac).

A few days later he went
to his mother's chambers to discuss
some family matters. And suddenly,
while he was talking, he lost his self-control
and started shouting, screaming,
that the ghost was there in front of him.
But his mother saw nothing at all.

And that same day, for no apparent reason,
he killed an old gentleman of the court.
Since the prince was due to sail for England
in a day or two,
the king hustled him off posthaste
in order to save him.
But the people were so outraged
by the monstrous murder
that rebels rose up
and tried to storm the palace gates,
led by the dead man's son
the noble lord Laertes
(a brave young man, and also ambitious;
in the confusion, some of his friends called out:
"Long live King Laertes").

Some time later, once the kingdom had calmed down
and the king lay resting in his grave,
killed by his nephew
(the prince never went to England;
he escaped from the ship on his way there),
a certain Horatio came forward
and tried to exonerate the prince
by telling some stories of his own.
He said that the voyage to England
had been a secret plot, and orders
has been given to kill the prince there
(but this was never clearly ascertained).
He also spoke of poisoned wine-
wine poisoned by the king.
It's true that Laertes spoke of this too,
But couldn't he have been lying?
Couldn't he have been mistaken?
And when did he speak of this?
While dying of his wounds, his mind reeling.
and seeming to talk deliriously.
As for the poisoned weapons,
it was shown later that the poisoning
had not been done by the king at all:
Laertes had done it himself.
But Horatio, whenever pressed,
would produce even the ghost as a witness:
the ghost said this and that,
the ghost did this and that!

Because of all this, though hearing him out,
most people in their hearts
pitied the poor king,
who, with all these ghosts and fairy tales,
was unjustly killed and disposed of.

Yet Fortinbras, who profited from it all
and so easily won the throne,
gave full attention and weight
to every word Horatio said.

Today I email the 22 actors who have expressed interest and start setting up meetings/readings, then I email the 19 who haven't answered yet and double-check that they got the email, then I email the ones who are probably in and update them on being in a holding pattern. These emails are no longer bulk, but individual (with some cut-n-paste to save time), so it'll take a little while.

And I have to go get cat food before the little monsters eat me alive -- we ran out last night and gave them a can of soft food to tide them over until we got more crunchy bits, and, as always, that just makes them food-simple, following me and yowling every time I go to the kitchen for more coffee. Which looks to be a good idea now too . . .