Posted: 7/21/17 at 2:09pm
Has anyone seen the new production of Hamlet starring Oscar Isaac? Sam Gold takes shows in an interesting direction and I was wondering how people have been responding.
Posted: 7/21/17 at 3:58pm
I saw it last night. I love Sam Gold's work but this was awful. Oscar Isaac was terrible. He couldn't go beyond his surface acting of yelling or being silly. It was so disappointing.
Many left at the first intermission and by the second intermission, it was a bit sad how many had walked out.
Sally Fields was there though and that was fun. Some of the other cast members we're good, but overall, it's a dreadful night. I wouldn't recommend it.
Posted: 7/21/17 at 5:04pm
There's already a thread about it, here:
https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1099351
Posted: 7/21/17 at 8:59pm
Hamlet is rarely fully successful onstage. It's monstrously difficult to produce, even though its popularity suggests otherwise.
Posted: 7/21/17 at 9:59pm
Synecdoche2 said: "Hamlet is rarely fully successful onstage. It's monstrously difficult to produce, even though its popularity suggests otherwise."
seriously? sounds to me like you need to find better productions because I have seen several that I would rank among my top 20 shows of all times.
or maybe I should start by asking what constitutes "fully successful."
Posted: 7/21/17 at 10:40pm
Fully successful meaning that it conveys the aspects of the play that make it the greatest piece of writing in human history.
I've seen many productions of the play that are amazing evenings of theatre in their own right, just none that did justice to the text, Gold's production included.
Posted: 7/21/17 at 11:28pm
No production can fully do justice to the text -- that's one of the things that make it so great to see many, many productions as you go through a theatergoing life. Each company and director sets out to scale an impossible mountain. Those that come close are world champions, but I don't believe anyone has ever gotten it all -- probably not even in Shakespeare's time. The greatest Hamlet I ever saw was Nicol Williamson. Or at least I believe that to be true, but its all in memory. I don't think I can face this one. But there will be others!
Posted: 7/22/17 at 1:13am
Well, as I suspected, there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes success. If a production succeeds on its own (and an amazing evening of theatre certainly qualifies as success in my book) then it has done its job. A play serves a production, not the other way around.
Posted: 7/22/17 at 8:42pm
yfs - I also think Nicol Williamson was one of the best Hamlets ever. He had an incredible vocal and emotional range, and more stamina than virtually any Hamlet I have seen since. I was so young when I saw him but I was convinced that he was delivering every line to me personally, as though the rest of the audience was window dressing! The odd thing is, I cannot remember who else was in the cast. I am sure they were excellent but who noticed?
I was at the matinee at the Public today. The production moves very rapidly and I thought the first "act" and the third "act" were stronger than the "act" between the two intermissions. Some of the cast were barely at high school level in terms of acting - especially, sadly, the Americans. I wasn't bothered by the lack of "costumes" or "sets" but some of the modern props were distracting, especially the syringe. I do have to say, regretfully, that Sam Gold doesn't seem to be a good director for women, as they were all surprisingly weak, possibly miscast? The Gertrude in particular was not at all regal - she had no presence and didn't seem to have much variation in her delivery. The scene in her closet with Hamlet, which should be an emotional powerhouse, fell flat for me.
Peter Friedman was superb in all of his roles, as was Ritchie Coster. The Mousetrap scene did not work at all, since it is impossible to watch Claudius watch his "brother" being murdered when the same actor plays both parts. Oscar Isaac was occasionally brilliant but the lack of trousers was frankly distracting. He has a tendency to gesture too often and too broadly and he really doesn't need to, as his delivery is quite expressive enough.
An intriguing often imaginative afternoon, but not a particularly coherent or illuminating production. Shakespeare manages to carry the day nonetheless.
Posted: 7/22/17 at 8:46pm
wonkit said: "I do have to say, regretfully, that Sam Gold doesn't seem to be a good director for women."
You do know that he directed and won a Tony for Fun Home, right?
Posted: 7/22/17 at 9:13pm
Yes, I do know that which is why I was so surprised that the women in this production didn't seem to have much confidence on stage or much sense of their characters' motivation. I made that statement in the context of this production. Thought that was kind of clear given the thread and the rest of my discussion.
Posted: 7/22/17 at 9:22pm
It sounded like you were saying that Gold is a poor director for women, which puzzled me since he has directed some pretty remarkable female performances in his career. Your comment isn't as clear as maybe you think it is, but I do actually agree that some of the weaker performances are coming from the female performers in this cast.
Posted: 7/23/17 at 1:42am
wonkit said: "yfs - I also think Nicol Williamson was one of the best Hamlets ever. He had an incredible vocal and emotional range, and more stamina than virtually any Hamlet I have seen since. I was so young when I saw him but I was convinced that he was delivering every line to me personally, as though the rest of the audience was window dressing! The odd thing is, I cannot remember who else was in the cast. I am sure they were excellent but who noticed?
I was at the matinee at the Public today. The production moves very rapidly and I thought the first "act" and the third "act" were stronger than the "act" between the two intermissions. Some of the cast were barely at high school level in terms of acting - especially, sadly, the Americans. I wasn't bothered by the lack of "costumes" or "sets" but some of the modern props were distracting, especially the syringe. I do have to say, regretfully, that Sam Gold doesn't seem to be a good director for women, as they were all surprisingly weak, possibly miscast? The Gertrude in particular was not at all regal - she had no presence and didn't seem to have much variation in her delivery. The scene in her closet with Hamlet, which should be an emotional powerhouse, fell flat for me.
Peter Friedman was superb in all of his roles, as was Ritchie Coster. The Mousetrap scene did not work at all, since it is impossible to watch Claudius watch his "brother" being murdered when the same actor plays both parts. Oscar Isaac was occasionally brilliant but the lack of trousers was frankly distracting. He has a tendency to gesture too often and too broadly and he really doesn't need to, as his delivery is quite expressive enough.
An intriguing often imaginative afternoon, but not a particularly coherent or illuminating production. Shakespeare manages to carry the day nonetheless.
"
Are you basing your statement that Sam Gold is not a good director for women entirely off of this production or have you seen other shows he has directed?
Posted: 7/23/17 at 4:29am
Yeah, Fun Home, that was a real travesty in the female character department.
Posted: 7/23/17 at 11:50am
I saw and loved FUN HOME.
And I will say it again - I am discussing his work with the women IN THIS PLAY. Everyone of them seemed miscast and quite lost about what their own dramatic arc was. The Ophelia was laughably bad, delivering every line exactly the same way and not even appreciably different mad or sane. Oddly, she was quite good as the second gravedigger, but she was playing off one of the strongest members of the cast in that short scene. I noted earlier that the Gertrude made no impression at all and she should be a strong and intriguing character since she is a mother, a queen and also in all probability an adulteress. The third woman who played several of the smaller roles sounded like a Valley Girl. Her delivery as one of the watchmen in the first scene was like a very bad high school production.
Even if badly cast, a director should be able to give some assistance to an actor about whether the character was being captured in the performance.No evidence of that here.
Posted: 7/23/17 at 2:43pm
"I do have to say, regretfully, that Sam Gold doesn't seem to be a good director for women, as they were all surprisingly weak, possibly miscast?"
I dunno. It sure seems you were making a broad, general statement and when someone called you out on the stupidity of it you basically tried to save face and backtrack....
Posted: 7/23/17 at 2:46pm
wonkit said: "I thought the first "act" and the third "act" were stronger than the "act" between the two intermissions."
Perhaps call that the second "act"?
Posted: 7/23/17 at 11:29pm
Wonkit thanks for taking the trouble to write your comments about this -- I didn't think I'd like it, somebody just suggested we go, you're helping me stick to my guns.
it sounds as if it's a little on the "clever" side, to some extent looking to elicit that kInd of response, is that possibly right? Rather than delivering the story with emotional depth.
And I doubt I'm alone in this, I didn't have trouble with your comment about the women. And am guessing you have act in quotation marks to refer to this productions divisions, isn't it a 5 act play?
Posted: 7/24/17 at 12:00pm
VirginiaK - Thanks! Definitely stick to your guns. Shakespeare is always worthwhile at some level, even in a production that may not be personally appealing.
This production is very "clever" and I actually applaud the attempt to find some new way to communicate the play. But it does mean that occasionally I found myself going "isn't that clever" instead of "oh, that's an interesting take on that scene". Keep an eye out for lasagna, for example.
And I was not emotionally involved at all, and I usually tear up at Ophelia's death and Hamlet's. The Public's Mobile production of HAMLET last fall was possibly one of the best acted and directed I have ever seen, even in a much abridged form. It had a tremendous emotional punch.
And another thank you for reading what I am pretty sure I actually said about both the women in the cast and the "acts". All five of Shakespeare's acts (created by his publishers, of course) are there, divided by two intermissions.
I am completely open to seeing more of Gold's work, although he may be more suited to modern work than classical. His casting of this showed some weakness in that area. There is so much talent available in New York that poor performances are pretty inexcusable.
Posted: 8/24/17 at 6:23pm
What is the exact run time this ended up being? I've read between 3 1/2 and 4 hours. And when do the best moments in this production happen? Say if I don't return after the second intermission what interesting aspects will I miss?
Posted: 8/24/17 at 7:50pm
Bows end at 10:50 every night. The best part of the show is by far the entirey of the third act.
Posted: 8/24/17 at 9:11pm
I saw it over the weekend and I thought it was fantastic! Of course, I'm a very big Oscar Isaac fan so I may be a bit biased lol
Posted: 8/25/17 at 9:59am
Don't believe the haters. This is a unique, stripped down production that really gets into the madness of Hamlet. It's a little gimmicky at times sure, but you'll get over that quick. I've never felt more pain for Hamlet (who usually has a "slow down, crazy" effect, to me) or Ophelia (who usually gets the whiny princess treatment) than ever before.
Posted: 8/25/17 at 10:15am
I noticed the production recently added a general male understudy, and there were reports that the matinees were canceled because Isaac was struggling with the performance schedule. Has Issac (or any of the other performers) missed a show?
