Sunday, June 19, 2016
I have heard
That guilty creatures sitting at a play
Have by the very cunning of the scene
Been struck so to the soul that presently
They have proclaimed their malefactions.
(2.2.523-52)
Hamlet is still strong. Bolder and less polished than Richard III. More deconstructed, more challenging, more revelatory of the play. There was conspicuous bleed from Richard III into Lars’ performance. Hamlet's antic disposition had more than a flavor of Richard's naked villainy. One moment from the first time I saw it that shattered the room barely registered this time. And I don’t think its because I was seeing once more. I was thinking about Diderot when I was watching. Lucky I get to do what I do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This will be word vomit, so please forgive me in advance. Richard III was incredible! I cannot say I felt the same about Hamlet. In Richard III, there was a sense of ease and freedom in Lars' performance. In Hamlet, I felt Lars was confined by audience expectation for him to 'perform'. Does freedom exist for a performer as accomplished as Lars? Perhaps having a group of adoring fans and supporters grants one the confidence/permission to make bolder choices---maybe that is freeing is some way. I wonder how, as an actor, I can have a relationship with the audience yet remain true to myself and the work without feeling the pressure to please. This is not to say Lars was doing any of these things. I've said it before, he is the weirdest genius I have ever seen on stage. I'm truly lucky to have experienced his work.
ReplyDelete