Now to explain my respect for Rory Kinnear as an actor we
have to go back to Hamlet. It seems to be where all aspiring actors eventually
end up if they didn't begin there. But who can blame them for musing over “to be or not to be”.
Over the last 25 years I think it’s fair to say that Hamlet has been publicised even more than it has done throughout it's 400 year history, with productions including Jude Law, David Tennant, Rory Kinnear and Michael Sheen just to name the last few. The last few decades have signaled a return to more Shakespearean plays and an end to some of the earlier 20th century ones such as Harold Pinter and Samuel Beckett, now seen as more niche. I would personally like to give Disney’s Lion King, reportedly based upon Hamlet, the credit for restoring Shakespearean stories and spin offs to society. It’s certainly one of the more acceptable –don’t get me wrong I enjoyed “She’s the Man” (based on Twelfth Night) but nothing can beat the Circle of Life.
I think what makes Hamlet one of Shakespeare’s most popular
plays is the sense of fear and uncertainty. Its corrupt and totalitarian regime
can be paralleled to many modern day extremist societies, and I loved the Ian
Rickson production which based it in a 1960s mental hospital. The audience can
trust no one. Not even Hamlet, is he really mad or is play acting? Ophelia
seems the most innocent character yet even then we don’t ever really know how
she feels about Hamlet.
It is Hamlet’s descent into madness that generally
distinguishes each actors’ performance from the others and Michael Sheen’s
Hamlet was sincerely and obviously a complete nutcase. This Ian Rickson production
blew my mind as Hamlet was presented as a patient in a 1960s mental hospital; his
father’s ghost was an act by his delirious self, an act he promptly forgot the
next minute. Right up until the final scene, I was quibbling with Charles
Spencer’s assertion that Rickson had been “implacably and
egotistically intent on twisting the play to his own dubious ends” since I loved the complexity and
originality of the performance.
This production had me on the edge of my seat as I wondered whether Hamlet would
recover and whether Claudius would be punished for his corrupt and sadistic
rule. However, when Michael Sheen returned as the supposed Prince Fortinbras,
alive and smiling, I lost all comprehension of the play.
David Tennant’s Hamlet was also a mystery. His erratic and
crazy-eyed behaviour was certainly true to the original speeches, yet he never
seemed to decide whether Hamlet was genuinely mad or using madness as a façade. I suppose this could have been the
point; that we can never really know Hamlet’s thoughts as the frequency and
coherency of his soliloquies diminish, but personally I prefer a more decisive approach.
It was the dramatic irony of Rory Kinnear’s performance, as
he played up the falsity and exaggerated Hamlet’s madness to the audience with
side long glances behind his mother’s back, that won my heart. At the beginning
it is clear Hamlet is merely acting the crazed and tempestuous teenager. And Kinnear
elegantly danced along the fine line between acting mad and being mad, showing
the distinction between the two perfectly. His childish tantrums were equal to
the very worst of the terrible twos and his ironically raised eyebrows as he
turned towards the audience in secret acknowledgment of his act won him endless
sympathy, at least from my heart.
Michael Sheen’s and Rory Kinnear’s performances of Hamlet were
for me the best because they managed to bring humour to Shakespeare’s tragedies
and involve the audience. In these productions I was rooting for the
protagonists in a way that I wasn’t watching David Tennant’s.
Although Hamlet will never be my favourite of Shakespeare’s
tragedies –Richard III wins that hands down –it is one that I find easier to
relate to. A story of revenge and teenage rebellion, we could be reading any book for "young adults".
No comments:
Post a Comment