30 PLAYS IN 30 DAYS: Play #24 "I Hate Hamlet" by Paul Rudnick

 

I have decided for the month of September to read 30 plays in 30 days. It is my belief that, if possible, a play should be read in one sitting to get a better inherent sense of the dramatic arc. Each day, I will write a short post here about the play of the day.

Play #24

I Hate Hamlet by Paul Rudnick

When I was accepted into the acting program of Boston University's School for the Arts, I was given a t-shirt that had an image of John Barrymore as Hamlet with a speech bubble proclaiming, "To B.U. or not to B.U."  I mention this not only because even after all of these years I am proud to have been accepted into such a competitive program (ah, the days when I really believed I had the talent to actually make something of myself--- but I digress), but to give you an idea how John Barrymore, of one of the big theatrical families (and yes, he is the same Barrymore as Drew) is considered one of the most famous American Hamlets. In fact, after his 101 performances as Hamlet on Broadway, he was called "the greatest living American tragedian." 

Thus, of course he appears as a ghost in Paul Rudnick's I Hate Hamlet. In a note before the text, Rudnick tells how the play was inspired because he answered an ad in the New York Times real estate section for a "medieval duplex", to find that the apartment had been occupied by Barrymore in 1917.  I Hate Hamlet is about a handsome, though somewhat bland television actor of questionable talent, Andrew Rally, who decided to audition for Hamlet in the park after his television series was cancelled. He has rented a new apartment in New York, and, lo and behold, it once belonged to Barrymore. After a wacky seance (that, truthfully, doesn't feel earned) run by his wacky real estate agent, Barrymore is summoned---- though what really brought him back was to help the young actor prepare for the greatest role in the English-speaking theater. And whether teaching him the best way to stuff his tights, or performing Hamlet's speech to the Players, he succeeds in teaching this nervous young actor the transformative power of the Bard. 

It's a witty play, with some genuine laughs and a truly New York state of mind--- it's no mistake that Andrew's old TV director shows up with his coarse Los Angeles views to try to save Andrew from this "theater thing." And while occasionally some of the characters seem a bit one-dimensional and over-the-top, tis can be forgiven as it is a play about the theater and being larger than life. And in truth, I am wired to appreciate a play that honestly believes there is a transformative power in the art of Shakespeare for any actor, or, indeed, any person. 

Paul Rudnick's first play was Poor Little Lambs about a female Yale student who wants to join the all-male Whiffenpoofs. I knew his play Jeffrey and the film adaptation, a piece that won him an Obie and a John Gassner Award, as well as comparisons to Oscar Wilde. He has also written some very witty movies like Addams Family Values, Sister Act and In & Out (which is really fun). 

I Hate Hamlet did well, but actually achieved some controversy when the famed actor Nicol Williamson (a famous Hamlet in his own right, and was said to be "touched by genius" by Samuel Beckett) in the role of Barrymore, began attacking his co-star Evan Handler too realistically and dangerously in an onstage sword fight. Handler left the production because of it. 

Full disclosure:  I hate seen a production of this play when I was in high school, but didn't remember anything about it. It must not have been memorable. But it made reading the script today fun.

Understanding Shakespeare

The man himself

Greetings and welcome to Theater is a Sport.  My name is Bobby Keniston, and this blog is my own little piece of the internet to talk about all things theater.

I was troubled the other day when I saw a fairly new edition of a Shakespeare textbook of the play Romeo and Juliet. If you opened it up, on even number pages you found Shakespeare's text.  On the odd, adjacent page, you had Shakespeare's text translated into more colloquial English. At the risk of sounding like an old timer, the Shakespeare editions I approve of are either the Oxford or the Norton's (with an edge to the Norton's).  Yes, this contains footnotes, but it never attempts to "translate" a text that is already written in English! I can't help but think that teaching kids from such a "we've done all the work for you" text will only guarantee that the students will NEVER have an appreciation or an understanding of Shakespeare. To me, this method of teaching makes about as much sense as assigning the Cliff Notes for Great Expectations instead of the novel itself.

Needless to say, this makes me sad. And I'm sure Orwell is somewhere in the Afterlife weeping.

Perhaps this is controversial, and I certainly don't want to offend hard-working English teachers across the country, but, quite frankly, I don't believe high schools, by and large, teach Shakespeare very well.  There is a certain myth of terror when a student approaches Shakespeare--- "I'll never understand it!," and, in my experience, little is done to shatter this myth for students.  And it boils down to this one thing:

SHAKESPEARE IS TAUGHT AS LITERATURE.

This is all well and good, and, indeed, Shakespeare's plays are literature.  The problem arises that Shakespeare is taught in the same way English teachers teach novels that are great literature.  And therein we find the problem.

PLAYS AND NOVELS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LITERARY MEDIUMS

Yes, these days, I can sit down and read a play by Shakespeare simply for literary enjoyment, because I've been reading his plays for years and have an understanding of them.  I never may have had this understanding, however, if it hadn't been for my high school English teacher Dawn MacPherson Allen.  When we read Shakespeare in her class, she took the class time to have us read them out loud.  And not just a portion of them out loud.  We read them out loud start to finish.

Shakespeare, like all playwrights, wrote his plays to be performed.  His language is meant to pass through an actor's tongue.  It was written to be visual and physical, and, ultimately, provoke feeling from the audience, whether it be laughter or tears.

Analyzing Shakespeare's plays in terms of literary techniques and such is certainly valuable toward an understanding of the text, but, in my humble opinion, the best way to understand Shakespeare's work is to study it as an actor and a director would study it.  Want to get a grasp on Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech?  Tackle it as an actor would.  How does it relate to me?  How would I act if my father had died, and my mother married my uncle shortly thereafter?  How would I feel if everyone I thought I could trust suddenly seems to be playing me?  What are the big "as ifs" in my own life that help me see what Hamlet is going through?

And then, by the very action of speaking the language (that, yes, is ENGLISH), with a focus on trying to perform it, a student will begin to internalize the language, and the more they practice, the more the language feels like an extension of their own.

No, not every student in an English class is destined to be a great classical actor, but that's no the point.  After all, not every student in an English class is destined to be a great literary scholar, either. The point is to expose Shakespeare's writing to students in the way it was meant to be consumed.  As a play.  Will some students still understand it better than others?  Certainly.  But my guess is that at least more students will be ACTIVELY ENGAGED in figuring him out, instead of letting some watered down text tell them what Shakespeare is trying to say.  AND THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. Students learning to figure out what great works of literature and great works of theater mean to them.

I humbly submit that Shakespeare should not only be taught by English teachers, but by Drama teachers.  I also humbly submit that everyone who wants to be a high school English teacher should be required to take an acting in Shakespeare class for college credit.  (Of course, I think all teachers should have to take an acting class or two anyway, but that's for another blog post.)

Thank you, Mrs. Allen, for teaching me to appreciate Shakespeare by reading him out loud. You've made my world a much richer place because of it.