310 Blog Post 4

Blog Post 4—Hamlet

            During our class discussion of the Globe’s production of Hamlet this past week, the topic of misogyny came up. This isn’t too surprising given the play’s topics, but what was surprising was the conversation that came out of it. In the class, some people pointed out that the fact that they used a woman to play Hamlet and then upped the amount of pettiness and general whininess of the character. We all generally agreed that doing this, while emphasizing the misogyny already present in Shakespeare’s writing, didn’t actually say anything about said misogyny. There was no satirizing, no refuting, no commentary at all.

The next general consensus that was formed from this observation was that it falls to the fault of the artistic director. She didn’t manage to actually have something significant to say about the subject and so she left it as an open-ended one. And whether or not that was meant to be the goal can easily be debated all day long. But what I am more interested in, is the question of whether or not leaving potentially important things unsaid really matters. Should the artistic director have refuted the idea of misogyny that is present in this play or is simply pointing it out enough?

In my opinion, as with many things, there are many factors to consider when thinking about the importance of refuting common themes in historical texts that are no longer as acceptable today. The main one being just how unacceptable the topic is. For example, misogyny, while not something that should be endorsed, is also not super high on the list of things that should be commented on.

Don’t get me wrong, I definitely think that the artistic director made a mistake by not using this female Hamlet to satirize or refute themes of misogyny. I actually think that would have been really interesting. But she didn’t. Or, if she did, she failed to make clear her point. And while annoying and somewhat confusing, I don’t actually think it takes away from the experience of viewing the play. We still get Shakespeare’s intended interpretation and nothing else really has to change.

For an example of something that should be commented on or worked into a production where it normally isn’t, I look to the Globe’s production of The Winter’s Tale. At the end of this play about tyranny, one of the cast members stepped out onto the stage to give a little speech. One that declared their refusal to accept an actual tyrant into the normally welcoming arms of their country. The Globe took a stand against what it saw as an unacceptable thing, against something that many consider to stand for inhumanity.

This particular happening was, of course, not part of the actual production. But it does fall into the same category, just instead of hinting towards a meaning they outright stated it. The difference between what happened at 3 a.m. after The Winter’s Tale and what was pointed to and then ignored in Hamlet, is the level of intensity the topic had. One is the general mistreatment of women by Shakespeare, the other about the current and physical mistreatment of actual living humans.

In the case of this production of Hamlet, I don’t feel that anything actually does need to be commented on when it comes to misogyny. While this doesn’t actually answer the question of why they chose to play the character in this way, I feel it may help give some resolution to it. If we can decide that it doesn’t need commenting, then we can accept it and move on. And at least it is an answer to the question of whether or not things like this should be acted on.

I like to think that the artistic director was trying to say something about misogyny. If I were to absolutely need a reason for why she played Hamlet as such a petty and selfish person while using an actress for the part, I’d like to think she was doing it to mock Shakespeare. Mainly because I think that would be hilarious and awesome to see, but also because, that’s really the only kind of message I can see being made. Clearly, she fell short of this goal (if it even was the goal). But there’s no harm in hoping.