Hamlet
Once More, Different
A Report by Anne
Fielding
Hamlet
once more is walking in the
hall,
Hamlet
once more, different in the
hall,
And
as he walks, he’s thinking for us all.
—from
Shakespeare’s Hamlet: Revisited by
Eli Siegel
On a Sunday afternoon in September
1963, at a Time Enough Poetry Class, I heard Eli Siegel read the first
act of Hamlet.
It was an important experience in theatre. Without smoke and dim
lights,
supernatural sounds or eerie music, there was the platform at
Elsinore,
with Bernardo, Marcellus, and Horatio waiting. There was the mystery
and wonder
with the feeling of cold night; there was the poetry and the life of
it.
Since
January 20th I had been performing in Eli Siegel’s critical
masterpiece Shakespeare’s
Hamlet: Revisited at the Terrain
Gallery and the Gramercy Arts Theatre. What a time it had been! New
York City
had become aware of a new Hamlet. As the opening sentence of the
Prologue tells: "It
is a new Hamlet because it is a Hamlet who does not care for his
father entirely." This had
never been seen
before by any critic, and it
affected all that happens in the play, and all that does not happen.
My own work as actor had deeply benefited with the
months of playing. Yet, on this particular Sunday afternoon I found, to
my
actor’s joy, that there was more to see. For in the way Mr. Siegel read
the
lines of Act I—lines I knew well—there was a new mingling of the
everyday and
the grand, the poetic and the ordinary, the permanent and the
touchable. It is
this mingling every actor of Shakespeare looks for. This reading had
the
everydayness of prose and the greatness of poetry as one thing. Eli
Siegel
understood poetry, and he understood the self; what people feel inside.
He
said: “The world, art, and self explain each other; each is the
aesthetic
oneness of opposites.” The knowledge he founded, Aesthetic Realism,
meets what
actors and people are looking for.
When we act in
Shakespeare and the classics, we have these questions: How can we honor
the
poetry and at the same time be fresh, spontaneous? How can we be just
to the
music of an iambic pentameter line and to the immediacy of the moment,
the
lively impulse? I had these questions when I played Juliet for the New
York
Shakespeare Festival, and Hermia in A Midsummer Night’s Dream
in Central
Park, and when I was the queen in Richard II at Stratford.
These
questions, as always, beautifully rage in the acting schools and on the
boards
of the land.
Poetry and Humanity
On
that September day we heard a reading that was truthful to the poetry
and the
humanity. Technique and emotion were one—they were not simply
present—they were
one. There was no split.
In the beginning,
Mr. Siegel read the lines simply and quietly. His pace was slower than
I had
heard before. In this reading there was something artless and almost
casual—almost, but not quite.
Who’s
there?
Nay,
answer me; stand, and unfold yourself.
—These beginning lines came
straight from a self that was engaged. Within the slowness was
something
arresting.—
I
have
seen nothing
—Here, a slight pause before the
word nothing gave a sense of drama in the unknown. Throughout
there were
new and unexpected accents and pauses. Sometimes a word was lingered
on,
surprisingly. All of it had a rightness—the choices came from a source
that was
sure. The room was still. Thought was going on and thought had become
dramatically vivid.
When
Francisco said:
Not
a
mouse stirring
—there was delicate humor. One
could almost feel that mouse, the way the line was said. A
mouse in
relation to a universe, vast and unknown, made for such comfortable
lightsomeness. Surely this is a small moment, but it was moments like
this one
that gave a quality of something new, fresh, something happening that
very
moment. And the humor and the mystery were of the same world. That is
why a
seemingly small moment and the grander moments of terror and great
poetry were
of a piece. Reality seemed to have a wonderful coherence.
We
heard all the words and they made sense. In the performances of Hamlet
I
have seen and heard, that is often not the case. Words are sometimes
not
understood, even when you know them by heart. Speeches are taken as if
they
were just that—speeches. The nuances of life and thought seem absent.
And then
there is that tone—orotund, well-trained, “cultured,” and not
very
human. Lines don’t come from selves that live. (The other side of this
is the
“folksy,” “just us” approach.) It is hard to be fair to poetry and to
life in
the ordinary, even rough sense.
William
Carlos Williams said something of Eli Siegel’s work as a poet which
comments on
our experience listening to Mr. Siegel read Hamlet: “The
evidence is
technical but it comes out at the non-technical level as either great
pleasure
to the beholder, a deeper taking of the breath, a feeling of
cleanliness, which
is the sign of the truly new.”*
This was so as Mr. Siegel read Hamlet.
It
was utterly down to earth and it soared.
Seriousness
and Humor
The
first long speech of Claudius to the court in Scene 2 was interesting,
and, of
all things, funny! With all his pomposity, Claudius was a person.
Even
within villainy there was uncertainty. For the first time this scene
seemed to
be about real events, not just exposition. Hamlet’s soliloquy in Scene
2 jutted
more and was less smooth than I had ever heard. How hard it is to have
the “O,
that this too too solid flesh would melt,” soliloquy sound unplanned.
Yet it
did, even while the poetry was there.
A
high point was the reading of Scenes 4 and 5—the famous Ghost
Scenes—beginning
with Horatio’s “Look, my lord, it comes!” This was said with slow,
grand
terror, with a pause after the word look, and another after my
lord,
and the voice low and ominous.
These scenes had
intense stillness. Questioning seemed to be going on at every
turn—questioning
within and without. How unconventionally these scenes were—I almost
said played,
they seemed played—read. There was none of the usual “theatricality”
which
consists of persons talking very loud and fast, in tones of Shakespearean
urgency and reverence. Here, as Hamlet asked his father
questions—Say, why
is this? wherefore? what should we do?—there was intensity, but it came
from a
belief in the situation.
A Father and Son
The scene had that
mingling of the awesome and the domestic, as Hamlet spoke to his
father, as the
soldiers watched and spoke in confusion, as the Ghost listened. There
was the
uncertainty of life at its greatest and most terrifying, and life as
ordinary,
immediate, embarrassingly domestic.
A thing that
struck me was this: These Ghost scenes were read completely differently
from
anything I had imagined. They were ever so much slower and they were
quiet—again there was the feeling of almost
casual. There was a sense, through the way Mr. Siegel read the lines,
of things
creeping up on you and taking hold of you without your knowing just
what was
happening. Words, lines unfolded—with a wonderful awkwardness and
ease—and they
seemed to come at that very moment, with no plan, no dramatic
idea in
mind, no theatrical moment thought of. And none of it spilled
over,
either.
Since that Sunday,
Eli Siegel has read the whole of Hamlet, and his reading has
been
recorded. Its newness remains. It will be studied by persons in the
theatre of
today and in the theatre of the future. Honesty in a great field is to
be cared
for and learned from.
I mention some
high points:
In Act II, Scene 2,
in the scene with Polonius and Hamlet, there was a quietly mournful
humor,
instead of the usual brittle sarcasm—
Hamlet. Words,
words, words.
Polonius. What
is the matter, my lord?
Hamlet. Between
who?
Polonius. I
mean, the matter you read, my lord.
—Polonius—a person at last—was
affected by Hamlet, even as he spied on him.
In
the Closet Scene, when Hamlet sees the Ghost, there was tremendous
emotion and
great control. There was the sadness of people who are close but who do
not
understand each other, and perhaps never will. As Hamlet said:
On
him, on him! Look you, how pale
he glares!
—there was the quiet of infinite
sadness. There was no shouting, no rant, no hollow elocution.
And
when the Queen told of the death of Ophelia:
There
is a willow grows aslant a
brook
—one had the feeling that, indeed,
Ophelia had just drowned. The Queen was real and the situation was.
And
Scene I of Act V at Ophelia’s grave had all the pretense in grief that
has ever
been shown beside a grave, and all the anger that has ever been felt in
seeing
this pretense. ’Swounds! the scene was great! The lines:
This
is I, Hamlet, the Dane!
were naked in power. When Hamlet
and Laertes grappled in the grave, they grappled. The forces of
good and
evil in the universe fought as these two fought, and the battle was
beautiful.
Who Is Hamlet?
Throughout,
Hamlet’s thoughtfulness, his deep gaiety and charm, his care for people
were
present. In the last act, we felt Hamlet’s tiredness, his weariness.
Hamlet
became tangible.
Sir, I will walk here in
the hall; if it please
his Majesty, ’tis the
breathing time of day
with me. . .
One
knew that Hamlet was going to die in the fencing match, and that
nothing could
prevent it, and it was like knowing this about someone dear to us.
Hamlet was a
person, not only a character in a play. Isn’t this how Shakespeare
meant it to
be? Didn’t he mean us to feel that Hamlet lived and died, and that his
living
and dying is of us, of our very selves?
Hamlet
matters to man and the whole world. Through this reading by Eli Siegel,
we who
heard it understood better why Hamlet matters so much, and why we care
for him
as we do. So I am grateful to William Shakespeare for giving the world
Hamlet,
and I am grateful to Eli Siegel for showing the world Hamlet,
as he was
meant to be.
Edwin
Booth as Hamlet, in 1887
|