The Tragedy of Hamlet

One could judge this two ways: first, as an original, self-contained film by Peter Brook; or second, as a production of Shakespeare's play.

While it's true that this is a handsome and well-acted production, I have to mark it down insofar as I think it gives the viewer a somewhat skewed idea of the play. Some of the cuts are actually quite drastic, particularly at the beginning of the play (it opens right into "O that this too too sullied flesh would melt...", and jumps right to Hamlet's meeting with the ghost), and while some of the lost dialog is replaced later on, it's often placed where it makes no sense (1. Polonius's and Ophelia's "Tender yourself more dearly".../"...All the holy vows of heaven" exchange takes place while Ophelia is telling her encounter in the sewing closet, when Polonius is supposed to be REPENTING his interference in Hamlet and Ophelia's romance; 2. The "Cast thy nighted color off...return not to Wittenberg" exchange comes AFTER Hamlet has spoken with the ghost, which changes the dynamic of Hamlet's barbs to Claudius entirely; and 3. "To be or not to be..." is dropped down in place of "How all occasions do inform against me...", when Hamlet's mood is inappropriate for it).

Mostly, though, the production bugs me in one specific way: it is done entirely humorlessly; Osric is gone, much of the graveyard scene is gone, and Polonius is played with all stately dignity. POLONIUS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A COMIC CHARACTER! The play, most especially the first half, is loaded with jokes which are designed to throw the audience off guard for the trauma and pathos of the climax. If the mood of the whole is played dark and brooding, you're losing much of the entertainment factor at which Shakespeare was a master. 'Hamlet' is a roller-coaster, not a subway train.

In sum, I'd say that Brook's 'Hamlet' is recommended for those who are familiar with the play and can see this as one man's vision, but is not recommended for those coming to the play for the first time.

Peter Brook has done it again! This colourful TV/ video of Brook's stage version of HAMLET is a joy to behold.

Brook's direction of the actors in 'The Tragedy of Hamlet' lit a new pathway into the magic world of Shakespearean interpretations. We've come a long way from Lawrence Olivier's rather stilted, well-enunciated delivery of "To be or not to be...'. That was the 50s and this is now!

The main thing about this 2 & 1/2 hour production is that even though this is a shortened version with much of the plot left out: such as the scene of Polonius's farewell to Laertes and many others, they are there in the back of your head. You wonder how these actors would have done the lines - and, I did wonder this but I did not really 'miss' them. Brook's Hamlet was rivetingly played by a black actor with dreadlocks. Adrian Lester [32], the Jamaican-born actor from Birmingham (England) remarked: "Is theatre not an act of the imagination?" The veteran actress, Natasha Parry, (Brook's wife) tries a bit unsuccessfully to be stately as Hamlet's mother, but overall she is OK as the queen in deep royal purple. And I guess, it's nice to see an actor, who is 'too old' rather than too young. Throughout, Brook reveals his connections to India... Ophelia is played by the Paris-based Kuchipudi dancer Shantala Shivalingappa. Her Ophelia had an innocent, untouched quality.

But, of course, the whole point of this production is that most modern audiences may be familiar with the full-length Hamlet, and as a result, had become a little bored with Shakespeare's subplots and verbiage.

With this in mind, Brook cut out about one-third of the dialogue and removed major scenes and speeches. The audience soon realizes that Brook uses the assumption that there is a leaner, cleaner Hamlet lurking beneath Shakespeare's expansive work. Brook reduced scenery to an Indian flavoured brightly vermilion colored carpet, bright silk pillows and a few cyan blue low stools and tables on coaster wheels, so that his eight actors (and one musician) could do their business unhampered by starched lace and Elizabethan costumes.

The minimalist setting intensified, accelerated and smoothed the way for the action, highlighting both Shakespeare's magnificent words and Brook's masterful choreography.

The eight actors, several of whom double up on roles, brought everything alive for me. Jeffrey Kissoon played both uncle Claudius and the Ghost of Hamlet's father, and really opened the contrast and the complexity of the human psyche. Critics complained that for anyone who is new to Hamlet that the doubling up of Rosencrantz and Gildenstern with Naseeruddin Shah and Rohan Siva (as Laertes), and as the First and the Second Players, is somewhat disconcerting and possibly confusing. But we can learn to live with that... and I felt that the final effect was worth it.

I loved the fact that at last I could follow the plot & feel genuine anguished sorrow at the destruction of Ophelia's mind, as virtues of trust and loyalty were intermingled with tragedy and death. I could positively 'see' the internal workings of Hamlet & Claudius's hearts and minds, as they figured out who they could trust in this life and the next.

Basically that is why I admired Brook's production, because it was a colourful, lively, amusing and deeply human piece that touched my heart and stirred my soul.

I version to see for director perspective , knowing the play, accepting, with tolerance, the absence or reducement of significant scenes, admiring the provocative cast and the oriental air .

Sure, an experimental exercise and this creates the temptation to define it more a Hamlet of Peter Brook than one of Shakespeare but it offers just interesting gifts, from the acting of Jeffery Kisoon to the special Ophelia of Shantala. Shivanligappa or the fair portrait of gertrude proposed by Natasha Perry.

Surprises - first, Scott Handy as Horatio and.the strange Polonius of Bruce Myers. But, it is Peter Brooke Hamlet . And not last, this is the matters detail.