Author: Natalie Steers

Sunday night I attended a screening of National Theater Live: Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” at the Michigan Theater. People of varying ages found reasons to brave the cold on that chilly evening. The younger age group could be heard chattering excitedly about BBC’s “Sherlock” and expressing anticipation for seeing the TV series’ star, Benedict Cumberbatch, perform as Hamlet. The older crowd formed into their own groups, talking and occasionally bursting out in praise of “Shakespeare…” before the rest of their wisdom about the subject got lost in the babble. And there were college students, somewhere inbetween, drawn to the event because of its combination of all of the above. I arrived around 6:30 and in the next half hour the room continued to steadily fill, the noise growing in proportion to the increase in people.

The lights dimmed and there was a scramble to quickly get back into seats from the bathroom. We were first treated to an interview with Benedict Cumberbatch. During the interview, in which myself and the rest of the audience at the Michigan Theater laughed at his good natured jokes and anecdotes, Cumberbatch made a comment that was one of my largest take-aways from the evening. He referred to the “universality” of the play. This pre-show event also included following Cumberbatch to a school where children performed a section of the famous “to be or not to be” speech for him. Once again, this interaction speaks to the universal nature of the issues Hamlet faces. Anyone and everyone can relate to his situation; a fact that was mirrored in the diverse age range that made up the audience in the theater Sunday night.

(As I will not be summarizing the play here, I’ve provided a link to the Wikipedia page for the curious reader who would like to know more about the story or the history of the play in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet )

The first element to catch my attention was the set and the lighting. Hamlet’s castle was giant! The doorways and walls towered over the tiny actors the entire show. They seemed to be playing almost in a dollhouse. In fact, there was a toy motif that was prevalent throughout the show. As Hamlet feigns madness, he not only dons the garments of a toy soldier, but actually plays with a “miniature” castle (Cumberbatch could fit inside it easily but its size was small in comparison to the looming set) and life sized toy soldiers. The idea of toys and playthings became connected with Hamlet’s increasing distress.

The lighting throughout was beautiful! It allowed Hamlet’s house and its giant proportions to remain onstage the entire show, even for scenes that took place outside, all because the lighting guided our eyes. We felt we were outside. This is ingenious not only in its creativity (bringing outside indoors and vise versa) but it also allowed for seamless transitions from scene to scene. Both the set and the lighting create a mysterious mood that heightened the idea of the actors being toys in a game. This seemed to bring a greater emphasis on the idea of fate in the play.

We also saw the sense of place reflect the growing deterioration of the royal family and their household. Right before intermission, as Claudius states his final line, the entire stage was showered in what looked to be black confetti. Upon the opening of the second half, we see that the stage had been transformed: The dirt or ash that covered the entire stage was also heaped in the doorways. While it still irritates me that I am unsure whether this was supposed to be dirt or ash, the message was clear: The unclean house represented the growing uncleanliness of the royal family as they all delved deeper into murder and deception. The idea is amazing! I do wish, however, that it had been done in a way that any person watching would have known exactly what was being blown all around the stage. I spent precious time trying to figure that out instead of watching the actors.

Benedict Cumberbatch was at the center of this production from the beginning. NT Live encouraged this as well by making a special interview with him the first thing we saw. I am a big fan of his work, and “Hamlet” especially is a play that is carried by its leading character. Cumberbatch did not disappoint! His Hamlet focused a lot on the humor in the character. He acknowledged Hamlet’s sometimes bizarre nature, even when he was not faking madness. And that was what made this performance so amazing. Benedict Cumberbatch made you love Hamlet; when he started to act in questionable ways (ways that would make you despise Hamlet if he was portrayed by a lesser actor), the audience was still rooting for Hamlet until the very end.

Hamlet was never my favorite character because I always thought it was hard to be sympathetic towards him. He seemed to be handling everything so poorly right from the outset, how could it end any other way? But that opinion changed Sunday. That Hamlet was smart and trying his very best to make everything right: I honestly wanted him to come out on top, even though I knew the ending. Cumberbatch walked the line well between Hamlet faking madness and slowly, actually descending into a form of madness as his character became increasingly overwhelmed. As I watched Cumberbatch’s performance on Sunday night, one of the turning points for the character was his monologue where he calls himself “a coward” and “a villain”. The other was, of course, the “to be or not to be” speech. The simple fact that I can pinpoint those speeches as significant to the character makes Cumberbatch’s performance one to be remembered.

While Cumberbatch barely left the stage, he was supported by a cast of amazing talent. All cast members seemed to be in a constant emotional readiness and every reaction was believable. Of particular note was the character of Polonius, played by Jim Norton. Norton added new depth and humor to a character I had never given a great amount of thought to. But his portrayal was such, grabbing each moment and making it mean something, that he became my second favorite.

One of my other favorites in the performance was Sian Brooke, who played Ophelia. I had always strongly disliked the character of Ophelia because she is the trope of the stereotypical weak and distressed female. But in this production, Brooke gave her new agency. Or at least allowed me to see her in a new way. In this more contemporary version, Ophelia had a camera. She took pictures and she saw things. She liked Hamlet but was told to stay away from him. She was continually manipulated both verbally and physically by the men around her. She was often being grabbed and dragged somewhere by men who supposedly cared for her. It shed a new light on the patriarchal powers that surrounded her and how this, combined with the death of the father, eventually drove her to take her own life.

While watching a filmed version of a live theatrical performance is never the same as actually being there (and the act of seeing it through a film media changes some of the impressions), I thoroughly enjoyed my Sunday evening. It was a great show that offered something for everyone and helped to bring this story, now 400 years old, to a new audience!