Reading through Hamlet I found a short speech my Hamlet that caught my eye. Usually we are told that one of Shakespeare’s most important attributes is the liberty he gives the actor. On any other play, this would be true since there are no specific instructions of how a play must be. He only gives general outlines of what characters must be and how they must act through the lines. These are usually open to a wide range of interpretations. Then comes the speech:
“Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue. But if you mouth it, as many of your players do, I had as lief the town crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand thus, but use all gently, for in the very torrent, tempest, and (as I may say) whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. Oh, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise. I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant. It out-Herods Herod. Pray you, avoid it.” (3.2.1-15)
It seems to contradict that idea since it is giving a very strong point of view won what appropriate acting is. Also, it is clear that these lines carried a meaning beyond what Hamlet wished to say, conveying an idea that came from Shakespeare himself. For this, it is essential to understand the difference between a moment when the author writes what one of his characters thinks or believes in and when he conveys his own thoughts through the character. This short speech is meant to show the excitement has about this play. He wishes to make everything go perfectly in order to ensure the full execution of his plan. Still, there are an infinite amount of way in which Shakespeare could have achieved this same purpose (like yet another soliloquy). The fact he deliberately makes it a speech about appropriate acting reveals his intentions.
Now, in terms of content it is meant as a rough guideline on what a Shakespearean actor must be like in order to fulfill the role intended. It must be performed using the exact words on the play, never showing excessive emotions and always in an appropriate volume and tone. At least, this play is meant not for the “groundlings” but for a more refined class that can understand a more refined level of the art. In general, these instructions intend to make the play more realistic. As Hamlet said: “For anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature…” (3.2.20-25) In other words, theater is a representation of reality and thus it must be as accurate as possible. This is meant to help Hamlet in his plans because the play must be realistic in order to have an effect on the guilty king. But also, it serves to the purpose of presenting Hamlet appropriately. Such an unlikely sequence of events as the ones that occurred to Hamlet are a very unlikely and therefore a great of effort is required from the actors in order to make it believable.
Hamlet is a play that allows the actor to show his true potential. Through the understanding of the characters’ situations and actions he can make inferences on their personality. These inferences reflect the interpretation of the character. In these two videos we can see interpretations of Hamlet in two different stages on the play. This explains why there is such a great difference in the way each represents him but also, it reveals details of the interpretations they have of him.
Here Hamlet has a more violent and active attitude towards his situation. He now wants to prove his uncle really killed his father. This scene shows the process that leads him to use the play as the mean to achieve this. His gestures and way of acting through the stage resemble those of a mad man. Two elements used here exemplify this. First, the moment when he destroys the camera to ensure he is alone. The play does not clarify how he does this. Hamlet only says: “Now I am alone” (Act 2 Scene 2 Line 549). The way he violently takes the camera and throws it on the ground shows the state of mind that the actor believes Hamlet is in. In this interpretation, emotions control Hamlet into bursts of rage that continue throughout the soliloquy. Although there are moments of reflection, these only serve to highlight the burst of emotions that precede or follow them. The second element is the way he glances directly at the camera. In these moments he looks at the camera as if asking for answers from the public. Although this does not mean he breaks the fourth wall, it does effectively portray his desperate need for one. Combining these two key elements that the actor uses, we can state his interpretation of the character. This is a desperate Hamlet, whose emotions have taken control of him to the point where we doubt of his sanity.
The Hamlet here contrasts greatly with his other version. The news of his mother marrying his uncle so soon shocks him greatly. Even if these actions tempt him to take action, he continues to maintain control over his feelings. The actor portrays this internal conflict in his own way. When he talks, he turns around as if to face himself. This portrays how the character seeks answers within. Also, his final sentences which show his decision, reflect the actors interpretation. In this case, he takes it with a tone of frustration. This expresses his strong disagreement with this decision but is forced to take it quietly as he knows his opinions will not be taken into account. The general the body language of the actor shows this frustration and makes a clear statement of Hamlet at that point: his mother’s decision infuriates him, but he knows any actions against it from his part will only aggravate the situation. This frustrates him greatly not only because of his powerlessness but also because he is forced to look for answers in himself.
Because the two scenes are situated at different moments during the play, one could argue these differences in interpretation originate from the changes Hamlet undergoes throughout the play. Still, some very general notions about the character’s personality remain intact. Like the fact that the first Hamlet is much more unstable than the second one. This means that the second version will only break the social conventions instilled in him under specific circumstances of great stress. Meanwhile the first version will only need a small push to obtain the same results. This in conjunction with all the other minor differences make it hard to believe both are representations of the same character.
The name of the character clearly makes a reference to his life and what he is. This appears throughout the play consistently, not by the judgment of the audience but by that of Krapp himself. He realizes that throughout his life he has improved, but, as time passes, this improvement turns into frustration. He knows that the tape he records right now will be object of his mocking at a later time (if there is one).
This moment shows when he makes fun of himself: “Hard to believe I was ever that young whelp. The voice! Jesus! And the aspirations! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.) And the resolutions! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.)” (Beckett) This passage contains elements used to describe a person in his youth. “The aspirations” portray the idealism that young people normally carry. “The resolutions” evoke that optimism a young person has about its future. Krapp has changed continuously through the course of his life and in the end, finds all his other versions to be fools. They were all lost, like he is now, only that in the present, he is never able to recognize this.
Krapp feels pity towards his other selves because of their inability to see the truth that he now has. Still, in the first shot from Magee’s representation, the character finds himself lost in thought. Like all those other versions of him, he can not find his current truth. Although his life seems dark and unhappy we can all relate to it. From our current advantageous position we can reflect upon the past and see which decisions were correct or incorrect. Aside from the acting and the script the idea of a person looking with disappointment at his past life is a possible future for everybody. Being something that can be so easily related to the audience, this play has the potential of truly capturing it. After all, everyone’s life can be Krapp if we choose to make it so.
Viewing and reading Krapp’s Last Tape highlights the importance of the acting. Here we see Patrick Magee in an adaptation that captures the scenes transmitted by the script and adds the emotions required to immerse the audience in it. From the script alone one can deduce the general tone of the play. Still, the acting remains essential. In this case, the subtle facial expressions and tone of the actor help show in greater depth Beckett’s idea.
The play has an overall darkness and melancholy. Although the setting and script evoke these emotions, their intensity remains to the actor’s discretion. From the insignificant pleasure Krapp experiences from saying “spool”, to the nostalgia in his expression when remembering his past love, the script tells us of their existence, but the actor defines them. Similarly to the way there can be several Hamlets and Romeos there can be different Krapps. In Krapp's Last Tape, the text describes with greater detail the actions of the character on stage. This restrains the actor more than Shakespeare but still leaves room for interpretation. If this play with such specific descriptions allows this, the possibilities for Shakespeare would apparently be endless.
In the specific case of Magee’s representation, we see a man with little of his sanity left that attempts to examine, in that special date, his past. The first shot shows him hopeless and lost in thought. This sets the tone of the rest of the play. When listening to his recordings, he has lost himself in the thoughts of what he used to be. We see, through the entire act, the efforts of a man trying to reflect and relive his past. The script does not include that key expression. It only covers the essential things necessary to portray what the writer wanted.
The ability to portray the characters they want without having to express their emotions directly, makes both Shakespeare and Samuel Becket similar. A true Krapp’s Last Tape must be melancholic and sad the same way The Taming of The Shrew must be comical in its nature. The author achieves this not by writing what the actors must be expressing but by allowing the actors interpretation of the script take shape. Although this might seems as great amount of freedom given to the actor, the author has narrowed the possibilities enough to ensure his will prevails. Due to this, in the case of Hamlet and other Shakespearean works, the actor may only perform a character a certain way. Not because the play mentions it directly, but because of the setting, and general events that take place only allow a few possible outcomes. This changed my views on the apparently permissive Shakespearean works (in terms of acting) by helping me realize a good Shakespearean actor is one that not only leaves his unique signature in the character but also, one that portrays most accurately Shakespeare’s version of it.
