What a fuss. There was a book, then a play, and now a movie (an Oscar-winning performance). hamnet As the iconic VISA ad says, it’s everywhere you go.
People can’t seem to get enough of the Bard’s Shakespeare-adjacent imaginings of family life. And with broadcasting, the question is exactly what to read, watch, and experience live in the first place. The truth is, anyone who feels the need to get caught; hamnet A wave can start anywhere. Books, movies, plays, etc. each needs to be able to stand on its own two feet. Unfortunately, the Royal Shakespeare Company’s current performances at the Shakespeare Theater are more like crawling on your knees than standing.
Where do I start? From a bird’s-eye view, Lolita Chakrabarty’s adaptation of Maggie O’Farrell’s novel simply fails in its mission. Despite nearly three hours of opportunity, it struggles to suggest anything meaningful in its three biggest gaps in backstory. That’s the nature of Will and Agnes’ relationship. Why wasn’t he at home? and a compelling theory about how son Hamnet’s death influenced the writing of this novel. hamleta play.
This imagination had to go beyond the limits of the material and take some full license. Aside from a few theatrically charming moments, it’s not.
The play also insists on wandering around the kind of toe-curling drama that’s thrust upon schoolchildren, with pointed commentary on historical tidbits, as if there’s a quiz afterwards. The queen’s registration, occupation and performance are mentioned almost without pretense. The name change has a line written in the sky that says, “Mom, why is Dad signing letters as Will now?” Then there is the unnatural dialogue in the language that we believe was incorporated into the bard’s work.
Similarly, it is disturbing that the play overtly conveys a message about how women were treated at the time. Who would be surprised by a marriage vow that emphasizes the superiority of the husband? And do we really need the cliché that Agnes’ Herbs does a better job than the concoctions of a plague doctor who arrives and poses like a British pantomime? This is just a color coding by numbers that others have done better.
It’s clear that this piece is meant to be a judgment on Agnes, but there’s no getting away from that fact. Significance of existence is Shakespeare and needed more of what might have moved this man. Instead, he is portrayed as a somewhat off-the-wall man who finds it far more exciting to make fun of London than looking after children in the countryside with his off-piste wife.
But nothing explains his life choices, let alone his inner landscape. True, he was devastated and later suffered the tragedy of losing a child, but so were many other men of his time. How was Shakespeare able to transfer his life experiences into such art? How did Agnes give him the impetus and inspiration? Two and two don’t just make four.
Rory Alexander certainly looks the part as this young William, but the thousand-yard stare and stunned silence are no substitute for the research this play does none of. The problem persists, as Alexander tends to prefer acting more like an actor. Every gesture is a little over the top. He runs so dramatically on stage so many times that it’s funny, even though he never should have been. And while it’s not director Erica Wyman’s fault that she thought it would be a good idea to create an outrageously ridiculous tableau in her first collaboration with Agnes, his slightly over-dramatic flair certainly doesn’t help.
A direct and obvious counterpoint to this is Troy Alexander’s understated performance as Agnes’ younger brother Bartholomew. Yes, he’s supposed to be a serious character, but this Alexander commands the stage without being arrogant. He doesn’t show his personality, he just exudes it. It’s a shame that unlike the plague, it’s not as contagious.
Another challenge is the main character Agnes, played almost convincingly by Kemi-Bo Jacobs. Deeply charismatic and almost vindictive at times, Jacobs is ultimately let down by his inability to soften his tone. Like (Rory) Alexander, she is so histrionic that each word is uttered as if she were lashing out at the gods atop the battlements. It might serve as a touchstone for the intensity of Agnes’ experience, but it ends up being too good to be true. By the time she cries out in contractions, it feels like there’s nowhere to go. To be fair, Jacobs may have felt this was the only way to bring Agnes to life, since Chakrabarti (via O’Farrell) portrays Agnes as more of a 16th century Earth Mother than a real, compelling woman.
Ajani Cavey, who plays Hamnet, is memorable for his rather cheeky demeanor, although he is clearly not 11 years old, but he never feels like a boy, and his performance as the actor who would later play Hamlet did not move the needle. Other problematic characters are Nigel Barrett’s John (Will’s father) and Nikki Hobday’s Joan (Agnes’ stepmother). Portrayed as almost cartoonish villains, both play it to the rafters, either by choice or because everyone has run out of ideas on how to bring some dimension to these stock numbers.
The good news in the smaller roles is that Penny Layden as William’s mother Mary is mercifully toned down, while Eva Hynes-Jones and Saffron Day as Agnes’ daughters Susannah and Judith convey the tender girls with charming sincerity. Those are the bright lights here.
But that’s enough praise. you may have hamnet Although fever is present, this version of administration is definitely not a cure.
Hamnet (★★☆☆☆) runs through April 12 at Shakespeare Theater Company’s Herman Hall, 610 F St. NW. For tickets, please click here shakespearetheater.org.
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
