Hamlet, The University of Hong Kong
This was a performance of mixed quality. On the positive side all three actors delivered their lines with
admirable clarity and, for the most part, seemed to have a clear idea of general meaning of the scenes
they were performing. The blocking [the movement of the characters around the stage] was much less
successful. In particular the use of the up-stage chairs seemed very awkward. There seemed to be very
little motivation for many of the moves around the stage. The particular arrangement of the scenes
chosen would, I think, have made it very difficult for an audience who did not know Hamlet to follow
what was happening. It was confusing to start by having Ophelia in her madness burning Hamlet’s
letters, then reverting to the earlier sane Ophelia, then returning once more to the insane Ophelia.
These alterations in time sequence can be handled more easily in film where the ‘flashback’ can be
clearly signaled to the audience. Some of the stage imagery was not at all clear. I was not sure who was
represented in the photograph at the back of the stage or what this was meant to convey to an
audience. Also I wasn’t sure what the later drinking from the porcelain pot was meant to signify. I was
equally puzzled by what appeared to be an undergarment given to Laertes by Ophelia when she accused
him of following his own advice [“recks not his own rede”]. Hio U Ao Agnes [Ophelia] was at her best in
the scenes in which she was mad and Kwok Wai Yin [Hamlet/Laertes] was adequate in both roles. What
was lacking in much of the performance was any sense of genuine interaction between the characters.
Cheung Ka Lun Karen [a female Polonius] spoke with great clarity but much of power of the performance
was lost because of a failure to realize the deeper meanings of the scenes being played. In this
performance Polonius comforted Ophelia when she is distraught [“Oh what a noble mind is here
o’erthrown”]. In fact Polonius callously ignores the distressed Opelia, talks to the King, then tells
Ophelia not to bother telling him what has happened as “We heard it all”. The director Won Lock Yan,
Rosalind also seems to have been unaware of the two meaning of the word “nunnery” [in its first sense
it means “a place where celibate nuns live” – Its second cruder meaning is “a brothel”] Many of the
scene changes were awkwardly handled and this again weakened the effectiveness of this production.
By Prof. Geoffrey Borny
Hamlet
The University of Hong Kong
This is what I have come to think of as a “thematic” production, namely a series
of excerpts stitched together along the axis of a thematic interest. As such it is
cleverly done. The thematic interest is Ophelia’s predicament: and how that is
created not just by Hamlet but also a sexual double standard insisted on by her
brother Laertes, and her father Polonius (here played frankly as a woman, a sort
of “tiger mother”). The performance begins with a framing cameo: Ophelia is
downstage, feeding Hamlet’s love letters in to a fire (a red brazier). Upstage is a
white draped table (a sort of shrine perhaps) with a photograph: presumably of
Hamlet in happier days. Laertes enters as the action morphs into the flower
sequence of Ophelia’s mad scene. A clock chimes, and Laertes moves upstage
backwards (suggesting a re-wind, as in the movie The Matrix). Nice touch.
To music and a song (possibly Chinese opera) Ophelia is arranging flowers in a
pot. Laertes re-enters to lecture her about Hamlet and “the trifling of his
affection”. She lectures him back (humorously) on the double standard (he
shouldn’t now go playing the “reckless libertine” himself). The diction is of
slightly uneven quality: Hamlet has a tendency to mouth his words.
The scene now changes to Polonius lecturing Ophelia. Though initially
disconcerting to find Polonius played as a woman, we soon see the point. This
lecture does actually seem to make better modern Chinese sense coming from a
woman whose sexual experience appears to be more than a memory.
Interestingly “Polonius” is much more stylishly dressed than her daughter (a
bold floral print on a black ground vs. a pale floral print on a white ground). This
is all very inventive. One of Hamlet’s “tenders” to Ophelia is a pearl necklace
which Polonius sarcastically holds up. The lines, “I know how the blood burns”
and, “tender me a baby” make excellent sense coming from a tiger mother cum
panther. She minces off in her high heels. A slight downside is that Polonius’s
lecture lacks the threat it normally has. This woman is patently lacking in moral
authority.
We transition to the “nunnery” scene (where Hamlet tells Ophelia to get herself
to a nunnery). Nice idea for Ophelia to try and return the necklace to Hamlet
here, along with other love tokens. Hamlet’s somewhat mouthy diction affects
the rhythm and pacing of what should be a torrent of abuse from Hamlet to
Ophelia. The delivery is too stilted. Hamlet is obviously conflicted – there is
affection within the cruelty – this is nicely conveyed. At the end of this section,
Polonius steps out from her hiding place to say “Love, his affections do no that
way turn”. This is really Claudius’s line but it sounds good coming from this
Polonius figure. However, when the actress continues with the rejoinder that
Shakespeare gives to Polonius, it begins to sound confused.
We transition to the “closet” scene. It is a pity that the Polonius actress did not
simply continue as Gertrude: her slightly racy “character” actually suits Gertrude
By Prof. John Gillies
much more closely. Strictly speaking she could not, of course: she has to be
onstage as Polonius, who is killed in this scene. I suppose this illustrates a
problem with thematic performances in general: the theme is always at some
angle to the themes of the play as such. The performance concludes by returning
to the madness sequence. I might be imagining it, but there is a nice little dance
reminiscent of a “water sleeve” aria from a Chinese opera. On the whole an
excellently conceived piece, let down by some stilted delivery and some confused
inter-cutting of Shakespeare’s play. A problem for performances based on a
splicing of Shakespeare’s text is that of intelligibility, especially for an audience
unfamiliar with the play.
By Prof. John Gillies
Hamlet, The University of Hong Kong
This production (like the other Hamlet) focused a lot on Ophelia—a good choice,
because she is a fascinating and beautiful character. I didn’t find, however, a great
deal of pathos and feeling in this portrayal. Perhaps part of the problem was that the
articulation of the actors was not of a very high quality, so the meaning of the lines
was not always conveyed effectively. (There was a tendency in Polonius’s lines, for
instance, to rather drag out certain vowels. It’s also important that actors speak rather
than shout their lines—true even in moments of high emotion.) Some of the scene
changes here were rather awkward—teams need to think of ways to tidy up the set for
the next scene swiftly and efficiently. At times I felt the actors in this production
didn’t capture the intense passion of the play: they needed to connect with the
turbulence and wildness of the text, whereas here the play came across as rather
sedate. Still, this team deserves credit for attempting one of the great plays in the
canon.
By Prof. Peter Holbrook
By Prof. Peter Holbrook