Not sure why there should be a critical backlash. It could be an exciting idea IMO, using young talents instead of relying on an all-star cast of established actors.

True. A young Polonius would not work, I think. But I still do not understand why there is no information about the cast at all. 

I once saw an all-female Hamlet, it was a brilliant production. And it was fascinating to see how gender did not matter at all. 

Oh joy!  I just found out that my local theatre will be showing the NT Live performance of Ben's Hamlet on Oct 15th!

Just have to go soon to book my tickets (I am going out of town this afternoon but this can be done tomorrow).

It wasn't very easy to find the info but thanks to a post on IMDB from a fellow Canadian fan of Ben's I followed her breadcrumb trail and ended up getting to the site I needed for my local theatre and it was on the far reaches of their "upcoming events" pages (on about page 26!!!).  But at least it confirmed that it will be showing on Oct 15th and an encore on Nov. 7th as well.  Yay!!

It isn't listed yet on the NT site (no Canadian venues are) so I am happy I found it through this backdoor method.  If there are those of you out there waiting for your venue to appear on the NT site, I would encourage you to look on your local cineplex site and do a search of the upcoming items.  Should be listed there and then you can go to the booking info of Hamlet specifically.  Good luck!



-Val

SusiGo wrote:

Not sure why there should be a critical backlash. It could be an exciting idea IMO, using young talents instead of relying on an all-star cast of established actors.

It could be an exciting idea, all right, but I don't think it's that simple.

Hamlet is a very risky project, for several motives. First of all, for a simple reason that this is the most prestigious Shakespearean play with all the legendary performances written in the story.
But in this case, it is risky because of who Benedict has become and how is the whole project presented.
It was ok for Martin Freeman to play Richard III and to get not-so-good-reviews: in any case, everyone knows he is not a shakespearean actor and he is mostly into TV and movies, it was just a nice experiment with no too much weight on his career.
It was also ok for Tom Hiddlestone to play one of the most obscure Shakespearean plays in a prestigious but-not-so-big theatre with a team of excellent actors and to "raise above" his Loki status.
But it is Benedict who has been hailed as a next "Laurence Olivier" and who is in a unique position of being a great actor AND a celebrity. And while his Frankenstein was a "traditional" play - a terrific performance in a prestigious venue and with a prestigous director (but it was the director who chose him for the role), Hamlet is more like a star performance - sold faster than Beyonce concert, people/fans going mad to get the ticket and - so far - all based only on his personal appeal.
So when I am talking about a possible backlash it is not the audience I think about, but the critics. And cannot help thinking about "Birdman" and that critic who told Micheal Keaton that she would destroy his spectacle because she hates him for being a celebrity.
Does it all matter for the audience or for me personally? No, and I am convinced B. will be superb. But I think the critical reaction could be important to HIM.
 

It's funny that you should mention an all-female Hamlet - there's a version with women playing some of the traditionally male parts (such as Hamlet and Polonius) being broadcast in cinemas round the UK over the next couple of weeks.  I'm not sure if it's being shown internationally.   It looks interesting.

I love the all male Swan Lake (Matthew Bourne?), but I suppose it's a different case in that the choreography is completely changed, whereas in Hamlet, I presume they're sticking to the script! 

At my local cinema they don't go on sale till Monday.

SolarSystem wrote:

But to the criitics it probably won't matter anyway which co-stars Benedict will have. They will concentrate on him, because he is "the star".

Oh, I am quite convinced many critics (hopefully, not all!) will be waiting to jump down Benedict's throat. But I don't think they will concentrate on him, especially  since we can be fairly certain (and not because we are fans blinded by admiration) that his performance will be outstanding. No, they will go round and try to diminish every other aspect of the play. We saw it quite a lot in TIG reviews: no one could seriously criticise B. performance without loosing all credibility, so they went to criticise every other single thing they were able to invent: rarely have I seen so many numerous (and incongruous) complains and accusations in a film's review.
A young cast, non matter how good, would be an easy target for accusing Benedict of not wanting to have any "rivals" on the stage, for being narcissistic bighead and for usurping himself a role of the mentor.
 

Isn't that to be worried about as we say in German "ungelegte Eier"? Don't know if there is an Englisch expression for that phrase.

Miriel, let it just happen. Don't worry months before about how the criticsim will be. Tasts are different, productions are variable, there will be hundreds of good and hundreds of bad reports. People will love Benedict, others will hate him, but I am sure a hundred percent the play is going to be successful.
 

Last edited by gently69 (March 20, 2015 11:26 am)

I guess it's the same as the long-time Tolkien fans who complained over those who enjoyed the LotR-movies without having read the book(s). 

I will probably get tarred and feathered for this, but I personally don't like theater at all. Or to be more specific: I don't like theater acting. I saw a short play with Ben on YouTube and I didn't even like his acting in it. Not because he was bad, not at all, but there is something about theatre acting I don't like, no matter who plays or how good they are. It always feels... fake. Slightly over the top.

While I appreciate your opinion Vhanja and respect that it is a personal feeling of yours I couldn't disagree more with it. 

I have been to hundreds of plays and only a handful could I say were "fake" feeling - no more than the number of film actors I have seen who appear false or OTT in their performances. 

You can't really compare a performance on stage with a film experience.  They are two very different animals - it's like saying I like hummingbirds better than dogs because dogs don't fly.  That may be true but dogs weren't meant to fly and hummingbirds can't play fetch with a stick.

As Michael Caine said in his book ACTING IN FILM: AN ACTORS’ TAKE ON MOVIE MAKING, "Plays are performed. Movies are made." 

When you go to a film you are seeing mainly the director's vision of a story more than the actor's vision.  When you go to a stage production you are really seeing the actor's pure interpretation of a character and if it is done correctly then it should be extremely believable and moving. 

I have seen such performances and the last thing that would cross my mind is that it is OTT or fake.  A truly great stage performance should be one that directly connects the character (with his/her story to tell) with you the audience member and just as importantly also connects to the entire audience in the theatre that night. 

Have you ever gone to the same play twice?  I have and it was a completely enlightening experience.  The first night I went the audience was so intune with what was going on on the stage that they were almost part of the story. Actors feed off of that audience aura and respond to it.  It is remarkable when it happens (which surprisingly isn't all that rare if you go to professional theatre or even really good amatuer productions).  

The second night - same actors, same play -  but an entirely different audience.  For some reason the audience was mainly unresponsive to what was going on up on the stage.  The actors had no one to feed off of and it coloured the whole performance.  It wasn't that the actors were just bad the second night (although one of them was a bit fumbly in a couple of spots) it was that the whole atmosphere had changed in the theatre and the actors had nothing to play up to. 

That is something that is just not a part of film acting.  The film actors have multiple takes, if necessary, to get it right for the director (who is the only one who counts in a film) and the audience's reaction only comes months later so it won't count in the acting at all.  So how can anyone compare the two experiences. 

Acting on stage is much more pure for an actor.  You use your whole body and voice to express yourself.  In film you only have to express yourself to the audience of one - the director (and the camera which is an extention of the director's will). 

Here is a pretty good summary of the differences in the acting techniques for stage and film actors...

http://dfcactingcourse.blogspot.ca/2008/10/fundamental-differences-between-stage.html

It's just a brief rundown but it does show how different the two are.  And as SusiGo said it makes a huge difference that in film there are C/U cameras that make film very different to stage acting as well. 

For me many, many times I have been just as moved by stage actors performing as I have film actors. 

When we went to LA to see David Hyde Pierce and Uta Hagen in Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks I was so engulfed in the characters, the story and the presentation I almost couldn't get out of my seat in the end.  When I went to Momma Mia I was (along with everyone else in the theatre) dancing in the aisles (when does that ever happen in a movie theatre?).  When I saw The Tempst with Christopher Plummer in 2010 I was blown away by his performance and still have a clear image in my mind today of his wonderful Prospero, which had, as The New Yorker stated in their review, "warmth... gaity... and unforced panache".

I can't be one of the lucky ones who are able to see BC in person on the stage at the Barbican (which I would dearly love to do) but I will definitely look forward to seeing the live broadcast of it.  Granted I will have to get into a stage theatre frame of mind when I go and also atune myself to the audience reactions (from the Barbican not from the movie theatre mind you) but still I am excited about the possibilities of seeing Ben performing with all his body and voice and mind! 

-Val