One would expect, given the Psych Drama Company‘s mission statement of melding clinical psychology with drama, that their inaugural production of Hamlet would have a more defined stance on one of the central questions to any production of the play; whether Hamlet’s madness is real or faked, part of some larger strategy to push Claudius’ buttons. But Wendy Lippe, who directs, stars as Hamlet, and is clearly the driving force behind the company, is vague on the subject. And any light that might have been shed on the psychology of Hamlet, which may be the world’s first psychological thriller, is diffused by a whole mess of other “artistic” goings on; a lesbian female Hamlet, cinematic music by Varsity Drag, a rape scene, and a generally oversexed production that seems at times it might end with an orgy instead of a duel. We actually get a chess match.
The text has been cut, but the show still comes in at about four hours, which I think interferes with Psych Drama Company’s MO of following each performance with a talk by a psych academic. I’m sure they’re all interesting and everything, but it’s a lot to ask from an audience at that hour. Much of the length comes from Lippe’s slow delivery and drawn out monologues. I’ve never seen a Hamlet that so much revolved around its title character and performance. While this might seem unavoidable given the sheer number of lines Shakespeare wrote for Hamlet, I think there’s a subtle (and crucial) difference between a production revolving around the character of Hamlet and the action of the play revolving around Hamlet. Some critics see Hamlet like he’s stuck inside a bad play, adding a layer to the meaning to the phrase “play within a play.” Lippe’s production came across a little narcissist, as if she was starring and directing in a solo show.
Psych Drama Company tosses around statements like this
Our production features a female lesbian Hamlet. As such, the oedipal dynamics between Hamlet and Gertrude remain intact. For both the heterosexual male and the homosexual female, the original childhood love object remains the same: it is the mother. Furthermore, when Hamlet is a woman, her feelings about Gertrude and Ophelia are inextricably bound up with her own self-loathing.
…which might have some meaning in a college paper, but doesn’t practically relate to a performance. Lippe’s sexualized reading doesn’t come off as the kind of subtext the above statement alludes to, but is rather superficially applied with fuck me boots and floor writhing. It does give us a fantastic “get thee to a nunnery” scene. I’ll happily take this scene as they did it, but even here, this hyper-sexuality (in this case, Hamlet’s hands up Ophelia’s dress) obscures our best clue as to whether Hamlet is faking his madness or not. Lippe gives her Hamlet multiple voices that seemed to correspond to different states she’s passing through, perhaps making Shakespeare’s character a little more like one from the DSM. But I had trouble following her on this. On the other hand, Ophelia’s madness was extremely well done by Lianne O’Shea and had clearly been aided by her director’s psychology credentials.
J.L. Reed (as Guildenstern) provides some much needed comic relief in a genuinely funny and unique performance. We also get good work from Linda Monchik as Getrude and while I think Cliff Blake could do a great Claudius, his performance is skewed here by some of the production’s artistic liberties. There are some great scenes, Lippe’s “to be or not to be” and her interactions with the ghost, but the show comes off as too much Lippe’s solo endeavor, without the cohesion and subtlety required for a real look into Hamlet’s psyche.
The Psych Drama Company‘s production of Hamlet plays at the BCA Black Box though December 17th. Tickets go for $25 at bostontheatrescene.com
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
This show was the biggest piece of crap to ever exist. The director, who obviously has no experience in theatre . . . or in the human condition, should have her PhD in clinical psych taken away. She should also have never been allowed to put up her “show” at the BCA. AND there should have been a warning that there was a brutal rape scene. All of which made no sense and there was no logical reason for it to exist. Why there are any good reviews about this show baffles me. Clearly Boston journalism has lost its backbone.
Are you saying this is a positive review?
When I read or watch a play that is cast, staged, and directed in unexpected ways, it always gets me thinking about what this new version is saying to me that the others I’ve seen do not. Lippe’s Hamlet certainly did that. I asked, “What if Hamlet was female, and what if she had a strong sense of justice but also the passion of a child avenging her father’s murder?” And while, like everything else, there were edges that perhaps could use a little more rounding, Lippe certainly gave us a picture of what that might be like. And she did it pretty much faithfully to Shakespeare’s words in a way that made me feel the universality of the insight into the human soul that Shakespeare gave us in the way he wrote Hamlet.
Bryce Lambert’s review also made me think about this portrayal in ways I hadn’t previously, like any serious and thoughtful review should. But then came Jess’ comments. As I read these comments I asked two things: Could what he is saying be true? Did I miss something serious here? And to answer this I, of course, wanted to know why he said what he did. Well, the more I read what he said the more I thought hey, this is a person venting, and he doesn’t give us even one reason for thinking that what he says is true, and something we should accept. In fact I wondered if he actually had any reasons for saying what he did. For example, even if this performance was awful, why should Lippe lose her PhD in clinical psychology? Jess gives us no reason, and I can’t think of any. Now I don’t like sugar in my coffee – it actually makes me feel sick – but I would never express that by saying that where I buy sugar should be closed down and the store manager run out of town. I will listen to things that people like Jess say if they are backed up by reasons that I can think about, and I am open to being swayed by them if I think they are good reasons. Otherwise I cannot take them seriously, and nobody should. They tell us more about Jess than about Lippe’s Hamlet.
At the end of the day, I think it is a good thing when new productions of Shakespeare stir up debate and thoughtful discussion. In terms of Lippe’s performance, in my opinion, it was, bar none, the best portrayal of Hamlet that I have ever seen on stage – MALE OR FEMALE. What I particularly valued was that she did not choose between feigning madness versus being mentally ill. She chose to play a young woman who was clearly unstable from the beginning and she then layered on her “feigned” madness which added additional complexity to her character. The feigned component of her madness seemed directly related to her attempt to ensnare Claudius.
On the “hot” issue of sexuality, educated people in psychology know that disinhibited sexuality is a hallmark of many psychiatric conditions and was brilliantly expressed through Lippe’s Hamlet. I am also confused as to why Bryce expects a contemporary production of Hamlet to exist without genitals. To use Lippe’s mirrors as opportunities for reflection, perhaps Bryce should examine his own discomfort with sexuality. What we saw in Lippe’s Hamlet was tame compared to what we see in movies, music, popular culture, everyday life. I fear Lippe’s invigorating Hamlet might have stirred Bryce up in a way that he needed to slam right down.
And now Mr Lambert I want to make some comments about your take on the Lippe Hamlet. I went to the play last night — and it was worth every minute of attention. But I just want to comment on two things: your interpretation of the challenge of performing Hamlet, and, in your eyes the failure of this rendering, and, second, what I take to be the real challenge of performing Hamlet, and, in my eyes, the brilliance of this performance.
First, your sense of the failure of the Lippe Hamlet: it does not make clear whether Hamlet’s “madness” is real or faked. That remains an enigma in this performance, you feel. Well, as I am sure you know, that’s a hard thing to tell often in the real world. Many human actions are quite enigmatic: it isn’t clear what’s behind them. So with the way Hamlet was portrayed. Hamlet’s enigmatic behavior is what it is – enigmatic. To me it is a great strength of the Lippe performance that that’s how it comes across. Just think of what this play would be like if it was clearly like so many thrillers today – Hamlet’s “madness” is all a clear sham for a devious end. That’s too simplistic and too artificial. That’s not Hamlet, and to play Hamlet in a way that makes this clear one way or the other is losing one of the great compelling features of this character. This is an enigma, and it needs to remain such. Lippe got it just right!
But there is something else in this play that has slipped by you and that I am thinking is much more important: the great tension between Hamlet’s sense of justice and fairness, on the one hand, and the drive for vengeance, on the other. Reason and thought vs the tug of blind emotion. Lippe played this brilliantly and in ways that show us this tension like no other Hamlet that I have seen. This is the genius in this performance! Does Hamlet believe the “ghost”? As much as she wants to, she needs “proof”—corroboration that she is not projecting her distress and her suspicion of her uncle. Hence, the play within the play. And think of that later scene that she played so well: Kill Claudius when it would be so easy and would avenge her father’s murder? No, that would not be justice, and it is justice that will be her true vengeance, not an “eye for an eye”. And think about how that all gets reversed in that last scene. I rather liked the chess game, and Lippe’s rejection of the traditional duel. That’s reason’s last chance being subverted and bested by maliciousness – see how frail seeking justice is! And see how this quest all collapses into pure vengeance in the end!
There is all that other stuff in this play, too, as you comment: a magnificent Ophelia, controversial open sex (that has been open for years), the dialectic of “to be or not to be” with its rich and deep reflection of the human condition brought out like no other Hamlet that I have seen, and that constant flux of Hamlet’s character – like in the lives of all of us – between childish jest, deep reflection, and emotional rage, leaving us confused about who the real Hamlet is until we realize that Hamlet is all of these, like we are! That’s what, to me, made last night one of the most memorable evenings I’ve spent in in a long long time.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’m glad you enjoyed Lippe’s show but, Carl, I think you go a step too far in asking me to examine my discomfort with sexuality when one, Lippe’s sexualization of the play is clearly meant to cause discomfort, as Claudius’ rape of Hamlet serves no other dramatic purpose. And two, I thought the highly erotic ‘get thee to a nunnery’ scene was probably the best moment in the production.
If you’re going to call anything into question, it’s the expectations I had of what a psych PhD would do with the text. Bob and Carl, you’re both right on Hamlet layering phony madness onto real madness (or at least internal conflict)–this act being there to toy with Polonius (among others) and play Claudius. This is the conventional take on the play (in reading and in producing it) and my expectations led me to think that this is what a “psychological” reading would lend a unique perspective on. Instead, I got a standard interpretation, where Lippe decided to overtake the ‘get thee to a nunnery’ scene, the one scene (or fraction of a scene, depending on how it’s played) where Shakespeare really lets us see how deep Hamlet’s act runs, with some heavy petting.
I have no personal objection to the sexualization of Hamlet, although personally I think there’s only textual evidence to support an implied incestuous relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude. Other than that, Hamlet is largely a desexualized figure. He’s chosen a scholarly, sequestered life over what might have been a far more rakish one at court…at 30 (though we could argue his age) Hamlet could even have a family instead of a place back at Wittenberg. And when one considers his age and intelligence, he’s actually pretty inexperienced when it comes to women.
Carl, the entire play is about Hamlet’s inhibitions, why would the flood gates open on her sexual will but not her will to murder? But, it’s all a matter of interpretation and I think this points to the central problem with this show; not that there is sex, but that there’s no clear reason for it. It’s largely isolated to Lippe’s performance and to me, it all reeks of vanity. The rest of the cast do very little with it. In the text, characters (usually clumsily) point and prod at Hamlet’s madness, at least trying to see what’s going through his head. Here, they mostly ignored the sexual gestures Lippe glossed onto it–like she had been diagnosed with some condition as a child and everyone at court had learned to ignore it.
Dear Bryce, Carl and Bob,
Thank you all so much for what has evolved into a thoughtful discussion of our production of Hamlet and my performance of the role of Hamlet. You have touched upon a couple of issues that I do feel a need to clarify. I wish these issues had been brought up at our post-show discussions led by psychologists and criminologists which were held after each performance.
I chose to portray a Hamlet that was not simply inhibited or neurotic, but was in fact more seriously mentally ill (grief which morphed into clinical depression with a comorbid axis II or characterological disturbance). In our production, there were also places where the presence of the ghost was real and places where Hamlet was experiencing hallucinations of the ghost – hallucinations that would be characterized clinically as more hysterical than truly psychotic. My portrayal of Hamlet also included a feigned “madness” which was layered on top.
In regard to the feigned component of my Hamlet’s madness – this was a bipolar or manic-depressive illness that Hamlet was faking. Bryce, like Carl has correctly stated, many bipolar patients display disinhibited sexual behavior, though they do not usually display murderous behavior. Similarly, some types of axis II patients also demonstrate hypersexual behavior but do not have an increased capacity to commit murder. Therefore, it does not follow that the floodgates which open up on Hamlet’s sexuality would also open up on her will to kill.
In regard to Claudius raping Hamlet – this was not a directorial decision motivated to make the audience uncomfortable – though of course it was a very disturbing scene. When Claudius confirms for himself that Hamlet is feigning madness (which occurs during the interrogation scene in the moment before the rape when Claudius succeeds in making Hamlet lose her “insanity disguise”) he realizes that Hamlet is more threatening to him if she is sane. Claudius’ need to dominate and control now becomes about needing to IMMEDIATELY subdue and control Hamlet’s power and all the ways he feels she is threatening – this includes her sexuality (echoes of the Salem witch trials and the theories that suggest women’s sexuality was threatening the patriarchy’s power base and needed to be extinguished).
The lovemaking scene between Claudius and Gertrude which occured immediately after the very emotionally close scene between Hamlet and Gertrude was about Gertrude’s deeply conflicted and competing loyalties (with Claudius and Hamlet) and her wish to use sex as a desperate attempt to flee from the truth that was beginning to penetrate her denial about Claudius. The sex does not work as an escape for Gertrude and she ultimately breaks away from it and moves into the scene with Claudius where she continues to separate from her passionate and “in denial” connection with him.
Bryce, in my mind, to say that the entire play is about Hamlet’s inhibitions is a massive oversimplification. This play has been compelling to people for hundreds of years and continues to fascinate people to this day because of the ways in which it speaks to so many of our intrapsychic conflicts and interpersonal dilemmas. I am sorry that our production did not reach you. However, because you do not like or understand certain directorial decisions or character motivations you might be more humble in the future and be curious or say that you do not understand – rather than prematurely foreclosing with simple, surface conclusions such as “she wanted to make the audience uncomfortable” or “it was her vanity”. This is particularly relevant when a company such as ours provides a post-show forum after every performance.
I wonder if (but do not assume) whether your own narcissistic needs (as we all have some of these inside of us even if we are not narcissists) will make you feel compelled to have the last word on these subjects?
No, I think your comment is a great close to this thread and I hope others will see it that way too. Bloggers and critics have a reputation for needing the last word, but believe me, I’m perfectly happy leaving that to you, as long as this doesn’t count.
Thanks so much for taking a harsher stance on this play than I was able do; I’m living vicariously through your criticism. Jess, I felt like this production had so many things wrong with it, but as a writer for a fledgling publication who was ::invited:: to write the review (based not on the theatrical production but the almost inconsequential soundtrack) I wasn’t really allowed to be as honestly critical of the production as I wanted to be. The result? You’re absolutely write, journalism without backbone, just a feeble attempt to work in what criticism I could. I’m not proud of it, but then there’s always tomorrow.