It’s no secret that film and television actors often return to the stage in order to work on their craft or simply recapture the experience of working in front of a live audience. Shakespearean productions are particularly alluring because of the perceived credibility boost they give said actors. Gone is the stigma attached to doing stage work. The hierarchy used to be film, television, and then stage work. Now actors move easily among all three forms based on where the interesting projects lie.

The city of Boston has seen a flood of actors from the still-booming cable series pool arrive in Beantown to perform Shakespeare in Boston Common. A few years ago, Jeffrey Donovan of the hit series, Burn Notice, gave Hamlet a shot. This summer, audiences will be able to catch Frederick Weller of the new (and popular) show, In Plain Sight. While some actors might veer toward the tragedies because of the implied gravitas (like Donovan in Hamlet), Weller will be tackling one of the male leads in the comedy As You Like It.

Weller has the added benefit of being relatively new to mainstream audiences. While he has worked steadily in film, television, and on stage, he is the type of actor audiences are most likely to recognize by face rather than by name. The benefit of this is fans can assess his work in Shakespeare on its own merits, without any tabloid tales cluttering their viewpoints. All of that might change, however, if In Plain Sight continues on for numerous seasons.

Something’s Rockin’ in Denmark is not a joke. I swear. In fact, the play enjoyed a very brief run on Broadway over thirty years ago. The play has recently been revived and, yes, it is a musical version of Hamlet. The temptation to snicker at this kind of adaptation isn’t as easy to do as it once was. Last year, Spring Awakening, a century-old German expressionist play was turned into a Good Charlotte-esque rock musical and walked away with the Tony award. Still laughing?

Plays of the past, it seems, are the new future. Ultimately, though, does Something’s Rockin’ in Denmark say more about the state of Shakespearean theatre or musical theatre? Addressing the former, it seems that artists are constantly striving to find new ways to interpret and reimagine these works. Musical theatre is a logical option in this light, particularly because it provides the opportunity to further explore the musicality of the text itself.

The statement this makes about musical theatre, however, may be even more telling. As Spring Awakening attests, there is some backlash to the increased commodification of Broadway musicals. Does every Disney cartoon need to be made into a musical? While I understand the need for family entertainment, shouldn’t there be pieces that speak to other age groups/demographics as well? Also, no matter how successful it is, no matter how many reality shows they build around it, Legally Blonde: The Musical is garbage—a perfectly obnoxious concoction based on a mediocre film that misogynistically celebrates stupidity as some kind of twenty-first-century female empowerment. I don’t blame writers (and audiences) for demanding more gravitas in musicals. If the melancholy Dane wants to sing, I’m all ears.

I have always been a movie buff, from the time I was a little kid. I remember my mom taking me to see Disney’s Robin Hood at the theater (you know, the one where Robin Hood and Marian are foxes, and Prince John is a thumb-sucking lion…PJ? PJ! Oh, I like that…Hiss, put it on my luggage!). And I remember going to my first drive-in movie with my brother - Young Frankenstein.  Probably not the best movie for a 6-year-old to watch - I believe a lot of the humor was lost on me until later years!

But movies have always been important to me and played a big part in my life…especially historical epics!  Oh, my…that year that both Braveheart and Rob Roy came out?!?!  I thought I’d died and gone to historical cinema heaven! And, of course, being a huge Shakespeare/Elizabethan buff, I adore movies like Elizabeth and Shakespeare in Love.

But what on earth does this have to do with Staging Shakespeare? Well, one thing that has been very helpful, not only to my cast but also to the students in my English classes, is to teach Shakespeare’s plays utilizing good film versions of the plays. Of course, when I teach Henry V to my 8th graders, we watch the Branagh film - read one act, watch the act; read the next act, watch that act, etc. When I teach Hamlet, we watch bits of both the Gibson and the Branagh films, and when I teach Macbeth, I’ve found that I prefer the BBC version of the play with Nicol Williamson (remember him as Merlin in Excalibur?) over the Ian McKellen/Judi Dench play, although I like to show scenes from both. (Speaking of Excalibur - Here’s some trivia for you - Cherie Lunghi, who played Guenevere, also did a fabulous Beatrice in the BBC’s Much Ado About Nothing! Kind of cool that two Excalibur cast members also did some mean Shakespeare!)

So back in May and June, when the weather here was icky and we couldn’t start rehearsing outside, our cast spent a great deal of time working on the text - reading parts aloud; figuring out what various words and phrases meant; determining what their characters might be thinking and feeling at any given moment. Once we were finished, we would watch whatever scenes we had worked on that day from the BBC version of Shrew, with John Cleese as Petruchio. Talk about a HOOT! John Cleese is just a great actor anyway, but seeing him come in for his wedding to Katharina, dressed in some hideous burlap-type vest, no shirt on underneath, but an enormous yellow sunflower stuck to the vest…and a hat with the longest feathers sticking out in front of it…I could go on…I won’t…except to mention that Grumio had some weird face painted on his bare belly, under a very similar ensemble as that of Petruchio’s! The kids loved it, and they saw some really outstanding acting in the process. We also watched the Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor film version, which is such an enjoyable movie, especially when you consider that Burton and Taylor were married at the time they made the movie…it definitely created quite the dynamic for their performances!

Using film versions of the plays seems almost like a no-brainer, really. In this day and age of audio and visual technology, why wouldn’t a teacher or director want to use film to help their students really get into Shakespeare? The only downside I can see is that you don’t ever want your actors to feel like they have to play a part exactly like some famous actor did it. I was hesitant about showing the Branagh Much Ado last year, simply because I didn’t want anyone to feel like there was only one way to play these characters. But I also showed them the BBC version (the one with Cherie Lunghi as Beatrice) in order to demonstrate that there are definitely different ways of approaching the characters, the scenery, the costumes, the everything of putting together a stage production…as long as you don’t deviate from Shakespeare’s text!

Just a suggestion, too, concerning those BBC plays - If you look for them on Amazon or other commercial websites, you’ll probably only find them available to purchase as sets - all of the comedies, all of the histories, or even all 37 plays in one huge bundle. If you are interested in buying them individually, go to the Folger Library website - www.folger.edu - and you can purchase them through their gift shop, one at a time. I’ve slowly been building my collection this way, purchasing the ones I need for school or for whatever plays I am considering directing in the future.

And finally…a little ritual that I started last summer as our production neared completion and we were almost to Opening Night. When I start to worry about the play coming together, actors learning their lines, costumes being finished, sets being painted, but I know I’ve done everything I can do and it’s up to the kids, I pop in my copy of Shakespeare in Love.  If I have time, I’ll watch the whole film, but sometimes I’m just too tired to stay up and watch it after my children are in bed, so instead, I will skip to the scene where Will’s Romeo and Juliet is about to start.  Henslowe’s tailor, playing the Chorus, is stuttering backstage, and Will looks like he would rather slit his wrists than let the play go on.  Then the Chorus gets pushed out onto the stage, and it almost appears that he won’t be able to get the words out…but suddenly, his voice is perfect, exclaiming, “Two households, both alike in dignity, in fair Verona where we lay our scene….” I absolutely love that entire part of the movie, where they show what it might have been like the very first time R&J was on the stage…except, of course, where a gorgeous Gwyneth Paltrow saves the day! And then, when the play is over, and the audience just sits there, like they didn’t know what hit them…until finally, thunderous applause and ovations! Ah, yes…it helps me sleep better that night!

Despite its title, if you are someone who dislikes Shakespeare (and, by the way, shame on you), you most likely still won’t enjoy the new production of Paul Rudnick’s I Hate Hamlet. In fact, you sort of have to love the play to appreciate its storyline. The set-up is simple, an actor who hates Hamlet (because it’s an impossible part to live up to) finds himself playing the role. To make matters worse, he’s not doing a very good job. Add to that some personal crises, and you have the smorgasbord of suffering we expect from comic protagonists. The solution comes when the actor is haunted by the ghost of John Barrymore. I’m sure you can probably guess how it ends.

The inclusion of Barrymore is a novel twist, because there are tons of twentieth-century actors who have put their imprint upon the role of the melancholy Dane. When you think about it, who hasn’t tried their hand at the part? Therein is the inside joke of I Hate Hamlet: in a way, its protagonist is right. The role, even more than the play itself, is like some hideous family heirloom: nobody wants it, but you can’t avoid it. More than that, there is the sense of proving yourself in the attempt, regardless of the outcome. It’s sort of a theatrical form of hazing: sometimes misguided, sometimes, dangerous, sometimes disastrous, but in the end it brings out a sense of pride in you for having done it.

On the heels of my endless rhapsodizing about one of its stars, I must report that the new Shakespeare in the Park production of Hamlet is drawing mixed reviews. While Andre Braugher is drawing fairly strong notices across the board as Claudius, the remaining performances and the production itself has been found lacking by different reviewers. This particular version sets the play in a highly militarized environment and positions the title character as a deliberate outsider in this culture of war. While this is not the first time this kind of approach has been grafted onto the play, it obviously intends to resonate with the ongoing conflict overseas.

In past blogs, I’ve talked about the impact of stars on productions and whether or not their fame prevents the audience from completely immersing themselves in the play. This production may suffer from a more compound version of that problem. Virtually every major role in the production is played by a name actor recognizable for film, television, or stage work (and, in some cases, all three). While I would love to say that good acting is good acting, I can’t help feeling that the impact of these all-star productions is something akin to watching the disaster films that were so popular in the 1970’s. While the audience is trying to get into the story, they keep getting distracted by the next celebrity who pops up (“Oh, look! Shelley Winters is hanging off the side of a boat!”). Hopefully, viewers can get past the novelty and judge the actors as actors, not as media personalities.

If you don’t know who Andre Braugher is, you’re a bad person. Did that sound judgmental? This actor might be familiar by face more than name, and part of the reason for that is because he is a working actor rather than a star. Despite being in the same age range as the Denzels and the Georges of the entertainment industry (and getting his start in critically acclaimed television shows just like they did), Braugher has always flown under the radar.

His work on Homicide: Life on the Street is the role for which he is best known, and his Emmy-winning performance was some of the best dramatic work in the last two decades of television. Amidst his film and television work, Braugher has also consistently appeared on the stage in Shakespearean plays. In fact, the reason Braugher became an actor in the first place is because of Shakespeare. While a student in college, a friend asked him to jump into the role of Hamlet’s duplicitous uncle Claudius three days before the opening of the play after the original actor dropped out. Braugher obliged and found his love for both acting and Shakespeare.

Now, more than two decades later, Braugher is returning to both Hamlet and the role of Claudius. Despite all of his successes, The Bard and this play in particular still have a hold on the actor. I’m sure Braugher was impressive in his original performance despite the brief preparation and his young age (he was still a teenager), but imagine what he could do with the role now.

Cleveland Shakespeare is opening its season with a unique point/counterpoint approach to one of The Bard’s plays. The Shakespeare Festival will present Shakespeare’s Hamlet (sad to say, but you do have to specify whose version nowadays) and Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. One issue the article did not make clear is how closely intertwined the productions will be. While they will presumably use the same set for both plays, the biggest question is whether or not the actors will play the same parts in both plays. If so the two plays will truly be presented as inversions of each other.

From an audience perspective, this should create an unusual viewing experience; how unusual will depend on the order in which the productions are viewed. Seeing Hamlet in all its dour glory one evening and then watching it upended and deconstructed the next could prove to be a heady delight. The reverse order would be a trickier observation. Even if an audience member has seen both plays before, viewing Stoppard’s comic take-off first might make the following performance more challenging. After having made the characters and story ridiculous, how seriously will the audience be able to take Hamlet the following evening? Will the tragedy elicit unintentional laughs due to references from the previous night’s performance? Conversely, will this ordering serve to highlight the dark irony in Hamlet that is so often overlooked in production? After all, Hamlet doesn’t end well, but that doesn’t mean the sulky Dane cannot find a few chuckles in his own melancholia.

Do you think you’re up for A Night in Elsinore? With murders, potential incest, suicides and some poisonous sword fighting, it might not be the getaway it sounds like. A Night in Elsinore is a new production that, what else, parodies Shakespeare. The object of its ribbing is none other than Hamlet. More than any other of The Bard’s plays, Hamlet has taken its share of ribbing. Some plays have one-off jokes about mommy issues or troubled monarchies. Other plays devote their entirety to rethinking the classic story from a comic point of view.

In a way, it makes sense. A comic rip-off of King John probably wouldn’t be as successful due to the dearth of productions of the play. Still, are there things about Hamlet that make it ripe for roasting other than its fame? Making fun of tragedies dates as far back as Ancient Greece, when playwrights would present three tragedies followed by a short comic piece that often made fun of the works that preceded it. I know if I watched a day’s worth of Greek tragedies, I’d need a few chuckles.

Hamlet is no more or less grave than some of the other tragedies, it is just further suffused into pop culture. A riff on King John would be a riff on King John. A riff on Hamlet is a riff not just on the play, but also on its integration into pop culture. In a way, we’re not laughing at Hamlet, we’re laughing at ourselves laughing at Hamlet.

A recent news brief included a complete hodgepodge of listings from Mother’s Day stuff a performance of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The article did so without any hint of irony, yet I was struck by the idea of celebrating Mother’s Day by seeing a play that is often interpreted in a highly Freudian manner. So, in an effort to make a really sweet holiday seem as icky as possible, I’m going to ask what the deal really is with Gertrude. Is the mommy obsession in Hamlet something that comes from the text or from certain high profile interpretations that have colored our reading of the play.

The evidence used for Hamlet’s potential Oedipal complex stems from his apparent obsession with Gertrude’s sex life with Claudius. Throwing out phrases like “nasty sty” and “inseamed bed” have certainly bolstered that interpretation. Still, the make-or-break scene in the play is when Gertrude summons him to her chambers and he accidentally murders Polonius. The debate over this issue and this scene is complicated and contentious, with scholars going the rounds over whether or not there might have been a bed onstage when it was staged in Elizabethan England. That bed, whether it is real or imaginary, is the elephant in the room (and attempts to prove its existence are clearly related to the “Shakespeare would have wanted it that way” defense).

I’m not saying you can’t stage Hamlet with an Oedipal approach (although Mel Gibson’s assault of Glenn Close’s Gertrude in the 1990 film version is a teensy bit lacking in the subtlety department). I do, however, wonder if the play will be forever in the shadow of that interpretation. Will Gertrude and Hamlet ever be just a mother and son?

In a new article, an author manages to combine Shakespeare, the presidential election, and the war in the Middle East. It’s a tall order to be sure, and it raises far more questions than it answers. Essentially, the article posits that all of the current presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, are using the war as a platform for their campaigns. In this article, the author argues that they have normalized violence and war by treating it the same way they would tax issues or healthcare. To contrast this, the writer cites Shakespeare as an author who acutely understood and vividly evoked the horrors of battle.

So, the Shakespearean question this article raises (we’ll set aside the political ones) is whether or not this argument is true. Does Shakespeare portray the gritty reality of war or does he sensationalize it for dramatic effect? Is it possible he does both? In some ways, his is a matter of interpretation. Take Hamlet, for example. In production, cuts are not really optional, they are a necessity. One of the most frequent characters and subplots to get the axe is Fortinbras and his impending takeover. Remove it and Hamlet is a family drama writ large. Include it, and the play is about a ruling family neglecting its country. In many ways, Shakespeare is what we want him to be, and perhaps the same is true of the three senators currently vying for the highest office in the country.