MAT production of Hamlet

The Moscow Art Theatre's (MAT) production of "Hamlet" in 1911-12, on which two of the 20th century's most influential theatre practitioners—Constantin Stanislavski and Edward Gordon Craig—collaborated, is particularly important in the history of performances of "Hamlet" and of 20th-century theatre in general. Craig and Stanislavski were introduced by Isadora Duncan in 1908, from which time they began planning the production. Due to a serious illness of Stanislavski's, the production was delayed, eventually opening in December 1911. [See Benedetti (1998, 188-211).] Despite hostile reviews from the Russian press, the production attracted enthusiastic and unprecedented worldwide attention for the theatre, with reviews in Britain's "The Times" and in the French press that praised its unqualified success; the production placed the Moscow Art Theatre "on the cultural map for Western Europe" and it came to be regarded as a seminal event that has influenced the subsequent history of production style in the theatre. [Innes (1983, 172) and Benedetti (1999, 199).]

Aesthetic approaches

Craig conceived of their production as a symbolist monodrama, in which every aspect of production would be subjugated to the play's protagonist: the play would present a dream-like vision as seen through Hamlet's eyes. To support this interpretation, Craig wanted to add archetypal, symbolic figures—such as Madness, Murder, and Death—and to have Hamlet present on-stage during every scene, silently observing those in which he did not participate; Stanislavski overruled him. [On Craig's relationship to Russian symbolism and its principles of monodrama in particular, see Taxidou (1998, 38-41); on Craig's staging proposals, see Innes (1983, 153); on the centrality of the protagonist and his mirroring of the 'authorial self', see Taxidou (1998, 181, 188) and Innes (1983, 153).]

Craig favoured stylized abstraction, while Stanislavski wanted to explore psychological motivations. Stanislavski hoped to use the production to prove that his recently-developed 'system' for creating internally-justified, realistic acting could meet the formal demands of a classic play. [Benedetti (1999, 189, 195).] Despite this apparent opposition between Craig's symbolist aesthetic and Stanislavski's psychological realism, however, the two did share some artistic assumptions; the 'system' had developed out of Stanislavski's experiments with symbolist drama, which had shifted the emphasis of his approach from a naturalistic external surface to the inner world of the character's "spirit". [See Benedetti (1998, part two).] Their interpretations of the central role of Shakespeare's play, however, were quite different. Stanislavski's vision of Hamlet was as an active, energetic and crusading character, whereas Craig saw him as a representation of a spiritual principle, caught in a mutually-destructive struggle with the principle of matter as embodied in all that surrounded him. Hamlet's tragedy, Craig felt, was that he talks rather than acts. [See Benedetti (1998, 190, 196) and Innes (1983, 149).]

Visual design

The most famous aspect of the production is Craig's use of a single, plain set that varied from scene to scene by means of large, abstract screens that altered the size and shape of the acting area. [See Innes (1983, 140-175).] There is a persistent theatrical myth that these screens were impractical and fell over during the first performance. This myth may be traced to a passage in Stanislavski's "My Life in Art" (1924); Craig demanded that Stanislavski delete the story and Stanislavski admitted that the incident occurred only during a rehearsal. He eventually provided Craig with a sworn statement that the mishap was due to an error by the stage-hands and not the design of Craig's screens. The screens had been built ten feet taller than Craig's designs specified, which may have also contributed to the mishap. Craig had envisaged specially-costumed, visible stage-hands to move the screens, but Stanislavski had rejected the idea. This forced a curtain close and delay between scenes, which disrupted the sense of fluidity and movement inherent to Craig's conception. [See Innes (1983, 67-172).] The different arrangements of the screens for each scene were used to provide a spatial representation of Hamlet's state of mind or to underline a dramaturgical progression across a sequence of scenes, as visual elements were retained or transformed. [Innes (1983, 165-167).]

The kernel of Craig's monodramatic interpretation lay in the staging of the first court scene (1.2). [Innes (1983, 152).] The stage was divided sharply into two areas through the use of lighting: the background was brightly-lit while the foreground was dark and shadowy. The screens were lined up along the back wall and bathed in diffuse yellow light. From a high throne upon which Claudius and Gertrude sat, which was bathed in a diagonal, bright golden beam, a pyramid descended, representing the feudal hierarchy. The pyramid gave the illusion of a single, unified golden mass, from which the courtier's heads appeared to stick out through slits in the material. In the foreground in dark shadow, Hamlet lay slouched, as if dreaming. A gauze was hung between Hamlet and the court, further emphasising the division. On Claudius' exit-line the figures remained in place while the gauze was loosened, so that the entire court appeared to melt away before the audience's eyes, as if they had been a projection of Hamlet's thoughts that now had turned elsewhere. The scene, and the gauze effect in particular, prompted an ovation from the audience, which was unheard of at the MAT. [Innes (1983, 152).]

Chronology of production and reception

The board of the Moscow Art Theatre decided in January 1909 to mount the production during its 1910 season, with work on the project to commence immediately. Rehearsals began in March 1909. In April, Craig returned to Russia, meeting with Stanislavski in St Petersburg, where the company was on tour. [Benedetti (1999, 189).] Together they analysed the play scene-by-scene, then line-by-line, and devised a meticulous production plan, which included sound, lighting, and an outline of the blocking. Since neither understood the other's language, they conducted their discussions in a mixture of English and German. They relocated to Moscow in May and worked together until the beginning of June, when Stanislavski left for Paris. [Benedetti (1999, 190).] In February 1910, Craig returned to Moscow. In the intervening period, Stanislavski had developed an important production of Turgenev's "A Month in the Country", whose success had demonstrated the value of his new 'systematic' approach to the actor's work; he was keen to assay its virtues in the crucible of Shakespeare's tragedy. [Benedetti (1999, 190-195).] They planned to rehearse the company together until April, after which Stanislavski would rehearse alone until the summer. In August, Craig would return once more and the production would open in November 1910. As it was, Stanislavski was diagnosed with typhoid fever in August and the production was postponed until the next season; Stanislavski was unable to return to rehearsals until April 1911. [Benedetti (1999, 195).] The play finally opened on 23 December 1911. While Olga Knipper (Gertrude), Nikolai Massalitinov (Claudius) and Olga Gzovskaia (Ophelia) received poor reviews in the Russian press, Vasili Kachalov's performance as Hamlet was praised as a genuine achievement, one which succeeded in displacing the legend of Mochalov's mid-19th-century Romantic Hamlet. [Benedetti (1999, 199).]

Notes

References

* Benedetti, Jean. 1999. "Stanislavski: His Life and Art". Revised edition. Original edition published in 1988. London: Methuen. ISBN 0413525201.
* Innes, Christopher. 1983. "Edward Gordon Craig". Directors in Perspective ser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521273838.
* Taxidou, Olga. 1998. "The Mask: A Periodical Performance by Edward Gordon Craig". Contemporary Theatre Studies ser. volume 30. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. ISBN 9057550466.

Gallery

The central screens have been removed and the army of Fortinbras is visible beyond.]
Craig originally wanted these performers to wear large masks, but Stanislavski changed this to elaborately formalized wigs and beards. See Innes (1983, 155-158).]