TEATRO: Matadero Madrid
DÍA: 2 Abril
HORA: 8p.m. (duración CUATRO horas)
PRECIO: 16.50e
jueves, 19 de febrero de 2009
HAMLET (William Shakespeare)
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
Lily
Check out our Reading Club
Quiénes somos
- EOIGoya_Inglés
- La Escuela Oficial de Idiomas (EOI) "Goya" imparte enseñanzas de idiomas como parte de la oferta de la enseñanza pública en Madrid.
The Globe Theatre (new and old)
Dedicated to Shakespeare & Co. by teachers
12 comentarios:
One of my students has been and he says it´s very interesting, he says the show is fantastic, it is different and he says the break lasts for 45 minutes and it is also remarkable, so that is for you to think about it once again.
Pandur´s works are usually very interesting, so to say. I´ve seen "Infierno" and "Barroco" and did like them, but there also were people who weren´t able to stay and left the room... So, go well-prepared and try to be open minded!
María I was having dinner yesterday with some friends and they said exactly that, that some people like it, as did my student, and some just walk out! I wonder where we will be?
I have to say that I´m glad that we went to see the play, it was different, with that mini concert during the interval, in those very modern, almost lunar premises, I liked the scenario, the aesthetics in general, very modern and it caught the audience because there were lots of teenagers who did not even breathe... but it was not Hamlet. There is no sex in Hamlet, people did not walk around naked, and the orgy we saw would be out of the question, one would of course say that they were symbolic but what were they trying to symbolize? The corruption of the Royals? of the upper class? It doesn´t very well go with what Prince Hamlet was really like, because he had feelings, I think his personality does come out clearly and this is a real pity. You have to read the play and arrive at your own conclusions!!
I was surprised ith Blanca Prtillo who tolerebly delivered the To be... but hes closing "the rest is silence" was horrible. Pollonius HORRIBLE Claudio good for anything soap operas not for real thinggs, the Queen, very bad and too old for such a young husband Lertes, Ophelia, will you remember them????
The audience surprised me: very young!!!! The fact that it appealed to them so much makes me think that it misses the point, the essence, the meaning of the play, don´t you think?
This play must be seen by people who knows the story. It must be seen as a piece of art, like seeing a version (not an adaptation, which is different) of, for example, El jardín de las delicias de El Bosco in ARCO. It is a show of a life that can be misunderstood by people who have not read the play, but not by you, experts in Shakespeare. So try to give it another point of view, because what we saw, from mine, was good.
I really liked the scenario and I´m sure I loved the play thanks to its astonishing production.
Nevertheless it made me doubt about the real plot of the book as I didn´t recognize some of the scenes from the master piece,such as Claudio´s sexual assault to Ophelia;all of them naked most of the time;Hamlet having sex with "hes" and "shes"and Polonius being so aggressive to his son and daughter.
This all is used to catch the audience!
I also think the cast should have been more exhaustive,why such a big difference of age between the current King of Denmark Claudius and her newly wife Gertrude,mother to Hamlet?
Why the ghost of the former King is younger than Hamlet itself?
But don´t misunderstand me,please,I truly liked it!!!
I forgot to say that the music was fantastic specially on the last scenes
Touchy and inspiring
The play was interesting to watch but it was not a good Hamlet, in my opinion, as for one I thought the adaptation was deficient. Could a person who had not read the play follow it? The plot was disconnected, Hamlet shown as a pervert, he was not, having sexual relationships with both Ofelia and Laertes and at the same time!! The director did not know what he was doing. Ofelia is raped many times by everybody, what kind of kingdom and court was that? One thing is to have a murderer for a king and another what we saw the other day.
The scenario, the lights the sound, etc were good but what had to do with the play not at all. The final disaster was when Hamlet finally dies perfectly straight, so if you haven´t read the play that he does, and says the world famous last words: the rest is silence, with the Queen, whom one is not sure either whether she is alive or dead, snogging with her first husband. Terrible
Little to do with Hamlet but a good show to attract teenagers, in none of the other plays we´ve seen so far has the audience been so young. The scenario was impressive, so much water everywhere that I even stepped into one of the ponds, so for the first part of the play I could feel the damp of Denmark in my bones. The music, the lights, the naked actors, everything helped to make it so appealing for young people, though I doubt if they really learned anything about the play Shakespeare wrote..
I found the choice of the cast provoking, featuring a woman for a Hamlet who looked much older than his father. Claudio was not convincing in his role, he was too young, too active and too handsome the typical character of a sitcom. Polonious´ tips had more of angry reproach than of sensible advice. And there was too much sex that I don´t think was present in Shakespeare´s Hamlet.
Despite everything I don´t regret seeing the play, it was a different experience, more of a threatical spectacle and it´s always interesting to see such innovative projects, but if I have to choose I much prefer the psychological realism and reverence for dramatic texts.
Cristina, a really good analisys!!
I believe what we saw on Thursday to be a fantastic piece of art, a sophisticated play indeed.
The director moves in between several aesthetic elements, specially those of perfume advertising and Cabaret. It was clear to me the references to Jean Paul Gaulttier and his famous and handsome sailor and the Anais- Anais fair-like women surrounding a table,among many others.
All the elements being very in, the perception was that of being in a fashion show: clothes designed by David Delfín, actors chosen among the current tv stars, stage set up as a peculiar catwalk...All working in favour of the spectacular spectacle.
As for the so discussed question of Hamlet being performed by a woman, I find it quite understandable as none of the characters seemed to have a very defined sexuality (and she was beyond any doubt the best of the cast). Male and female features inhabited them moving in a confusing dance between hetero and homosexuality. Once more, I see this to be a common place with advertising industry.
Hitherto all good and beautiful but: What has all this to be with Shakespeare? Why Hamlet? I am quite confused. Maybe it has been chosen for its references, for its being the most powerful title of the theatre nowadays. And the director reads it in his way; he does not destroy it, I think, neither gives anything new.
The acting was quite remarkable. Blanca Portillo plays beautifully, as well as Aitor Etxeandia .Although I found the audience a bit overexcited about it (excuse me Blanca).
I would finally say that I enjoyed very much the break and all the Cabaret stuff, but I can not find an answer to “What was it doing in there?” Well, apart from fans and profit, I mean.
Hamlet is no longer prince of Denmark but prince of Vanity Fair, at least the one we saw.
A most interesting post. You have seen a lot that i missed!Thanks
Publicar un comentario