What is Hamlet by Shakespeare? There are important figures, scenes, quotes, five acts long „to be or not to be”: so much previous knowledge (or false knowledge), subjective- blurred memories, preconception. We remember a figure with a skull in his hand.

It is a kind of collective knowledge by viewers, a so called, canonical association of Hamlet. So, any Hamlet performances and Hamlet interpretations have to deal with these associations: they have to use them, or even over write them totally. It works like that as we are talking about a classical drama. The classical ones are made by time, the canon is made by its constancy in time, permanency and traditions make them work. Tim Carroll has made a special theatrical experiment, when he works with Hamlet to grab the theatrical here and now. His aim is to make one performance, which will never be repeated that way, he does it with different properties and musical materials every evening (the viewers bring with themselves different objects as properties and music each evening, and it is decided with their help that which actors will play the roles that day), with different cast (with the possibility of it at least), Tim Carroll peals down all those layers of interpretation and appearance on stage from Hamlet, which have deposited on it over the years. The pure text remains, the dramatical situation and the possibility for the actors, who perform, (through them the viewers too) to put everything in quotation marks, to show them, to quote them and to reflect on them, which can be connected to Hamlet in the viewers’ thoughts. If they want it.

It is a game with Hamlet itself, and with our prejudices about it, with our previous knowledge. Everybody, who enters the place of performance, choses a chair and sits down, even with the fact that they search for properties and leave home: these all are parts of the game. We know punctually what kind of game we are watching, but we do not adjust to it, when we have to choose properties. It becomes fact, when everybody has to raise up the object he brings, well...there are not so many swords, armours and sculls in the air. There are not any sculls and edged weapons. But there are body lotions, shopping bags, ruler, balloon, banana, map instead, just to mention some of them. It is a provoked provocation. It is a statement of participation in the game: that yes, you can play with me, we can start it. So the “Hamlet-like” game-like thing.

The viewers’ place in the area and game, it is the combination of attraction of a circus and traditional theatrical situations, it is a mental trick of an artist (by the performers and viewers too). The viewers’ attention cannot get lower, as in every moment the possibility of getting into the game is given. The viewers’ reactions become fertile parts of the performance at some points (wilful “provocation”: sitting on the lap, using cream, feeding with chocolate, kissing on hand, leaving of shoes and continuous, very clear eye contact).

The structure of the game is formed by the viewers: on the stage, which is built from chairs, free paths of carpets, lower and higher podiums, the place is a little bit similar to an arena because of the stretched light cloth above it. The close contact is determining all through the performance. The performance is going on next to and around me, for the following of the changing places we need an active look, as there are not any stage lights, which can control our look, neither a curtain or a revolving stage, which can hide some moments.

There is continuous reflection from the viewers: the well-known text is given, the structure of roles, the arc of the story. Above it, the story is too well-known, and the special kind of performance does not let (or make harder) us get lost into the whole story, the entire transfiguration (the orders by the master of ceremonies bring us back, to tell us where we can put our chairs, which part of the stage must be free). If there is anything, we can get lost in, then it is the game, into given moments of the performance into some kind of micro situations. The theatrical situation is thematic in the performance itself. The viewers are searching for chairs for themselves, with the game or rock-paper-scissors they decide which roles, which actors play that evening, they have to change their places by acts. Before the first scene of the act I have to raise up the object, I have taken with myself, which has been in my hand, I can see the actors, who are not on stage, who are sitting between the viewers and waiting for their next scene, they are sitting there more as actors, than as their roles. Zoltán Balázs is sitting next to me on the podium then, and not Hamlet, Gábor Nagypál is standing in the corner, he is not Horatio. So during this performance the viewers must know (and know it well) that here they can see a performance, which is born in the given moment (which uses anyway the drama, entitled Hamlet, its characters, situations and text as a material).

There is the wonderful dissonance in it, that sometimes the miniature duets are in intimate closeness (two characters’ meeting and dialogue), they have very strong effects. Maybe because of the physical closeness, or the improvising nature, its theatrical nature (its stage-like nature) is pushed back, and during most of the scenes, the suggestibility of two people’s meeting, its intensity (humour, momentary, tragedy) remain the dominant experience.

The playing method, which is similar to situation practices, can create a vividly changing and changeable, live speaking like text on stage from the fixed text. In each performance we can listen to the same dialogues, which are simple dialogues anyway (there are not any stresses, choreographies of dialogues, which can work from performances to performances, there is no use to fix them, as the characters – except for Hamlet – are changed from performances to performances). The stresses and the dynamic are similar to normal speech, and it lets some kind of “border crossing” too; for example the repeating of a sentence, which can be heard just once in a drama (To be or not to be?), with different stresses (question, reaction, exclamation: it is similar to an improvised opinion poll from the point of view of Hamlet).

The classical text can “transfigure”, become more colourful, and it is strongly connected to the actual surrounding (to the place, partners, objects). The hidden meanings of a word, expression (all of them they can have) are there parallel because all of them, any of them, some of them can be brought into the performance through the given elements of the properties, which changes from performances to performances. It is a “clearer” text that way, it is more understandable, it is that kind of variation of the text, which becomes “more up to date” by the way of its pronunciation.

The special use of properties is a basic thing in Tim Carroll’s performances. The aim is: to “bring the actors into situations” with the help of objects (and music). But what can be exactly the objects on the stage? What is an object for? What is its aim? Is it there to make it authentic? Is it there for pure illustration? To raise illusion? To form counterpoints?

With the usage of properties, which would not be suitable there, makes all possibilities appear together. The raise of illusion (that the scene is going on as it would in reality too, if...) can happen only as a result of lucky constellation. It is up to the actors’ creativity, that how much they can make me, the viewer to believe that the given-chosen object in the given scene is necessary and reasonable. For example, that for Polonius’ dead body a big porcelain vase is the best hiding place, as an urn, which is for holding ashes in it. (it is going on a working well in the scene, where Ophelia goes mad) Those properties are more common, which are used as tools of jokes, where irony, humour and counterpointing work. Claudius is there with a toy snake scarf in his neck and Horatio with an umbrella with blue- Donald duck on it in the scene of guards in the cemetery. Well it is a real comedy. There are jokes, and funny out winking. As we are playing “Hamlet-like games”. The snake is similar to a stole anyway, the umbrella is the best tool to protect ourselves and a hiding place too. Why not?

This later one is a very important question? Why not? If there is a time, when it is not (so much) ... Is there a moment when this out winking cannot work, or it is not worth using? It is imaginable. But for it we have to understand more thoroughly that how comedy can affect in this special way of performance. What does a comic moment do in a tragic drama? Does it put out of joint or counterpoint productively? Do the comic elements make weaker or in contrast to it, they prepare and strengthen the tragic situation? As I was laughing. I admit, that I did more times. Isn’t it “unnatural” during a Hamlet performance? To put jokes aside, of course it is not (Shakespeare theatre was entertaining by its nature, just to hold viewers’ attention; either with bloodbath, murder, intrigue, betrayal). Does the cap deform Hamlet’s figure in me? Do the trainers do the same with Claudius’ character, or the jumping rope does it with Gertrud’s character? I do not think so. It is some kind of demystification, of course (of the story, and of the figures), but it works; the humour (can) create open area for tragedy. The dramatic moment after the relaxed laugh can affect even more strongly and deeply. It is a sensitive balance: meanwhile actors move more easily toward comedy because of the circumstances (take into consideration the umbrella with the Donald duck and the toy snake), and making laugh is a really grateful task. Because of it, during the (more) dramatic scenes we need a very accurate and very authentic performance, the actors have to create the silence, the hold back breath on the auditorium for the serious moments, or the performance moves toward the self-serving entertainment. When they can create this special balance, then the scenes, the performance have a special dynamic, rhythm, continuous intensity.

Freedom as actors, but obligation to the text: it is a special combination. It is pure game, which needs exaggerated and concentrated presence by actors. From some points of view the performance is divided, it is structured by the changing of positions between the scenes (it brakes the continuity of the performance), so the rules of the game are marked clearly. The sense of “playing Hamlet” is stressed strongly: the scenes work more as miniature situation practices, in which everybody gets an object and a fixed part of the text, a role (which they cannot leave), then they have to use all these. There are only a few objects, and properties, which can come back from scenes to scenes (the performance can work the best, if they can make some objects to be a motive, connect that kind of meaning to them, which can make them return into the game again). All of these strengthen the fact that some situations are similar to special closed improvising universe in the performance, where a part of the text has to be made alive in a way. These independent (able to work on their own or not) scenes can be connected like mosaics, to form a general impression at the end of the performance, but the basic of the play is evidently the situation, the dialogue of the two.

This method of performance is a great freedom and responsibility too. It is freedom, as the actors direct mostly themselves and each other in these scenes. It is responsibility, as the actors really direct themselves and each other during these scenes. Yes, it may be the most interesting point of the performance. If the time can get out of joint anytime, then this is that point for sure. The unspoken rule of situation practices, that the more dominant actor controls. The hierarchy between the director and actor can be formed during a minute of the performance, for the sake of the scene one of them has to submit himself to the other’s will. It is clear. The actor, who performs Polonius, cannot laugh, cannot leave the role, cannot get angry, cannot leave the scene, and cannot say that “it is a silly thing, let’s start it again”, even if the actor, who is Hamlet, in his mad-like behaviour squeezes a lemon on his head, then put its skin into his mouth. The game is about it. The scene is excellent. The cooperation is essential; if only one of the two actors believes that the paper handkerchief is a letter to Ophelia “In reality”, the other one would play (imagine it) that it is a poisonous white flower, then the scene must die, and the viewers would not understand anything. These things do not happen of course, as the actors are professionals. But it can happen easily, that an idea does not work perfectly, an actor can over-direct himself and his partner. Because of the spontaneous usage of properties, the over thinking of some scenes, or the nice forcing of an original bad idea can make the performance weaker. All of these, are nothing else, just less well-made improvisation, but the performance has to go on after them too. The actors have to know, how can they move out of a less successful part of a scene, so that it seems to be very natural, and they have to perform it all along to a new scene, where they have to make a totally new idea work.

This can be the most important thing in Tim Carroll’s performance. This “Hamlet-like” game is such a strange game, that there are not, there cannot be any experienced participants / players, as there are any experienced viewers too. It is here and now. One final scene, two actors, and a hot pepper – for example. It is once in a lifetime, it is unrepeatable. It is pure game.

Dóra Juhász, Criticai Lapok, 2006

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)