On Wednesday I had the utterly dubious pleasure to preview a performance of a treatment of that play about that Danish guy that for the life of Abe Vigoda would have done the anonymous pirate arranger of Hamlet’s unauthorized quarto (Q1, or, the “Bad Quarto,” with such immortal lines as “O what a dunghill idiot slaue am I?” and “To be or not to be, I, there’s the point”) extremely proud. The culprit was one Charles Marowitz, a very fantastical mountebank imported from the normally artistically competent Royal Shakespeare Company in England.
The practice of adapting, changing, or just plain shitting all over Shakespeare’s work to fit an artistic or ideological agenda (and expecting to be recognized for one’s cleverness) has a long and undistinguished history. In the Restoration era, dramatists such as John Dryden thought fit to “improve” the plays by adding new characters, changing the endings of tragedies to happy ones, and even rechristening them with new titles (Antony and Cleopatra becomes All for Love), etcetera. If you, figment reader, think to yourself, “John Dryden… but wasn’t he a poet?” you are absolutely correct! The be-wigged powder-puff is almost never remembered for his dramatick works, which I think says more than enough. Likewise the venerable libromancer Thomas Bowdler of the early 19th century conspired to expurgate the wiggly bits of diction in the Bard’s works that would not do to be heard by “families” and lo – this Shakespeare was now approved for ALL AUDIENCES.
The context in which we must place Marowitz’s abortion is apparently the late 1960s. In an excerpt from the original 1968 introduction, Charlie sagely intones: “Among the classics, Hamlet is a very special case. It is the most often performed, the most widely read, the most thoroughly studied of Shakespeare’s plays. It has – quite literally – been done to death.” A more self-important cloud of narcissus anal wind has – quite literally – never befouled a theatre program. Marowitz runs on at length to repeat (without evidence) that Hamlet’s familiarity to the public and conspicuous status atop the Western canon is precisely what renders it incomprehensible. At least to some hipster-critic-academic at a mahogany desk somewhere. To inflict more intestinal gas on the reader, Hamlet is “a myth, compounded of misunderstandings, distortions, and contradictions.” The play is not only just too complicated for you to understand, it is “imprisoned in its narrative.” In order to really free the story from its unfortunate constrictions of being a story, the “relentless narrativeness” must be abandoned in favor of “(ripping) open the golden lid of the treasure chest to find other riches within.” For Marowitz, then, Hamlet as Shakespeare intended it is simply not good enough.
But perhaps this is all smoke and chin-spinach. Maybe this Mar-no-wits has a legitimate artistic program to render the Bard’s work more interesting to the over-exposed. As I watched the lights rise to reveal the crumpled form of my friend L onstage (in the title role) I thought hey, anything’s possible. A few minutes into the performance, however, I knew I’d had no such luck.
The abomination was constructed from a newspaper-clipping-like selection of material in the original. With the careless aplomb of a hedonistic two-year-old, Mr. Marowitz (who in his bio modestly proclaims himself “one of the few people to successfully combine drama-criticism, acclaimed playwriting, and a career in stage direction”) glued together a popsicle-stick version of Shakespeare’s original with all the obscurity (and more for good measure) and none of the literary and dramatic power. A four-hour play was reduced to seventy-five minutes (with no intermission, or I would have left); lines were not only slashed and burned away, but given to the wrong characters, while scenes were mangled, chopped up, and staged out of sequence or knitted together in grotesque combinations. Indeed this was the Bard in the blender, and the result was an unwholesome, ego-filled MilkShakespeare.
The characters that weren’t written out entirely (Polonius) were reduced to a juvenile hodge-podge of babbling poltroons. We were supposedly being treated to a tour of the inner walls of “Hamlet’s” cerebrum, and it weren’t pretty. In a dyspeptic wash of semi-scenes, characters filed onstage dressed in execrably cheesy, inauthentic costumes meant to evoke the Dane’s confused sense of reality, but in effect just looking stupid. They approached Hamlet and said things to him, danced, sang songs, made out with each other, and generally created a shambles of foolishness out of the text. The set was equally emblematic of the slapdash, context-deprived void characteristic of this treatment. It was now unrecognizable as an English masterpiece – a popped zit of a play, dramaturgically theorized and de-constructed into oblivion. The total effect was the most dried-out, overanalyzed, academically obscure, cynical and self-serving adaptation one could ever hope or dread for. One can only congratulate the man for hoodwinking so many people into finding his utterly dated, turgid thesis of a play worth spending money to stage.
For myself, I was thoroughly glad my ticket was complimentary.










