The Ghost

[msdirector]

Arlene, what do you think of the BBC film of Hamlet starring Jacobi in the titled role? To me that is the classic, the version I base all others. And none have been better to me.

I adore it!!! See my last post to Janine. Derek Jacobi is the best.

I have always loved Shakespeare, but I had never had an real desire to direct one of his plays. From what I had seen of them, they seemed too difficult, to obscure, too literary to me. Hamlet was always my favorite, but, while I had seen many productions of Hamlet, not only on film but on the stage, until I saw Jacobi's Hamlet every production I had seen seemed two dimensional. They had focused on only one or two aspects of Hamlet - the mad Hamlet, the angry Hamlet, the emotional Hamlet, the indecisive Hamlet, the inactive (or in the case of Olivier's film, almost catatonic...) Hamlet. I had never seen a Hamlet that had any depth, that was multi-layered, that was believable as a complete human being. I didn't like the character. I didn't care about him. And I had come to believe that a complete portrayal wasn't possible.

Then I saw Derek Jacobi's Hamlet. I was stunned, amazed, transformed by what I saw. Suddenly I saw Shakespeare in an entirely different light. Jacobi illuminated the character, brought him to life, made him real for me in a way I had never seen. I believed in this person. I cared about him. I laughed with him and cried with him. All of a sudden Hamlet was a real person and one that I wanted to be a part of creating.

Sure he went over the top in a few spots. But then he wasn't directing. I've read his comments on his Hamlet and he is spot-on in everything he says. One thing that I was really disappointed in once I started researching... Jacobi had toured with Hamlet for several years before doing the BBC production. When he did HIS Hamlet, he had Hamlet do the "To be or not to be" speech directly to Ophelia rather than the way it is traditionally done as a soliloquy. I love that choice and believe in it intensely (it changes so many wonderful things about Ophelia) and I would have loved to have seen him do it. But the director for the BBC version insisted that he do it traditionally (probably because the close ups of him look so amazing on film).

I was disappointed and told him so when I wrote him, and he mentioned that in his note back to me.

Interestingly enough Jacobi directed Kenneth Branagh in that approach in Branagh's first production as Hamlet for Rennaissance Theatre Company. The rehearsals were filmed for Discovering Hamlet and if you haven't seen it, you should.

By the way, I have stills of his Hamlet on a tribute page on my website. Check it out if you'd like.

Not surprisingly, I love Jacobi's "Claudius" in Branagh's Hamlet as well. Definitely the best, most dimensional, real Claudius I've ever seen. I have this strange fantasy to be able to see Hamlet with Jacobi playing both parts - as a young man as Hamlet and in his older incarnation as Claudius, playing against each other. Wouldn't that just be something!

[Janine]

Great stuff, Arlene. A wealth of information here. Can't wait to check out your website. How old was Jacobi when he started playing Hamlet? I take it that is his photo on your post. He looks quite young...different. I have certainly heard of "Discovering Hamlet". I will check the current price on Amazon. I have wanted it for sometime. Heard it was great!
Jacobi is amazing. I loved him in everything I have seen him in. He was great as Claudius. What an interesting fantasy to see him playing both roles. Maybe someday with computer generation (CG) that can happen, who knows. I will post more later on. For once I am all talked out. You have given me much to think about. Thanks! Janine
PS: tried to post this last night - site must have been down (?)

[msdirector]

How old was Jacobi when he started playing Hamlet? I take it that is his photo on your post. He looks quite young...different.

Yep -- that's him right in the middle of "To be or not to be" - right about "the undiscovered country" line, I believe. He does look young - he's always complained that he looks too much younger than his real age which made it harder for him to get cast in roles that he wanted. Actually, he was born in 1938 and when he played Hamlet for the BBC in 1980 he was about 42! Definitely didn't look his age - and in this case it was an asset. My website page of his Hamlet stills is at: http://arlenestage.homestead.com/JacobiHamlet.html
My tribute page to him is at: http://arlenestage.homestead.com/SirDerekJacobi.html

I have certainly heard of "Discovering Hamlet". I will check the current price on Amazon. I have wanted it for sometime. Heard it was great!
Jacobi is amazing. I loved him in everything I have seen him in. He was great as Claudius.

I have yet to find anything that I don't like him in. He has done some wonderful films (just about all of which I have!). A year or so before Hamlet, he also played Richard II in the same BBC series. Some particularly good, non-Shakespearean, roles he did (available on film from either movies or tv specials) are, of course, his career-defining I, Claudius, an absolutely mesmerizing Cyrano de Bergerac, Breaking the Code (which he did on stage and screen), The Fool which is an amazing and delightful piece of acting in which he played a dual role, and, of course, the whole Cadfael series (for which he has also done the reading for the audiobooks series and is simply lyrical in, playing all the roles beautifully). I could go on - there are so many, but those are among the best. Somebody - I forgot who - called him a "man who speak arias"! I can't think of a better way to describe the most beautiful speaking voice I've ever heard.

[Virgil]

I love Jacobi in just about everything I've seen him in too. I think he defined the role in that 1980 BBC Hamlet version, at least in my opinion, and he may also have defined the role of Claudius too in that Branagh version.

[Janine]

Arlene, thanks for the links to your sites. I love them! The photos are great - good job! I hope to explore them more thoroughly tonight. I am anxious to see this version of "Hamlet" after seeing the photos. You can tell it is something very fine. His facial expressions are wonderful. I have liked and admired his work for quite a long time now. His "Richard II" also looks to be of particular interest to me. I read most of Shakespeare's history plays. I enjoyed them very much. I have Branagh performing Richard III on CD's. If interested I can burn some for you. They are great to listen to on headphones. You feel like you are onstage with the actors. I would love to see Shakespearer's preceeding play, "Richard II", with Jacobi. His "Tempest" and his "MacBeth" look terrific, too. Gee, how have I missed out on all of this fine viewing? Are they available here in the US or on Amazon?
I loved Jacobi in "Cracking the Code". He was amazing! I also heard him narrating "Nijinski" which is his reading of N's diary. It is so touching the way he reads it, fabulous delivery and voice....smooth as silk. Unfortunately, I have not seen "I Claudius", but I really want to now. I have heard it is great from friends of mine. I really did not know the man had done so many productions and films. I will have to check into it further. He was great in "Dead Again", and in Branagh's "Hamlet", I agree with you and Virgil on that last point.
PS: Arlene, I will answer in full your email later tonight. It interests me greatly. Must go eat dinner now. Janine

[msdirector]

I have Branagh performing Richard III on CD's. If interested I can burn some for you. They are great to listen to on headphones. You feel like you are onstage with the actors.

I actually have a bunch of CD's of Shakespeare plays and I also love listening to them. In a way, for me as a director, they are more fun than watching a performance (except for Derek Jacobi) because I can visualize my own staging while I listen. Let me know which ones you have and I'll check my own and, if I can figure out how to burn CD's of the ones I have maybe we can exchange some that we don't have.

I would love to see Shakespeare's preceeding play, "Richard II", with Jacobi. His "Tempest" and his "MacBeth" look terrific, too. Gee, how have I missed out on all of this fine viewing? Are they available here in the US or on Amazon?

Actually, the BBC Richard II is available on DVD, as are all the BBC plays. Amazon has it in the BBC Shakespeare's Histories Giftbox (5 histories for $130). But you can get the individual DVD's online at http://www.documentary-video.com/dis...em.cfm?vid=812 for $35 each if you don't want all five.

Unfortunately, his Macbeth and Tempest were only done on stage and, as far as I know, at the moment have not been filmed.

I also heard him narrating "Nijinski" which is his reading of N's diary. It is so touching the way he reads it, fabulous delivery and voice....smooth as silk. Unfortunately, I have not seen "I Claudius", but I really want to now. I have heard it is great from friends of mine.

I have Nijinski also. And I highly recommend I, Claudius. The way his characer changes throughout the series and the way he deals with the physical challenges of the role - the stutter and the limp and the general body language - is an outstanding demonstration of excellence in physical acting skills, to add to his voice and his exceptional characterization skills. It's interesting though, that you actually see very little of Jacobi through the first, I think, 2 episodes of the series. His character narrates and then gradually becomes more and more the focus as this story of the early Roman Emperors procedes. It's a lovely piece of work - and the show is filled with a huge number of big name and big talent actors, so the whole lives up to the strength of its star.

[Janine]

Arlene, then you would recommend Richard II? I will look into it. I can't afford much now with Christmas coming, but may buy one BBC production at least. I have quite a few productions of audio CD sets, Shakespeare. I like the idea of exchanging. That would double both our collections. I will send you a list in the personal email. I just wrote to you, to answer yours. I have to acquire a copy of "I Claudius" - it is on my "must see" list. Interesting what you said about him being absent from the first parts. Maybe my library can locate it for me - it is free to take out, but you can have it only 2 days.

I too, love to listen to the audio CD's. My imagination fills in the rest and I can set it in any type setting to suit me. I am an artist, so I am quite imaginative. I usually listen to them before I drift off to sleep. Sometimes they lull me to sleep. They seem so personal - the voices and the intonations in them. Shakespeare's poetry takes on a purity when no other distractions are present.

I also collect film scores. I have almost all of Branagh's Shakespeare films by Patrick Doyle. They are so great and reminiscent of the films. I will post more later perhaps. I am going out now. Janine

[Petrarch's Love]

Wow, this topic has certainly generated a lot of discussion. Forgive me if I repeat anything that's already been covered in my comments. I tried to read over most of the posts but I may have missed something.

I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing

Of course, given my chosen profession, I'm afraid none of my comments may be deemed acceptable.


I just thought I'd add a little note on Shakespeare's sources and the context for the ghost figure in Elizabethan drama. As far as ghosts are concerned, the Belleforest version of the story (a French translation through which Elizabethans would have encountered the original Saxo Grammaticus version of the story) contains two references to the "shade" (ombre) of Hamlet's father. One of these allusions to the shade of the father occurs in the scene between the Hamlet character and his mother, which may explain why the ghost resurfaces at that point in Shakespeare's play. If I remember right, though, this reference to a "shade" is somewhat ambiguous in that the shade isn't necessarily present in the scene (i.e. a real ghost walking about), but may be merely alluded to.

The predominant influence on the ghost in Shakespeare's Hamlet is undoubtably the Senecan tradition of bloodthirsty ghosts who rise up and cry for revenge. Imitations of the Senecan ghost crowded the Elizabethan stage. It was pretty popular to start off a play with a vengeful ghost in this period. Thomas Kyd's Spanish Tragedy provides a famous and convenient example. It starts in a prologue with the ghost of the murdered Andrea in conversation with the allegorical figure of Revenge. These two figures reappear periodically throughout the course of the play to comment on the progress of the revenge, and they sum everything up at the end in a nice tidy (though incredibly bloody) conclusion. The text of the so-called Ur-Hamlet (the play which preceeded and likely inspired Shakespeare's) no longer exists, so we can only guess at what exactly it contained. It is generally believed to have been penned by Kyd as well, and accounts of people at the time remark on the memorable character of the ghost who cried repeatedly for revenge for bloody murder, so it seems likely that it followed a similar pattern to The Spanish Tragedy and other plays in which the ghost provides a framing structure in which the revenge plot unfolds.

Given the context of these plays, which would follow a logical pattern (ghost introduces his grievance in prologue-things happen-ghost comments-revenge is acheived-ghost sums up and goes off satisfied) it seems likely that Shakespeare may have been consciously trying to vary convention. Instead of having the ghost air his grievances to the audience in a prologue, Shakespeare introduces the spirit as he would appear naturally (or rather supernaturally) in the real world. Rather than allowing the ghost to act as the predictable guide through the process of revenge in the play, he has the ghost deliver his message and then vanish with no further guidance (though a few other enigmatic appearances), leaving the audience as perplexed and mystified as the characters onstage, and as mystified as one imagines they might be encountering a ghost in their own lives. Thus, in comparison to other plays of the time, it would seem that Shakespeare is rejecting a more convenient ghostly type which other writers successfully employed to propell their dramas in favor of a more ambiguous and perplexing spirit. This, of course, ties in with the conclusion that everyone's come to regarding the aesthetic choice in favor of a "mysterious and unfathomable" nature for the ghost.

As for the more recent discussion that's started up on Hamlet versions, I'm also a fan of the the Jakobi, though I haven't seen it in a long time, and I agree with MsDirector in that I wasn't a fan of the last scene in Branagh's Hamlet. I had somehow missed or forgotten the statue/ghost connection too. Thanks for bringing that up Jenine.

I have this strange fantasy to be able to see Hamlet with Jacobi playing both parts - as a young man as Hamlet and in his older incarnation as Claudius, playing against each other. Wouldn't that just be something!

What a great idea. I think we should start going on the cgi effects pronto.

[msdirector]

... the original Saxo Grammaticus version of the story) contains two references to the "shade" (ombre) of Hamlet's father. One of these allusions to the shade of the father occurs in the scene between the Hamlet character and his mother, which may explain why the ghost resurfaces at that point in Shakespeare's play. If I remember right, though, this reference to a "shade" is somewhat ambiguous in that the shade isn't necessarily present in the scene (i.e. a real ghost walking about), but may be merely alluded to.

Hi Petrarch! Welcome to the fray.

Thanks for that note on the Saxo Grammaticus version of the story. Of course that story contains a great deal that isn't in Shakespeare's version. I particularly enjoyed that, as in Shakespeare's Hamlet, "Amleth" kills the "Polonius" character (the King's trusted councillor) hiding in his mother's room. He then drags him out and "cutting his body into morsels, he seethed it in boiling water, and flung it through the mouth of an open sewer for the swine to eat, bestrewing the stinking mire with his hapless limbs." Only then does he return to his mother and berate her over her relationship with the his father's brother, comparing her to "the mares [who] couple with the vanquishers of their mates; for brute beasts are naturally incited to pair indiscriminately; and it would seem that thou, like them, hast clean forgot thy first husband." Lovely and quite brutal.

However, nowhere in that particular scene could I find any reference to a "shade" either in the description or in Amleth's words. It might be a trick of the translation - the one I'm looking at is online at http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book3.html
The version there doesn't indicate if it is translated from Belleforest's version, but I would assume so. The only reference to anything resembling it seems more like it refers to the Claudius character (Feng) than to the Ghost. Amleth, in berating his mother he says, refering to his pretence of madness:
"As for me, not idly do I wear the mask of folly; for I doubt not that he who destroyed his brother will riot as ruthlessly in the blood of his kindred. Therefore it is better to choose the garb of dulness than that of sense, and to borrow some protection from a show of utter frenzy. Yet the passion to avenge my father still burns in my heart; but I am watching the chances, I await the fitting hour. There is a place for all things; against so merciless and dark spirit must be used the deeper devices of the mind."

The text of the so-called Ur-Hamlet (the play which preceeded and likely inspired Shakespeare's) no longer exists, so we can only guess at what exactly it contained. It is generally believed to have been penned by Kyd as well, and accounts of people at the time remark on the memorable character of the ghost who cried repeatedly for revenge for bloody murder, so it seems likely that it followed a similar pattern to The Spanish Tragedy and other plays in which the ghost provides a framing structure in which the revenge plot unfolds.

I agree that the tradition of the use of ghosts stems from Seneca and Elizabethan tragedy was full of them. And, as you say, there was, essentially, a "formula" for their use.

Thus, in comparison to other plays of the time, it would seem that Shakespeare is rejecting a more convenient ghostly type which other writers successfully employed to propell their dramas in favor of a more ambiguous and perplexing spirit. This, of course, ties in with the conclusion that everyone's come to regarding the aesthetic choice in favor of a "mysterious and unfathomable" nature for the ghost.

This makes alot of sense to me. Shakespeare seemed to go out of his way to break tradition in many ways. His tragedies did not follow Aristotle's unities or other formalities of classical tragedy. He took the basics in many of his plays, but changed them, rearranged them, created dramatic structure that was revolutionary in some ways. It seems likely that he took the basic "ghost" that his audiences were familiar with, and then "tweaked" it, made it "real" and therefore more mysterious, more unfathomable, and, in its own way, more fearsome than any of those over-the-top ghosts preceding him simply because it WAS so real.

I still feel like he might have had it appear at the end of the play - it seems right and fitting that it would - but without the dialogue that would include it in the stage directions and that would convert it back to the traditional summing up (much like some of the epilogues in his earlier plays). But, of course, we will never know.

As for "young" Jacobi playing Hamlet opposite is "older-ego" Claudius:

What a great idea. I think we should start going on the cgi effects pronto.

I'll have to check with my film-editing/program designer son to see if he could actually do anything like that. What a fun project that would be for someone! But which version of the rest of the play do we use?

[Virgil]

Of course, given my chosen profession, I'm afraid none of my comments may be deemed acceptable.

Perhaps a bit over the top. But you also didn't include the full sentence. Here's what I completely wrote:

Hahaha, LOL. You just put the kiss of death to him. That probably means he's definitely wrong. I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing, unless those few who were writers themselves.

And you definitely qualify as someone who writes too.

[Petrarch's Love]

Thanks for that note on the Saxo Grammaticus version of the story. Of course that story contains a great deal that isn't in Shakespeare's version. I particularly enjoyed that, as in Shakespeare's Hamlet, "Amleth" kills the "Polonius" character (the King's trusted councillor) hiding in his mother's room. He then drags him out and "cutting his body into morsels, he seethed it in boiling water, and flung it through the mouth of an open sewer for the swine to eat, bestrewing the stinking mire with his hapless limbs." Only then does he return to his mother and berate her over her relationship with the his father's brother, comparing her to "the mares [who] couple with the vanquishers of their mates; for brute beasts are naturally incited to pair indiscriminately; and it would seem that thou, like them, hast clean forgot thy first husband." Lovely and quite brutal.

I know, it's great stuff. I wouldn't want to meet a medieval Dane in a dark alley.

However, nowhere in that particular scene could I find any reference to a "shade" either in the description or in Amleth's words. It might be a trick of the translation - the one I'm looking at is online at http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book3.html
The version there doesn't indicate if it is translated from Belleforest's version, but I would assume so. The only reference to anything resembling it seems more like it refers to the Claudius character (Feng) than to the Ghost. Amleth, in berating his mother he says, refering to his pretence of madness:
"As for me, not idly do I wear the mask of folly; for I doubt not that he who destroyed his brother will riot as ruthlessly in the blood of his kindred. Therefore it is better to choose the garb of dulness than that of sense, and to borrow some protection from a show of utter frenzy. Yet the passion to avenge my father still burns in my heart; but I am watching the chances, I await the fitting hour. There is a place for all things; against so merciless and dark spirit must be used the deeper devices of the mind."

I was working from memory when I posted last night so I looked up the pertinent excerpt from the Belleforest this morning. I didn't get the chance to read it through entirely but the version of the Saxo story you posted the link to seems to be a translation of the original latin rather than a translation of Belleforest's translation. That said, I found that the reference to shades in Belleforest was even more ambiguous than I had remembered. The pertinent line is as follows:

"c'est un desir effrene qui a conduit la fille de Rorique a embrasser le tyran Fengon sans respespecter les ombres de Horvvendille indigne de si estrange traictement, et que son frere l'occist traitreusement, et que sa femme la trahist laschement laquelle il a tant bien traitee."

My (humble) translation of the above:

It is an unbridled desire which leads the daughter of Roric to embrace the tyrant Fengon [Claudius] without respect for the shade of Horwendille [Hamlet's father], indignant at his unnatural treatment, both that his brother killed him traiterously, and that his wife meanly betrayed him when he had treated her so well.

So in the scene between Amleth [Hamlet] and his mother in the Belleforest version there is mention of the spirit of Amleth's father and of what that spirit is probably feeling in that scene, but he is not meant to be present as a real ghost. Since the ghost was already "haunting" the lines of the Belleforest, it's possible this mention of the shade made Shakespeare think, "hey that's a great scene to have the ghost come in," but the I think the influence is probably debatable (come to think on it everything about Hamlet seemst to be debateable ).

I'll have to check with my film-editing/program designer son to see if he could actually do anything like that. What a fun project that would be for someone! But which version of the rest of the play do we use?

Oooh, it could turn into something like fantasy baseball for Shakespeareans. Quick everyone, who do we edit in for Ophelia? Polonius?

Perhaps a bit over the top. But you also didn't include the full sentence. Here's what I completely wrote:
Quote:
Hahaha, LOL. You just put the kiss of death to him. That probably means he's definitely wrong. I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing, unless those few who were writers themselves.
And you definitely qualify as someone who writes too.

Ha! A loophole, a palpable loophole. I'd better warn my colleagues to start dabbling in poetry quick, since if they don't write they evidently have no chance of winning the respect of their students.

[Janine]

I am back and listening. I read all the new posts....some great stuff here. Glad the long "ghost discussion" has not faded away. I have learned much here that I did not know before; it is interesting reading actual script that the play "Hamlet" was based on. Some real bloody stuff here. Wow, I agree - would not want to meet a medieval Dane in a dark alley!
Good job everyone....thanks! from me, too!

Sorry it was Msdirector that said "welcome to the fray". My mistake

[Virgil]

Ha! A loophole, a palpable loophole. I'd better warn my colleagues to start dabbling in poetry quick, since if they don't write they evidently have no chance of winning the respect of their students.

Well, it's all these teachers who are into deconstruction or New Historicism or whatever is the latest fad within your teaching circles. You know I feel how useless that is.

[Janine]

I am not in the know. What is "deconstruction or New Historicism"?

[Virgil]

Janine, they are recent cirtical approaches to literature or as some call it literary theory. Here's a quick reference to literary theory, written I might add by people who have never created literature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory. You can click the various links to the each school of theory for more info on each. If you have any questions on any you can ask me, and I will try to explain. But for the most part, I am definitely biased.