Acting #1 - Is That Really What Shakespeare Wrote About?

For our first task of this lesson, we looked at ‘To Be or Not To Be’, the infamous monologue from Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’. Upon our first read we had to discuss what we thought the meaning of the monologue was, and I really wasn’t too sure. I couldn’t decipher what was actually being spoken about in the monologue, as I wasn’t too sure on some of the language. I focussed more on trying to figure out the meaning of specific words - like contumely, insolence, bodkin - instead of focussing more on the overall picture of what the monologue was actually telling it’s audience. Another thing that also plays into this is that I know the basic story of Hamlet but I have never read nor seen it, and so I think that suggests another reason why. Here is Andrew Scott's version of the monologue, which now, looking back on the monologue myself, really helps me understand the delivery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6CLdCl9TB0

After it was explained that Hamlet is thinking aloud on whether to commit suicide or not, I understood the meaning of the monologue, and how the words made sense. It seemed as though I could have read it with contemporary language as opposed to Shakespearean language. I find it interesting that in a time that was full of toxic and historic religious beliefs, that Shakespeare would write about Hamlet taking his own life, which back then was seen as a sin and an act of blasphemy; however he wrote it in such a way with so many different layers that it was difficult for his audiences to comprehend.

Upon our next tasks of reading the monologue aloud in a shorter space of time, I found that I understood the emotional meaning behind it a lot more. I found that, although I couldn’t finish reading the monologue in thirty seconds, I could pick up where the change of pace happened, and where the deeper, more emotional side of Hamlet comes out. The next task fitted perfectly, as I didn’t really know what some of the words still meant and therefore found it difficult to truly understand what the words meant. I found that the task of picking out each word I didn’t understand, compared with each word or line I struggled to say was far easier in the long run when we next read through it. I found that through doing this, I pinpointed that the lines I didn’t like, or rather struggled to say were the ones where he was listing things. I felt like I couldn’t match the rhythm. My favourite phrase to say was ‘For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come / when we have shuffled off this mortal coil’, and ‘For who would bear the whips and scorns of time’, as both of them - although full of sibilance - have a nice ring to them.

Our next task was to work on The Caretaker by Harold Pinter, as we discussed the singular narrative importance of Pinter, David Mamet and Caryl Churchill. Marmet, who wrote Oleanna, cleverly adapted his narrative into a power-struggle between John, a professor, and Carol, a student who accuses him of sexual harassment and then it builds to a crescendo. Churchill, who wrote Top Girls, adapted her narrative into the Thatcherite era that was around at the time of writing this play, focussing on the topic of whether women can be successful in both the workplace and family life. Pinter didn’t really have any form of narrative to his piece, as the audience never really seemed to fully grasp what was going on, and I think that’s the whole point to this piece, as the characters themselves never really understand what’s going on.

We had to follow the same task we did with Hamlet, and read through the play really quickly in order to try and get a better understanding, and then we would highlight things that made sense, and things that didn’t make sense. In all honesty, I have both performed that specific part of The Caretaker for an assessment at college, and I have seen the piece itself as a whole, and I still don’t understand it.