A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S FO LIA LITTERAR1A A N G LIC A 6, 2003
K atarzyna C zyżykow ska
A N D R Z E J W A JD A ’S H A M L E T ( I V )
- A M ATATH EATRICAL READING O F H A M L E T
T here has alw ays been a great difficulty in in terp retin g H am let - critics have analyzed it as a tragedy in G reek term s (T. S. E liot jud ged H am let as a defective tragedy), they psychologized S hakespeare to a g reater o r lesser extent (the best critics o f H am let, like J. W. G oethe, S. T . C oleridge, A. C. B radley, were ra th e r psychological in their a p p ro a c h , co n c en tratin g o n its co n ten t m o re th an on its form ), they politicized S hakespeare (J. K o tt) an d finally, som e o f them em ployed the tools o f o th er fields o f language science, such as sem iotics, and applied it to the d ra m a (M a rtin Esslin, Susan M erlose, P eter R eynolds, Egil T ornqvist).
I have chosen som e scenes from H am let which can be viewed from the m etath ea trical angle, b o th in reference to the play text an d to W a jd a ’s TV th eatre p ro d u c tio n entitled H am let ( I V ) . The Concise O x fo rd D ictionary o f L iterary Term s defines m e ta d ra m a or m etath ea tre as:
dram a aboul dram a, or any moment o f self-consciousness by which a play draw s attention to its own fictional status as a theatrical pretence. N orm ally, direct addresses to the audience in prologues, epilogues, and introductions are metadramatic in th at they refer to the play itself and acknowledge the theatrical situation; a similar effect m ay be achieved in asides. In a m ore extended sense, the use o f a play-within-the-play, as in Hamlet, allows a further m etadram atic exploration of the nature of theatre, which is taken still further in plays about plays, such as Luigi Pirandello’s Sei personaggi in cerca d'autore (Six Characters in Search o f an Author, 1921). (132)
I will analyze S hakespeare’s H am let in the view o f an o u tstan d in g perform ance produced by a m o d ern directo r - A ndrzej W ajd a - w ho, in m y u n d erstan d in g o f the term , presents a m etath ea trical reading o f the play. In this pap er, the phrase - m etath eatre, coined by Lionel A bel in his bo o k entitled M etatheatre. A N ew View o f D ram atic Form (vii), will refer n o t only to the idea o f a play-w ithin-a-play device, o r to the n o tio n o f
“ th e a tru m m u n d i” in lite ra tu re and a rt, b u t also to th e lite rary and self-referential aspects o f m etad ram a, as R ichard H o rn b y defines them in his bo o k Drama, M etadram a and Perception (31). H e argues th a t “m etad ram a can be defined as d ra m a ab o u t d ra m a , it occurs w henever th e subject of a play tu rn s o u t to be, in som e sense d ra m a its e lf ’ (H o rn b y 17) and gives a list o f different aspects o f m e ta d ra m a such as “ literary and real-life reference and self-reference” as well as the earlier acknow ledged “ play w ithin the play” and “ the cerem ony w ithin the play” (H o rn b y 32).
A ndrzej W ajda em ploys a wide range o f th eatrical experim ents and m etad ram atic tricks to highlight the idea o f the m etath ea trical aspect of H am let. H e uses literary and real-life reference in his p ro d u c tio n , and he allow s actors to becom e som ehow free, independent, b o th from his o r the d ra m a tis t’s will. T hus he creates an unforgettab le atm o sp h ere o f sh atterin g the theatrical illusion, which, in tu rn , gives the audience a show in which the b o undaries between w ho is a ch aracter, w ho is an actor, w ho is a sp ec ta to r and w ho is a directo r - utterly blur.
The director’s introduction - a dircct address to the audience and the use o f real-life reference
A ndrzej W a jd a’s appearan ce on the screen, at the beginning o f the T V th eatre spectacle - i.e. before the play itself begins, creates im m ed ia tely an atm osphere o f a th eatrical pretence, all achieved by m ean s of a cunning trick. A real, co n tem p o rary d irector acts as an ac to r who addresses the audience directly in o rd er to explain the p u rp o se o f this p artic u la r th eatrical event. T he d ire c to r-a c to r refers to the p lay ’s fictional statu s and m akes us - the sp ectators acknow ledge the th eatrical situ a tion. It is m etad ram atic by definition, the d ire c to r’s direct address in tro duces n o t only a real-life reference, b u t ab ru p tly deflates th e th eatrical illusion. In th e in tro d u c tio n to th e p erfo rm an ce, in a ra th e r leng th y ex p lan ato ry speech, A ndrzej W ajda speaks ab o u t the choices he m ad e and the setting he selected. T o ev e ry b o d y ’s asto n ish m e n t, W a jd a has chosen an actress to play the m o st fam ous m ale p a rt, and , as he tries to convince his audiences, the choice was m ad e because o f the actress’s ou tstan d in g abilities; the idea o f m aking the play m o re com plex, stran g er th a n it really is, seems n o t to have been th e d ire c to r’s in terest. T h e cross-dressing o f the characters, how ever, is quite typical o f m an y S hak e spearean plays, so probably, som ew hat subconsciously, th e d irec to r refers to the ro o ts o f the E lizabethan th eatre and th u s he m ak es a literary reference.
Female Hamlet - the use of real-life reference and surreptitious asides
H am let is the m ost com plex figure in the perform ance. A ndrzej W a jd a ’s choice o f a female H am let, a w om an who takes on the role o f th e m ost fam ous dram atic m ale character, brings up to light the im m ediate associations with the historical references to the th eatre and acting. M any a tim e in the th eatre history, in the E lizabethan tim es as well, m ale acto rs to o k up fem ale roles - here, in H am let ( I V ) , the cross-dressing is reversed. T he idea, how ever, rem ains the same: an acto r is a vessel, a vehicle in a d irec to r’s hands; he (or she) fills the script with a personal reading o f the play and adds psychological insight into the given d ra m a tic persona, b u t he is still himself, a real con tem p o rary person.
T eresa B udzisz-K rzyzanow ska plays her H am let in a very personal, intim ate way; som etim es we forget th a t she is a w om an, at o th e r m om en ts, especially in the asides, she directly rem ind s us th a t H a m le t is only a character. It certainly fits into the d ire c to r’s idea o f m ak in g H a m le t’s soliloquies the core o f his m etath eatrical produ ctio n. B earing in m ind the definition th a t “ norm ally, direct addresses to the audience... are m etad ram atic in th a t they refer to the play itself and acknow ledge the th eatrical situ ation ; a sim ilar effect m ay be achieved in asides” (T he Concise O x fo rd Dictionary o f L iterary Terms 132) - W a jd a ’s choice seems evident. H a m let in H am let ( I V ) is enriched by the actress’s fem ininity, which definitely deepens the m etad ram atic effect o f the play. T he actress reveals n o t only H a m le t’s thoughts, but also her ow n reflections on the a rt o f acting and theatre.
In the opening scene o f W a jd a ’ s “ address” , we can see an em pty stage and an actress - T eresa B udzisz-K rzyzanow ska - w alking across it, w earing her o rd in ary m o d ern clothes. T hen, we see the actress chan gin g h er clothes into H a m le t’ s black d oublet and p reparing herself in fro n t o f a dressing m irro r. She is in fro n t o f the audience, her dressing ro o m in full view, and surprisingly som ew here backstage there is the “ p ro p e r” stage, the public stage where the play - H am let begins. M eanw hile, we h ear the directo r w ho rallies against the theatrical pretence and states th a t H am let is th eatre for him. T hus, the setting for the play should be th e th eatre itself. T he division into the “ p ro p e r” , public stage and the p riv ate space o f T eresa B udzisz-K rzyzanow ska’s “ dressing ro o m ” is upheld th ro u g h o u t the p ro d u c tio n which m akes us rem em ber th a t we are w atching a play a b o u t a play.
T h e key images o f the perform ance are strictly connected w ith its m etath eatrical notion: there is a real dressing room table and a m irro r, the rear entrance to the stage with its heavy iron d o o r, a real w indow covered
w ith a black d o th , the video screen on which H a m let an d H o ra tio w atch C laudius and Polonius d uring “T h e M ouse T ra p ” - the play-w ithin-the-play, and finally there is the Stary T h e a tre ’s ow n architecture. All these props refer to a c to rs’ everyday life, it is their w orking place, so the setting and the pro p s double the m etad ram atic effect. T hey are to suggest the illusory ch a rac te r o f the stage reality - the play takes place w ithin the th eatre walls, an d n o t in the castle o f Elsinore. A m o n g all o th e r p ro p s, which are in fact au th en tic elem ents o f the theatrical reality, the dressing m irro r plays an eno rm o u s role in heightening the effect o f m etad ram a; w hen the actress looks at herself in it, the audience sim ply sees a w om an w ho tries to check if she can play H am let. It helps to separate the actress from the ch aracter she plays; thus it serves n o t only as an alien atio n technique (because of the actress’s gender) b u t also as a real-life reference. T he actress revealed that:
The m irror helped me enormously, the very ability to look into your own fa c e as you speak opens amazing possibilities: “ W hat do I think? W hat do I do?” So the m irror had multiple meanings. I rarely looked at myself as a woman in it, but this had great significance for me in the scene with the skull and H am let’s “ Let her paint an inch thick; to this end she shall come.” T hat was me in the m irror. (Howard 64)
In this sense, T eresa B udzisz-K rzyzanow ska resp ond ed favou rab ly to the d ire c to r’s idea th a t H am let should be a “ cham b er piece” , a co ntin ual rehearsal, a hap pening in fro n t o f the sp ectato rs’ eyes. As a result o f the d ire c to r’s artistic vision, the actress becom es “ the subject” o f H am let ( I V) . T h an k s to W a jd a’s original setting - a new H am let com es in to being, H am let im prisoned w ithin the th eatre walls, an actress w ho is forced to play the m o st dem anding m ale p a rt and w ho has to struggle w ith the role as well as w ith her fem ininity during the perform ance. T h e actress confessed:
A gong announcing the start took me by surprise, emotionally naked, because it was as if I’d crept in privately and surreptitiously, testing whether I could play H am let, suddenly I was caught by the situation. A nd I had to do it. (Howard 64)
In act three, scene one, the m o st intim ate scene o f H a m le t’s “ to be or n o t to be” soliloquy, A ndrzej W ajda m akes B udzisz-K rzyzanow ska’s H am let especially pow erful. In this scene, both the directo r and th e actress - as a vehicle o f his m etath eatrical vision o f H am let - create an u nforg ettable m etad ram atic tension. A t the very m om en t of the m o st fam ou s d ram atic soliloquy, it is the actress herself w ho is concerned w ith perfecting her role o n a tricky and unw orthy stage th a t everybody’s life is. T h e d ire c to r’s idea to show th a t “ All the w o rld ’s a stage, and all the m en and w om en m erely players; they have their exits and their entrances; and one m a n in his tim e plays m any p a rts” (A s You L ik e It, II, vii, 289) becom es evident w hen the
actress pulls up the ragged cloth th a t covers a real w indow overlooking a real street. She shouts the w ords o f “ to be o r n o t to b e” speech as she stares th ro u g h the window ; we can observe her eyes, full o f tears; she looks com pletely exhausted, as if the p a rt o f H a m let she is to play m ade her “ dead tire d ” . Literally dead, as the actress described fully in her confession th a t she was “ playing fo r her life” o n th e stag e and reality:
H am let’s death isn’t caused by a poisoned sword - th a t’s all histrionics, out on the stage - it’s true death, simply from exhaustion, from terrible effort which living is, which each perform ance is. One should play every performance as though it were one’s last. It’s truly appalling sight when actors lake off their m ake-up in the front of the dressing-room m irror. I t ’s like death. And that's how I wanted my H am let - playing for my life, in a theatre. (Howard 66)
W ajda privileges H a m let’s consciousness so m uch th a t th e perfo rm ance concentrates on these intim ate m om ents in the actress’s dressing-room . T he actress herself focuses on H a m le t’s m onologues and the audience can w atch her taking on the role o f H am let, spy on her p rep aratio n s, see her o u t o f the scripted text as a w om an struggling with the role o f a m an , suffering from her ow n inadequacies, and appreciate the ways her p ersonality and H a m le t’s tragic condition to u ch or clash.
Hamlet’ asides and soliloquies
- the use of self-reference and real-life reference
T o a great extent, the play text takes place n o t in the castle o f Elsinore b u t in the soul o f H am let. Luckily for us, Shakespeare w ro te a rath er different play th an a “ defective tragedy” . In p articular, he w rote a play in which H a m let’s delay is n o t the m ain issue. H a m le t’s co ncep tio n o f his role, o f w hat to do an d predom inantly how to d o it, becom es the central dilem m a o f the w hole play. H a m let’s actions are the driving force o f the play; he influences o th er characters, he is able to “ re-w rite” his fa te and to outw it his opponents, to co n fro n t the G h o st an d finally, he is th e m an w hose bravery leads to the final duel, carefully planned by his foes, but envisaged by himself. H e is the m an o f action in his m o st difficult task - fake m adness, which alm ost drives him m ad in reality. T h a t is, in the theatrical reality, o f course. W hat S hakespeare gives us is an a c to r w ho is concerned w ith how , no t w hether, to perform his task. H e is concerned w ith perfecting his role on a very tricky and unw o rthy stage th a t the cou rt o f E lsinore is.
W h at is so pow erful ab o u t H am let is th a t it blurs the b ou n d aries of tw o o f m ost basic categories - life and d eath . It is d eath in the end th at H am let surrenders to, D eath - the greatest director o f every life with no exception w hatsoever. T he connection which H am let m akes betw een th e a t ricality and the m an n er o f d ea th is n o t som ething which h ap p e n s only in the scenes with the Players in the second act, bu t so m ething which is planted in his m ind at the very m om en t th a t he takes on his task o f killing C laudius (H a m let, I, v, 1090). A t the sam e tim e, th o u g h , the effectiveness o f theatricality in actually shaping or coping with reality is always am biguous in the play.
T his is the contrad icto ry H am let who says th a t th eatre is a lie and then says th a t it can reveal the tru th ; this is the H am let w ho believes th a t he can deal in a world o f d eath and yet bring ord er to it, th o u g h he know s th a t it is the land the travellers d o n o t com e back from : “T h e undiscovered coun try , from whose b o u rn no traveller re tu rn s” (H a m le t, III, i, 1100). He is the m an w ho w ould try to m ake the irratio n al possible and reasonable. By accepting his duty to kill and then trying to m ak e th a t killing significant in all p roper details, H am let is trying to keep a fo o t in each o f two co n tra d icto ry w orlds, the w orld o f dead and living ones, th e world of reality and theatre, the w orld o f a character obeying his a u th o r and an independent directo r and acto r in his ow n proceedings. H a m le t’s “ O , w hat a rogue and p easant slave am I!” soliloquy (H a m le t, II, ii, 1098) throw s strong d o u b t on the relationship between theatricality an d reality: the actor can pu t on a show of em otions and “ all for n o th in g ” . H a m let, tho ug h, chooses to ignore his ow n d o u b ts and by the end o f the sam e speech has convinced him self th a t th eatre can reveal the tru th , th a t “T h e play ’s the thing I W herein I ’ll catch the conscience o f the K ing ” (H a m le t, II, ii, 1099).
W hat Ham let believes he can stage-manage as the director of his own play, w hat he is m ost concerned with, are the afore-m entioned bou nd aries. H e is concerned with the o pposition between life and d eath , life and stage, sanity and insanity, the au th o r’s authority and the actors’ freedom in presentation of their art, between w hat is now an d w hat is next. H e is to direct his stage life and life in general, as he is a character who dies in the end o f the play. Thus, he focuses constantly on the m o m ent o f d eath and how it affects the passage into next life. H e thinks about this m om ent, this bou nd ary line, in relation to five separate deaths - his fa th e r’s, C lau d iu s’s, R o sen cran tz’s, G u ild en stern ’s and his own. H e believes th at he can fix th at line, choose the right m om ent o f d eath th a t will determ ine w hat will happen after d eath. H e rejects suicide in the “T o be or no t to be” soliloquy (H am let, III, i, 1100) precisely because it w ould n o t allow him to determ ine, to direct his fate, and his role. In suicide not only the after life would be unknow n and unpredictable, bu t also the course o f action, he is in charge of, would differ. Lionel Abel writes:
Since there could be no tragedy in prom pt action on H am let’s part, Shakespeare dignifies H am let’s inactivity, making it philosophic. So we have the wonderful soliloquy on being and non-being, which quickly becomes a question put by H amlet as to whether or not he should take his own life. But if it is better to be dead than to live, then how could killing Claudius avenge the murder o f H am let’s father? If there is a question as to whether one should be or not be, then there is surely no answer as to why H am let should kill Claudius. The great soliloquy is a complete contradiction of the assignment given Hamlet; it is much more than that; it is a contradiction o f any assignment, of any action. But since we are speaking o f a character in a play we are also speaking o f that character’s author. Shakespeare, too, had no reason to make Hamlet act, and a very strong reason for making him philosophise a t the m om ent of the fam ous soliloquy. Thus it is that Shakespeare, with his unfailing feeling for the comm on, appealed to a very gross opinion, th at thought and action contradict each other. This opinion has helped make Hamlet loved by audiences, who feel him to be a victim, n o t of his situation, but of his thought. (Abel 44)
T h e reason why H am let, by the fifth act, is prep ared to face the end, is th a t he believes th a t he know s the b o u ndary , th a t the passage to “ the undiscovered co u n try ” will be significant, p rovidential, artistically shaped. H e lets o th er characters believe th a t they are able to p lo t ag ainst him. T h en , he tu rns the final scene o f the duel into a m agnificent perfo rm ance o f his ow n creation with actors puzzled by the roles they are to play. He can tell H o ra tio th a t “T here is a special providence in the fall o f a sparrow . If it be now, ‘tis no t to com e; if be n o t to com e, it will be now; if it be n o t now, yet it will come. T h e readiness is all” (H a m let, V, ii, 1123, lines 212-215). H e is ready for his d eath, he has rehearsed it, so it will go all right on the p articu lar th eatre night.
H a m let’s inaction and delay are no t the m ain issue in the course o f the play. W h at delays him is no t the fright o f action; it is stage fright. As an acto r, H am let w ants to play his p a rt as well as he can, as a d irec to r (of o th er ch a rac te r’s actions) he w ants to tak e over in the play entirely. He orders the Q ueen to obey him , he directs O phelia, he con stan tly plays tricks on his false friends R osencrantz and G uildenstern, and he sum m ons the Players to perform the M ouse Trap, which he n o t only directs b u t even writes a script for. T hus, H am let becomes a m etaplay which encom passes m any affinities w ith the term ‘m e ta th e a tre ’ which Lionel A bel explains thoro u g h ly in his book:
. . . m etatheatre gives by far the stronger sense th at the world is a projection of human consciousness... m etatheatre glorifies the unwillingness o f the im agination to regard any image o f the world as u ltim ate... m etatheatre makes hum an existence more dream like... m etatheatre assumes there is n o world except th at created by hum an striving, human im ag in atio n ... F o r m etatheatre, order is som ething continually improvised by men. (Abel 113)
Conclusion
In H am let ( I V ) the d irector confron ts the illusion w ith the reality, an d the life o f H am let with the lives both o f his actress and the au d ien ce, w ho w atch her in the m ost p rivate m om ents. In this w ay W a jd a ’s H am let becom es an environm ental play, an intim ate “ ch a m b e r piece” and the very idea to focus on H am let as an a c to r an d a d irecto r, m o re th an o n the sequence o f the scenes, m akes the spectacle a m e ta d ra m a tic en ter prise.
T h e stage - the location o f the theatrical reality - is arrang ed in such a way th a t the audience gets the im pression o f direct co n tac t w ith H a m le t’s life. T h a t is why W ajda places his audience behind th e stage a t a location which is norm ally inaccessible to them , the place where, as a directo r, he observes the creative process in which his actors are struggling w ith their parts. T h us, the spectators are “ seated” at th e actress’s dressing ro o m , a sm all place at the back o f the stage and they can only see a p a rt o f this stage. T h e actors becom e people w hose jo b is n o t to p retend bu t to reflect real life em otions and feelings. It leaves them m u ch freedom ; as if they were spied on d u rin g th eir rehearsals before th e first night an d the perform ance becom es a happening.
In H am let ( I V) B udzisz-K rzyzanow ska’s H am let is n o t a one-dim ensional ch a rac te r w ho will serve ju st as a d ram atic p erso n a, the im ag in ary figure o f the d ra m a tist’s consciousness. As in the play text, h er H a m let takes on different roles, sim ultaneously referring to the audience as his (or her) contem poraries - th a t is “re al” people in the 16th (or 20lh) century (the use o f real-life reference and self-reference is evident here); som etim es he is an ac to r - he acts as a “ p re te n d er” w ho p uts “ an antic disp osition o n ” (H am let, I, v, 1091), w ho displays certain postures an d w ears various m asks (the use o f a play-w ithin-a-play device); finally, he is a d irec to r w ho can stage m an ag e o th er ac to rs’ perform ance and th u s he fuels th e p lay ’s action. A s a result, the real audience are w atching “ a play ab o u t a p la y ” , as if it was a continual rehearsal, a happening presented in full view on the stage. T hen, a theatrical lie becom es uncovered, exposed, a trick is b ro u g h t to full light, and the audience are left w itho ut all the th eatric al m ysteries they are used to. I believe th a t in H am let ( I V ) A ndrzej W ajd a po stu lates the ‘“ th eatre w orking like the plague, by intoxication, by infection, by analogy, by m agic; a th eatre in which the play, th e event itself, stand s in place o f a tex t” (B rook 1977, 55).
D epartm ent of D ram a and Poetry in English University o f Łódź
W ORKS CITED
Abel, Lionel. Metatheatre. A New View o f Dramatic Form. New Y ork: A D ram a Book, Hill and Wang, 1974.
Brook, Peter. The Empty Space. London: Penguin Books, 1977.
The Concise O xford Dictionary o f Literary Terms. Ed. Chris, Baldick, O xford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Esslin, M arlin. The Field o f Drama. London: M ethuen D ram a, 1988.
Hornby, Richard. Drama, Metadrama and Perception. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1986. H oward, Tony. “ Behind the A rras, through the Wall: W ajda’s Hamlet ( I V) in K rakow,
1989” . New Theatre Quarterly 49 (CUP, 1997): 53-67.
K ott, Jan. Shakespeare, Our Contemporary. New York: G arden City, 1964 (transl. Boleslaw Taborski, introd. M artin Esslin).
Melrose, Susan. A Semiotics o f the Dramatic Text. London: Macmillan, 1994.
Reynolds, Peter. Drama: Text Into Performance. H arm ondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986. Shakespeare, William. Complete Works o f William Shakespeare. Glasgow: H arper and Collins
Publishers, 1994.
