When mentioning beginner operas, Hamlet by Ambroise Thomas never comes up. Even though it's based on a well-known story, and set to swelling romantic music, it has never even approached the popularity of regular introductory operas such as La Boheme, Rigoletto, and The Magic Flute. The Washington National Opera's first production of Hamlet, now at the Kennedy Center, displays the limitations of the show that may have prevented it from becoming better known.

Critics have maligned Thomas's opera since its premiere in 1872. As The New York Times points out, it's seen as over the top. It takes too many liberties with Shakespeare's work, focusing on Ophelia's madness to a much greater extent than the play. The opera also nearly abolishes the roles of Laertes and Polonius, and paints the latter as evil through and through.

But these critical concerns should not have done in the piece. Though there have been some long runs in other countries, Hamlet has largely remained unperformed in the United States. Before this year's new production at the New York Metropolitan Opera, it hadn't been performed there since 1897. This is odd, since Thomas's score seems to contain everything it needs to appeal to a large audience. The soaring overture has a signature crescendoing theme that appears throughout to foreshadow that something bad is going to happen. The music is appropriately light and flute-filled during the celebratory scenes, and appropriately dark and string-filled during the serious ones (i.e. when Hamlet contemplates suicide). The opera also provides a coloratura soprano role, which is always an easy way to impress upon audiences.
Nonetheless, just being listenable does not a great work make. Hamlet has no memorable arias that leave you humming after the show the way that better works do. Much of the music is the same from scene to scene.

However, the main challenge with Hamlet is its overdrawn libretto. At three hours, the opera is about forty minutes too long. Everyone seeing the production is already familiar with the story, so the lengthy scenes of Hamlet promising himself to avenge his father, and Ophelia's 20 minute madness scene feel extremely drawn out. The one illuminating characterization is of Hamlet's mother Gertrude. She is given many scenes to express her remorse at killing Hamlet's father, and express trepidation at losing her son. You almost feel bad for her. Unfortunately, the worst role dramatically is given the best singing part. Ophelia arrives at her madness too quickly, but then spends too much time being mad. In this production, it seems like Ophelia was also given some poor direction to act physically unstable throughout, as if that would make her mental instability more believable. As a result, she literally totters whenever on stage, giving off a drunk vibe. Moreover, all the themes are presented in the most heavy-handed manner possible. Again, the audience understands that Hamlet is about indecision, loyalty, and love; we don't need every single line to spoon feed the message. There are virtually no jokes, nothing to relieve the tension during the three hour production.

Though I imagine there might be a creative way to stage Hamlet so that it provides some new insight into the narrative, the WNO's production did not seek to do that. It's staged in an unnamed European country at the end of the war. The leaders dress in military decor while the civilians dress in late 40's, early 50's outfits. Despite all these criticisms, the singing is competent throughout. Mezzo-soprano Elizabeth Bishop's Gertrude was my personal favorite. Though there were many opportunities to sneak out of the theater (after all, there are 5 acts), Hamlet was still worth seeing all the way through. In an opera-poor city, the chance to hear excellent soloists is always a treat.

Classical Take on Henry V at Shakespeare National Theatre

The first thing Mike and I saw when we arrived at Henry V at the Shakespeare Theatre Company fifteen minutes late last night was a giant papier-mache head with white balls coming out of it. This was a joke that the Dauphin of France sent to King Henry V, sealing the latter's decision to war against France. While this piece of modern know-how detracted from the drama of Henry V, the overall production uses a traditional approach that illuminates the power of Shakespeare's language.

The Shakespeare Theatre is producing Henry V concurrently with Richard II. These histories with overlapping themes share the same exact cast, featuring Michael Hayden as both King Richard and King Henry. This production makes good use of a spare set and three chorus members to paint a picture of the battles and transition from scene to scene, as the players in Elizabethan times needed to do.

Of course, the production is also aided by excellent sound effects during scene changes to mimic the sounds of battle. In addition, elaborate costumes helps the audience clearly distinguish between the French (ostentatious) and English (modest).

Similarly, the acting struck a good balance between flashy and subdued, with each style being used at the right time. Tom Story plays the Dauphin for laughs, injecting a bit of haughty French nasality into every line. He appears as a helpless, flabby sap as opposed to an evil enemy. Story provides good comic relief, though at the cost of credibility.

In contrast, Michael Hayden's Henry is more subtle and convincing. Hayden's Henry evolves over time. While he initially bursts into anger at seeing the Dauphin's tennis gag, by the end of the play, Henry has become a man who is incapable of such a quick, knee-jerk reaction. By communicating with his soldiers and embarking on war together, Henry becomes more reflective. In contrast to the Kenneth Branagh's rousing Saint Crispen's Day Speech, Hayden delivers his version as a fireside chat. He looks each soldier in the eye, recruiting each man personally, as if to say "You, indeed are my brother." It's a solemn, unvictorious tone, that ultimately succeeds.

When a Play Tries Too Hard

One thing I really like about DC is its totally accessible theater scene. The reputable theaters can nearly be counted on one hand, and I live a block away from one of them. Many theaters here gladly offer discount tickets for those of us under 30 or 35, which makes the theater extremely affordable as well. But of course, this all comes with a huge downside: DC is no New York. Shows arrive here long after their debuts. Good revivals are often bought up well in advance, as in the case of Cate Blanchett's Streetcar Named Desire. Nonetheless, the affordability meant that I was able to see two interesting productions recently: As You Like It at the Shakespeare Theatre, and the Arena Stage's The Fantasticks at the Lincoln Theatre.

Both of these productions featured new twists on class stories, but only one of them pulls it off. This production of As You Like It takes place over the course of three hundred years. That’s right – three hundred. The movie begins in Shakespearean time in England, where Rosalind decides to follow a main she loves, Orlando, into the forest of Arden. The next scene quickly moves to 18th century America, and then America during the Civil War, and then the American West, before concluding in jazz age America. This is because the forest of Arden equals “Classic American cinema” in this production. This staging not only makes the play incredibly confusing in the first half, it also makes the characterization completely inconsistent. In one scene they have British accents, in the next they have Southern antebellum accents. It’s difficult to believe in the character when the character changes basic traits like this every twenty minutes.

The Arena Stage’s production of The Fantasticks is a more successful rendering. The Fantasticks, which ran off Broadway from1960 to 2002 straight is about the importance of nostalgia. Essentially, two young lovers experience a fall from innocence when the narrator of the play separates them and exposes them to the real world. In the original version, the narrator, El Gallo, is a mysterious bandit. The new version at the Lincoln Theatre portrays El Gallo as more of a friendly magician. As the BF pointed out, this change is effectively made because it is consistent, even if it makes the show more child-like than one might prefer.

Needless to say, As You Like It with its myriad sets and costume changes was more elaborate than The Fantasticks. But at the same time, the Shakespeare production defined trying too hard.