User:DionysosProteus/MAT-Hamlet-Summary

File:Craig's design (1908) for Hamlet 1-2 at Moscow Art Theatre.jpg

Edward Gordon Craig's 1908 design for the MAT production of Hamlet (1911-12). The isolated figure of Hamlet reclines in the dark foreground, while behind a gauze the rest of the court are absorbed in a bright, unified golden pyramid emanating from Claudius. Craig's famous screens are flat against the back in this scene.

Constantin Stanislavski and Edward Gordon Craig—two of the 20th century's most influential theatre practitioners—collaborated on the Moscow Art Theatre's production of 1911-12.^[1] While Craig favoured stylized abstraction, Stanislavski, armed with his 'system', explored psychological motivation.^[2] Craig conceived of the play as a symbolist monodrama, offering a dream-like vision as seen through Hamlet's eyes alone.^[3] This was most evident in the staging of the first court scene (1.2).^[4] A brightly-lit, golden pyramid descended from Claudius' throne, representing the feudal hierarchy, giving the illusion of a single, unified mass of bodies. In the dark, shadowy foreground, separated by a gauze, Hamlet lay, as if dreaming. On Claudius' exit-line the figures remained but the gauze was loosened, so that they appeared to melt away as Hamlet's thoughts turned elsewhere.^[5] The most famous aspect of the production is Craig's use of large, abstract screens that altered the size and shape of the acting area for each scene, representing the character's state of mind spatially or visualising a dramaturgical progression.^[6] The production attracted enthusiastic and unprecedented worldwide attention for the theatre and placed it "on the cultural map for Western Europe."^[7]

Notes

^ Craig and Stanislavski were introduced by Isadora Duncan in 1908, from which time they began planning the production. Due to a serious illness of Stanislavski's, the production was delayed, eventually opening in December of 1911. See Benedetti (1998, 188-211).
^ Benedetti (1999, 189, 195). Despite the apparent opposition between Craig's symbolism and Stanislavski's psychological realism, the latter had developed out of his experiments with symbolist drama, which had shifted his emphasis from a naturalistic external surface to the inner world of the character's "spirit". See Benedetti (1998, part two).
^ On Craig's relationship to Russian symbolism and its principles of monodrama in particular, see Taxidou (1998, 38-41); on Craig's staging proposals, see Innes (1983, 153); on the centrality of the protagonist and his mirroring of the 'authorial self', see Taxidou (1998, 181, 188) and Innes (1983, 153).
^ Innes (1983, 152).
^ For this effect, the scene received an ovation, which was unheard of at the MAT. See Innes (1983, 152).
^ See Innes (1983, 140-175; esp. 165-167 on the use of the screens). There is a persistent theatrical myth that these screens were impractical, based on a passage in Stanislavski's My Life in Art; Craig demanded that Stanislavski delete it and Stanislavski admitted that the incident occurred only during a rehearsal, eventually providing a sworn statement that it was due to an error by the stage-hands. Craig had envisaged visible stage-hands to move the screens, but Stanislavski had rejected the idea, forcing a curtain close and delay between scenes. The screens were also built ten feet taller than Craig's designs specified. See Innes (1983, 167-172).
^ Innes (1983, 172).

[1] Craig and Stanislavski were introduced by Isadora Duncan in 1908, from which time they began planning the production. Due to a serious illness of Stanislavski's, the production was delayed, eventually opening in December of 1911. See Benedetti (1998, 188-211).

[2] Benedetti (1999, 189, 195). Despite the apparent opposition between Craig's symbolism and Stanislavski's psychological realism, the latter had developed out of his experiments with symbolist drama, which had shifted his emphasis from a naturalistic external surface to the inner world of the character's "spirit". See Benedetti (1998, part two).

[3] On Craig's relationship to Russian symbolism and its principles of monodrama in particular, see Taxidou (1998, 38-41); on Craig's staging proposals, see Innes (1983, 153); on the centrality of the protagonist and his mirroring of the 'authorial self', see Taxidou (1998, 181, 188) and Innes (1983, 153).

[4] Innes (1983, 152).

[5] For this effect, the scene received an ovation, which was unheard of at the MAT. See Innes (1983, 152).

[6] See Innes (1983, 140-175; esp. 165-167 on the use of the screens). There is a persistent theatrical myth that these screens were impractical, based on a passage in Stanislavski's My Life in Art; Craig demanded that Stanislavski delete it and Stanislavski admitted that the incident occurred only during a rehearsal, eventually providing a sworn statement that it was due to an error by the stage-hands. Craig had envisaged visible stage-hands to move the screens, but Stanislavski had rejected the idea, forcing a curtain close and delay between scenes. The screens were also built ten feet taller than Craig's designs specified. See Innes (1983, 167-172).

[7] Innes (1983, 172).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]