The Shakespeare Geek has put the question out there for all to ponder, as well as a link to a chapter on that very subject.

This is a huge topic of debate among scholars, and a big consideration for a director who is casting the play. There’s a lot of info out there, a lot of it can be found in the link above. I’ll post some of the info I’ve gathered at a later date. Many seem to settle on the idea that Hamlet is 30 years old. The gravedigger in act V in the First Folio gives us a few clues about that…

I always thought that 30 is just too old for Hamlet. It often seems to me that saying he’s that age was justification for older actors to be able to take on the role. I’m not a fan of seeing 45 year-olds playing opposite a mother their same age. It’s common on stage. Richard Burton, I think, was 39 when he played the role in the version that is on video. He just looked so old! Kenneth Branagh was 36 in his movie. Derek Jacobi in the BBC video version was 42! Mel Gibson was 34 but the beard added 10 years.

Hamlet’s in school, that should make him young-ish. I like the age range of 21, maybe a little older, quite possibly younger. If he seemed a little younger I think that’d be fine. I think the drama (and the tragedy) is heightened when an audience sees this KID going through all this. The bright young lad who would be king.

So is Hamlet older than he seems, or is it such a great role that one would rather cast an older, “better” actor. Naturally with age comes maturity, experience, wisdom, and more skill to an actor. Hamlet is such a huge role (in every aspect) perhaps some think the requirements of the role are too great to burden a younger actor.

With the different sources of Shakespeare’s texts telling us different things it’s impossible to know for sure. His age may have been changed somewhere along in the writing and revising process. Something important when the play is being staged… does it work? Will I believe this old man is the son of this woman? A lot of theatre is about suspending disbelief, but even that has limits sometimes. Look through Hamlet again. How old does he seem to you? There doesn’t seem to be a right answer here. I had an acting teacher who said he was about 34. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that he was about 34 and really wanted to play Hamlet. I still think Hamlet’s much younger than that… around twenty. But don’t take my word for it!

Amain, a plain, a canail… wait a minute. That’s not how it goes.

amain adv. IPA Pronunciation:
at full force or speed

MESSENGER
His soldiers spying his undaunted spirit
A Talbot! a Talbot! cried out amain
And rush’d into the bowels of the battle.
- Henry VI, Part 1 (I.i)

There’s a certain economy about this word. I can easily hear it in a command, which it is used as most often. You’ll mostly find this in the Henry VI series. 8 out of 13 times it is used by Shakespeare are in one of the Henry VI plays. Wowzers.

In the news… from Mirror.co.uk: History and Shakespeare ‘out of date’ says education union boss

Read it. Discuss.

After asking visitors of Ask500People.com if they had a good experience with Shakespeare in school, I decided to ask another.

After the many intriguing responses to my question on the blog if you had read all of Shakespeare’s works, I wanted to get more specific with this little survey.

I asked, “How many of Shakespeare’s plays have you read?” I got 127 responses. Their option were 1-5, 5-10, 10-20, and more than 20. I realize now that I created an overlap. It should be 1-5, 6-10, etc. Oh well. Anyhoo, 70% of the responses said that they had read between one and five of Shakespeare’s plays. 4% had read more than 20. There were also two comments left that said they had read none. See more results here.

The results aren’t super accurate with only 127 votes, but probably close-ish to the the average in the US (where most of the responses were from). I can’t say I was surprised… but I wish I could make the options more specific. Ask500people only lets you give 4 options. The comments that said “none” surprised me a little. I know there are people out there that have not read Shakespeare, but I do forget sometimes. It seems a little odd to me since it’s usually required reading in school.

If you haven’t read all of the plays, feel free to leave your number. But in response to this flawed poll, what do you think? Should people be required to read more Shakespeare in school? I only was required to read two in high school!!! Romeo & Juliet and Macbeth. We studied Midsummer in Junior High as well, but not very closely as far I can remember. Is that enough? Do you think the average of plays read will increase as programs like Stand Up For Shakespeare gain more support? Or will Shakespeare always be the author who “isn’t for everybody”?

I finished season one of Slings and Arrows today. I’m in love with the show. There aren’t a lot of movies or TV shows about what I do with my life (theatre, especially shakespeare), and the fact that the show is amazing AND is about with what I love to do…. AHHH!!! I love it.

I couldn’t help myself, I started season two right away. I would continue but then I wouldn’t get any sleep. If only there weren’t so many other things to do… I can’t wait to see how it all unfolds.

Not long ago in a galaxy not so far away I posted about showing some love to the histories. These days Shakespeare’s Histories seem to be getting a lot of love. The Royal Shakespeare Company is putting up a complete cycle of the Histories.

An article from the UK reminds us that the histories are still relevant today. Perhaps more now than ever. Why?

“…they offer a genuine state-of-the-nation epic, one that examines all aspects of a divided kingdom and shows how dynastic wrangling spreads like a disease.”

Check out the full story here. Also included are short commentaries on each of their histories and their significance today. It’s pretty neat stuff. The Histories really interest me. When first learning about Shakespeare I was under the impression that no one cared about the Histories. They were Shakespeare’s bad and boring plays. Then I saw Richard III. “Oooo… this is cool,” I thought. After that I was hooked. “Wait a minute… these are good!” Oh boy, I was pleasantly surprised.

Whiffler, famous for painting a portrait of his mother. Whiffler’s Mother. Wow… that was a lame joke.

whiffler (n.) IPA Pronunciation:
armed processional attendant

CHORUS
Behold, the English beach
Pales in the flood with men, with wives and boys,
Whose shouts and claps out-voice the deep mouth’d sea,
Which like a mighty whiffler ‘fore the king
Seems to prepare his way: so let him land,
And solemnly see him set on to London.
- Henry V (V.prologue)

To me, this word sound like it should be the name of a racket used to hit a Wiffle Ball. It doesn’t sound like what it is to me, but I suppose I’m not using my imagination to make it work. Either way this is a word that most readers and audiences are not likely to know so lets hope that the Chorus does his/her best to make sense of it for us, that a Whiffler clears the way for a procession.

Note that whiffler does have a different modern definition, in case you look it up in a modern dictionary. Today it can mean a person who frequently shifts opinions, attitudes, interests, etc. I don’t know if the definitions are at all related, but don’t get them confused!

Alan over at his blog, Shakespeare Experience, has recently written a post that would motivate me to give him a virtual hug if I could.

*hug*

That was nice. Anyway, I mentioned in a previous post my opinions about what makes Romeo and Juliet a tragedy. It’s not a happy ending. It’s not about a romantic ideal. These kids die a horrible death. It sucks.

Alan’s post Burn, Baby, BURN! says it a little better so I think you should give it a read and share your thoughts. Do you agree? Why or why not?