The RSC's 2016 Hamlet: A Review

 Presented by The Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) at The Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, UK. January 01, 2016. Directed by Simon Godwin. Directed for screen by Robin Lough. Designed by Paul Willis. Lighting designed by Pual Anderson. Composed by Sola Akingbola. Fights by Kevin McCurdy. With James Cooney (Rosencrantz), Bethan Cullinane (Guildenstern), Paapa Essiedu (Hamlet), Marcus Griffiths (Laertes), Byron Mondahl (Professor of Wittenberg), Tanya Moodie (Gertrude), Cyril Nri (Polonius), Natalie Sampson (Ophelia), Clarence Smith (Claudius), Ewart James Walters (Ghost/Gravedigger), and others. 

Godfred Nana Kruentsi Ogoe

Mary Baldwin University

Ambiguity and irony dominate the narrative of the RSC’s 2016 production of Hamlet in such a way that the more closely I watch the production, the more I identify certain embedded truths. While Hamlet casts light upon the politics in Denmark, Simon Godwin’s Hamlet with its culturally specific costumes (Kente and Idi-Amin-like military uniform) also casts light upon Ghana’s politics in the 1960’s. As a signpost for reading some moments in the production, these two costumes not only identify the production’s setting, but also, critically, they conceptualize a character who wears or reacts to either of them. It is my view that this production uses Kente (in variable ways) and the Idi-Amin-like military uniform to draw on specifically Ghanaian references to make its meaning. These two costumes make the production politically and culturally satirical.

The way of introducing Walters’s Ghost is illustrative of Godwin’s creative process of transplanting Hamlet into the rich culture of the Asantes (who dwell in Ghana). To speak with Hamlet, Walters’s Ghost comes out of the trap door, dressed in an exquisite ceremonial colorful Kente-cloth wrapped around his body, but his right shoulder and his right arm which has a shiny bead are uncovered, and on his left shoulder is a bulk of the cloth. By presenting the Ghost in this culturally aesthetical cloth and signifier which is typical of the Asante King(s) and which is also used to purify them as they die, Essiedu’s Hamlet’s kneeling on the stage-floor in his speech and responses to the Ghost’s message shows his reverence to the Ghost. Perhaps, Hamlet finds him still heroic or sees him as an ancestor. For instance, as the Ghost mentions, “I find thee apt. Now Hamlet hear!”, a response to Hamlet’s “haste to me to know it [...]”, Essiedu’s Hamlet, in fear, quickly runs towards the Ghost to kneel before, yet far, from him. In this scene, it seems, to me, that Walter’s Kente signals Essiedu’s Hamlet to be culturally sophisticated considering how quiet he kneels or sits before the Ghost, who appears in his kingly, heroic state. Once the production introduces the Ghost in Kente, this meaning is significant. 

      The production reinforces an ironic, yet satirical, interpretation of Clarence’s Claudius in 1.2, for having him appear onstage in an Idi-Amin-like military uniform and having his court designed with the same blue Kente worn by the Ghost. In this scene, the production retains the Ghost’s blue Kente on a wall behind Claudius’ throne, and even—on another wall at upstage left—surrounds Claudius and Gertrude’s portrait with it. By complementing the Kente scenery with Idi-Amin-like military uniform (of Claudius), critically, Claudius is seen as one, who through coup d'etat, takes power from King Hamlet, murders him, and later resorts to using King his (Hamlet’s) political ideologies. And on account of this interpretation suggested by the pairing of these two costumes, this scene imitates some moments of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s political history: he gained independence for Ghana, symbolized the nation’s freedom with Kente, and later was overthrown by his own people, who still remember him with Kente, the symbol of his legacy. The pairing of these two costumes makes it possible to draw such a parallel with Nkrumah’s political life. 

Apart from purifying the Ghost with Kente, Godwin’s production also brings into light the misrepresentation of the Asantes’ Kente purification. The moment Essiedu’s Hamlet climbs a ladder to mar, with paint, Claudius (Clarence) and Getrude’s (Moodie’s) portrait surrounded with the Ghost Kente, it seems that Hamlet, even before his staging of the mousetrap show, knows what his eternal question—“All is not well''—is. Thus, by marring that portrait, and even adding Hamlet’s initial (“H”) to back his deed, he does not only find Claudius and Gertrude to be morally and politically corrupt to lead Denmark, but also finds them to be also marring, but changing, the customs of Denmark— which in this play is associated with the myth (or cultural practice) of Kente purification of the Asantes. Hamlet’s deed could mean that, culturally, they do not meet the standard of Kente purification or they do not deserve to purify themselves with it. From these readings that the Kente suggests, Hamlet, most importantly, is seen at an epochal turning point, and living not only in the dark times of Claudius’s military rule which seeks to politically amend good cultural practices (which the Kente represents), but also in a time of great change. By using Kente, this production heightens the idea of unbroken ties and of continuity between the dead (the Ghost) and the living (Hamlet), as exhibited in Hamlet’s deed.

Also, the Kente serves as the lens for seeing Nri’s Polonius’ despotism. Once Essiedu’s Hamlet climbs the ladder to mar Claudius (Clarence) and Getrude’s (Moodie’s) portrait, Nri’s Polonius rushes to a space at upstage right to rebuke Hamlet—“Will you walk out of the air my lord”—but Hamlet ignores him and continue to mar the portrait. The implication, in this scene, is that—despite the looming disasters that Claudius’s military regime keep bringing: the killing of King Hamlet and the attempt to tamper with social customs (purifying Gertrude and himself with Kente)—Nri’s Polonius allows and endorses the gradual erosion of constitutional laws, as well as social customs which the Kente represents. His disbelief in seeing Hamlet mar the portrait and rushing to rebuke him not only identifies him as an enthusiastic supporter of authoritarian rule, but also it is the point where he himself, unknowingly, invites audiences to question his reputation as a counselor of state. It seems that, for him, there is no need to correct society even if society loses its sense or tramples upon a person’s (like, Hamlet’s) right. It is another embedded truth, within this production, which can be identified in Polonius, due to his unexpected reaction to Hamlet, who mars Claudius and Gertrude’s portrait. 

In conclusion, the use of Kente and the Idi-Amin-like military uniform (in this production) showcases the depth of understanding this production. Serving as the point of reading a character’s behavior, these two costumes, critically, explore moments of the production which are ambiguous or do not make a character’s behavior clearly understandable. Once a dialogue is made around the two costumes I have discussed, the production’s projection of certain characters (like: the Ghost, Claudius, Gertrude, Hamlet, and Polonius) becomes conspicuous considering how either their use of, association with, or reaction to any of the costumes defines them. That being said, it is necessarily the case to state that, in this production, the definition of the characters (the Ghost, Claudius, Gertrude, Hamlet, and Polonius) is somehow dependent on the ideas surrounding these two costumes.