A Black Woman in Search of Hamlet

Last week, Lorna and I went to see a production of Hamlet at the Stratford Festival.  It was a very positive experience in many respects and a not so positive one in others.  It was great to be at Stratford for the first time in three years because of COVID.  The production was up to the usual good standards of the Festival and the acting by many of the cast was very good especially that of Polonius by Michael Spencer -Davis who really caught the essence of the self satisfied and foolish character.  However, the main aspect that was not positive was the portrayal of Hamel by Amaka Umeh, which was extraordinary in ways that were not positive. 

The aspects of the portrayal of Hamlet which were unusual in my experience were that Umeh is black and a woman who is slight in stature.  I found this portrayal of Hamlet was marred for me throughout by the actor.  I reflected on my reaction to this and was able to come to some conclusions.  On reflection, the phrase that came to mind to describe the portrayal was, with apologies George Bernard Shaw, ‘A Black Girl in Search of Hamlet’.   Given that, a better phrase might have been a ‘Black Woman in Search of Hamlet.’  I will explain why I came up with this phrase.

The fact that she is a black actor is something that had little significance in the portrayal and, in fact, became irrelevant after the first few minutes.  The fact that she was a woman was another matter.  My first thought regarding this was that perhaps this was the director’s update in the Elizabethan tradition of boys or young men playing women’s parts as women were not allowed on stage.  I thought that it might have been very interesting if Ophelia was played by a man.  But that was not the case; Ophelia was played by Andrea Rankin, who gave a commendable performance.  I was also left wondering if there was an artistic purpose in this casting decision which was beyond my comprehension because I could see that it added anything to the production.  On further reflection, I came to the conclusion that my adverse reaction to the performance was not that it was a woman in the part. but it was the nature of the performance itself. 

The physicality of the actor was a challenge in some aspects especially when she was required to lift Ophelia’s body and struggled to do it.  Her voice was also jarring at times when it was high pitched.  However, those were minor points.  The main problem was that the portrayal of Hamlet was over the top and histrionic in many scenes.  Basically, my objection to the portrayal was that there was little attempt to capture the essence of the character of Hamlet.  Hamlet, in essence, was a person who was caught by indecision and fluctuated in his desire for revenge and his indecision about the truth of what his senses were telling him.  There is certainly great room for an actor to bring different interpretations to the role of Hamlet.  However, in no way was the essence of who Hamlet was, portrayed in this performance.

I am currently reading a book by John Dourley, a Roman Catholic priest, professor of religion, and Jungian Analyst.  It has the rather clunky title, The Intellectual Autobiography of a Jungian Analyst.  In part, he explores the theology of Paul Tillich and discusses the nature of essence.  He speaks of a person’s essence as that which, “refer(s) to the divine power in the individual seeking to become conscious in the unfolding of the individual’s life.”  In Shakespeare’s portrayal of Hamlet, we have such an unfolding of who Hamlet is becoming or perhaps attempting to become.  Whether he is successful is open to interpretation and provides a playing field for the actor to explore and participate in the game in which the rules are provided by Shakespeare within the play.  In this case the portrayal was definitely out of bounds and should be relegated to the penalty box permanently – if I may be permitted to stretch a sports analogy to its limit. 

Knowing our essence is what we are called to do on our journey.  May you be blessed to discover it.