Some photos from the midnight matinee of the Factory's Hamlet. Apologies for camera phone quality of images.

http://www.zpqa.myby.co.uk/factory.htm

Edit: Now also added a review http://www.zpqa.myby.co.uk/facreview.htm

Brilliant! I had a cracking time, I'm now worried I'm not going to enjoy the RSC production anywhere NEAR as much when I finally get there in November.

Sounded amazing. How was Josh Hartnett?

Tipsy and irrelevant; really, it would have been just as awesome without him, and it was quite an odd short cameo. :3

EDIT: to avoid lawsuits, I should point out I cannot say if he was or was not tipsy; he was clutching a drink that looked boozy, and it was well after 2am.

Just take a dead deer and a bag of flour. I'm sure they won't mind.

I wonder how the Factory managed with all that clearing up at 3.30am with a 3pm performance in Regents St. today?

Thanks, I guess just "tipsy" isn't so bad, given the late hour. I expect he got more out of it than the audience.

I just couldn't see the point, and it wasn't even much fun. Self-indulgent (like a very very long drama school exercise) and achingly slow and without any revelation. Horatio and Gertrude were decent actors.

Thank you so much for the pictures of the Factory's Hamlet at the Globe last Saturday! Please do tell us a bit more about the performance itself, I haven't found any reviews so far.

I have seen the production three times and loved it, especially since it was so new a fresh every time. Please please... some more news for those of us who could not make it to the Globe!

Thank you!

In one Act only one actor was allowed to be onstage, all the others had to be off it, and it took them forever to get on and off the stage. In another Act each actor had to use a double at least once, which for some reason they interpreted as having to share their lines with their double, which led to all the speeches being massacred and delivered with long gaps between words. The worst of all was when they could only move when they weren't speaking, and only when the musician played. They were rubbish at this and it just went on forever. Well, until after 3.30am (having started at midnight).

Everything seemed designed to stop any kind of creative flow in its tracks. It was like watching a very long and boring drama class.

This was the Factory's works outing, where they got to let their hair down, wear kiss-me-quick hats, eat seaside rock and play the slot machines at the end of the pier.

I'll be writing a full review in the next day or so (from the perspective of a Factory fan who appreciates what they do). Current plan is to add the link to this thread.

"This was the Factory's works outing, where they got to let their hair down, wear kiss-me-quick hats, eat seaside rock and play the slot machines at the end of the pier."

They didn't seem to be enjoying it much either. And most people don't charge other people to watch their works outing.

Yeah right.

http://www.zpqa.myby.co.uk/fac47.jpg

No, they didn't. They obviously had to do something with the deer. I'm all for forcing actors to try things out in the immediacy of the moment, but I'm afraid they were terribly uncreative on Saturday night.

The idea that the cast and the audience did not enjoy themselves is so perverse as to be laughable.

Well, Duncan, I'm happy that you did. I can tell you that we were very bored, as were many people around us, and a lot more who didn't come back after the interval. We did come back, thinking it might get better and more imaginative (and more fluent), but sadly it didn't. Maybe it would have been better if different actors had taken the main parts. With, as I said, the honourable exceptions of Horatio and Gertrude. I can't tell you those actors' names because the leaflet didn't say which parts each actor was up for nor include photos of the actors, only not very good drawings from which we couldn't recognise them.

Duncan,

it was my first time and I was looking forward to it, but I have to say my experience was closer to Alexandra's than yours. I wouldn't say I was bored, but one might say that I didn't 'get it'; it seemed to be very much about the obstructions and the props and not so much about the words and the performances. It would be interesting and helpful to me at least if you were indeed, as you hope, able to post a review of it which would help me to understand what folk whose experience is more like yours (which clearly includes the cast and many in the audience, many of whom were obviously repeat viewers) do get out of it.

With best wishes,
Iain

Hi Iain,

I will post a review tomorrow. Today I've managed to write down what I could remember from the night, although my memories of Act 4 are a bit vague; I cannot for the life of me remember what Ophelia used to represent her flowers. But I have a good recollection of lots of other details which I shall string together with an explanation of what I got from it.

But until then I could summarise what in general I get from the Factory. I first saw them at Wilton's Music Hall in November 2007. I was on the Wilton's mailing list and got an email from them about a 'flashmob Hamlet' with an explanation that the audience should bring along props. So I went along and brought a spade, thinking in literal terms that a scene with a gravedigger who refers to a spade would require a spade. In the end three people brought spades of various designs and materials. I congratulated myself on having one with a wooden handle that looked sufficiently period.

Ha! Ha, ha, ha! And once again, ha! Literal minded fools that we were with our spades and bunches of flowers and plastic skulls. My spade was used as a recorder. The objects were turned awry from their literal uses and spectacular new ones found for them. A plastic skull that some unfortunate had thought fit to represent Yorick was ceremoniously and symbolically drop-kicked from one end of Wilton's to the other. Yorick's skull was played by a humble plastic cup. The duel at the end was fought by Laertes and Hamlet reading quickly from books, including the Danish grammar book I'd brought along.

I loved it and got it instantly. I've now seen it twelve times. My favourite venues were an archeological site in an underpass where there was so much dirt that the movement of the cast and audience churned up such a large quantity of dust that it choked the air; and also a Victorian pumping station, a beautiful setting with ornate ironwork. It also works very well in decaying music halls like Wilton's and Hoxton Hall.

The use of props and accompanying action can on occasions be absolutely inspired. Picking up a baby from the audience to accompany "What a piece of work is a man", with baby crying out in agreement right at the words "Conception is a blessing". Hamlet walking along the thin edge of a metal balustrade while asking himself "To be or not to be". A phallic vegetable being used in reference to "Hamlet's will" to bring out the bawdy undertones that "will" had in Jacobethan English. The Ghost coming and going to the eerie sound of a whirling noise tube. The story of Fortinbras and Young Fortinbras illustrated using an Easter egg and the mini eggs inside it. Ophelia, in her madness, taking a bite out of a raw onion and spitting it in Laertes' face. In the debating chamber of County Hall, Hamlet asking "Am I a coward?", waiting in silence, then getting the gavel to hammer it repeatedly on the podium and then scream again "Am I a coward?" sitting like a judge in a self-made kangaroo court. The speech about worms and kings delivered by a Hamlet completely wrapped inside a sleeping bag like a huge grub.

People pay to see stuff like that, because when the moment is right you get words, objects and people in meaningful combinations that are completely uncontrived and completely unrepeatable.

I'll never quite understand the mentality of the people who spy a thread for something they hate and, having stated their opinion, hang around to continue reiterating it quite violently. Not my bag at all. O_o

I personally loved my experience; I can't help but feel the whole affair would be wasted on people who like to take their Jacobean tragedy very seriously, or think improv isn't the best thing to spend an evening watching, but for me, the Factory Hamlet is a (granted slightly exaggerated) embodiment of what I love so much about theatre. The knowledge that, with this being a live show, no one knows for sure what will happen next; no matter how well we the audience know the text, or the actors know the text, you're still guaranteed a completely different experience from one night to the next. Even with shows that don't make a point of random props, or giving the cast new and tricky instructions every act. Okay, I'll grant that this could be considered quite a heavy-handed embodiment of how theatre can and will always surprise you, and you do need to go in with a completely willing-for-this-experience mind, but while it obviously didn't work for everyone, it worked for many more.

I also felt it also offers insight into how productions are formed; Shakespeare didn't really like giving out stage directions, so these plays really are a gift to (or a terrible trial for) the director and actors. You can do whole new things with the play that may never have been done before. If you like, this has been a year-long series of weekly workshops. While most of it was just very silly (which worked for some audience members just as it didn't work for others), there were some elements that I could see being adopted into completed and polished productions. Maybe not the tin of beans, but the final tableau where the Ghost slipped his gasmask onto Hamlet's corpse is something that could work really well if fully rehearsed and refined. The whole helmet/gasmask thing worked for me all round, really; I love how the mask muffled the Ghost's "Swear!"s at the end of 1.5, and liked Hamlet having the helmet attached to his beltloops. Maybe putting the helmet on Polonius to kill him didn't work as well, but if the idea were carried forward to a fixed production, that can be worked out with further rehearsal. And while it was quite silly and a little confusing to make people use their doubles in that one act, I did find the effect of multiple Ophelias humming to be quite eerie and a fine representation of madness. Again, as it was, it mayn't work in a fixed production, but it's an idea sprung out of the madness that could be taken further and used to great effect.

It was silly. It was improv-y. It was workshop-y. Obviously that didn't work for everyone, but I found it both an enjoyable and fascinating evening, and well worth not getting any sleep for.

Yes I have to admit that I did not manage to see the Globe performance in question but I have to say that I fully agree with Duncan and Weez about their experiences of the Factory's Hamlet in general. I have seen the production three times so far and I am going one more time this week. And yes, the performances undoubtedly vary in quality, some ideas simply don't work well whilst others achieve a truly heartstopping theatrical moment - yet I always found them hugely entertaining, fast paced and thought provoking. I have seen some brilliant use of a packet of condoms, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern will never be the same to me since I have seen them both played by one actor at the same time (they had some sort of actor shortage that day that also forced a very young actress to play a rather good Polonius).
When I first saw this Hamlet I expected something rather student-y but I was very impressed with the ability and experience these actors bring the the performance, never mind some brilliant on the foot thinking.
As I said I don't know what happened at the Globe but in the one year previously the Factory deserve much praise for what they have achieved, and for some of the best moments I had in the theatre. And yes some odd (and not so great) moments too, but they fade in my memory whilst I still remember my highlights vividly!

Of course I get the idea of improvisation and unpredictable theatre. That's why I went - I expected it to be exciting or at least amusing. I didn't in the least mind them mucking about with a serious play. But they could and should have done so much more with what they were thrown. My main complaint is not about the use of the props (unimaginative though that was) but those "obstructions" which they were so bad at. Maybe they were having an off day, but I won't take the chance again. You can't just write this off as not being my bag - it is my bag, but it was badly done.

Weez, the reason I'm saying this is because I'd only read good things before I went from people who are obviously fans. I and many others that night were disappointed, and I wish I'd read a more balanced selection of views in advance, so that I might not have wasted my time.

Thanks Duncan (and others),
I'll do a longer comment later, hopefully, but in the meantime, from where I was standing it looked like Ophelia's flowers were being represented by Ophelia pointing at audience members,
best wishes,
Iain

I'm biased. I love the Factory and their ethos, I admit. However, having just read this debate, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I loved last Saturday's performance. It was one of my favourite theatrical events, but possibly for the wrong reasons.

I think, when the Factory are good, they have a real strong clarity in storytelling, phenomenal verse speakings kills, the obstructions frequently challenge creativity and their impulse to the moment at hand.

However, I think Saturday night felt more like a celebratory party and a 'who's line is it anyway?' extended game.

I don't think it was particularly the actors fault, at all. The audience wasn't the audience that they are used to performing to, at least in my experience. Admittedly, you should be prepared to perform to any audience; but you have to remember this project was set up in Hungary without an audience intended at all! Anyhow, the Globe audience clearly just wanted to have fun. There's only so much you can do when every time you pick up a prop, the audience screeches with laughter and demands more. There was a clear shift, literally a couple minutes into Act I, of "Let's tell the basic story, in a truthful way," to "Lets just do what the audience want, and give them a good time."

On the flip side of this, I think the actors were committed. I don't think any of their performances can be criticised. You have to consider the nothing short of mammoth task they were given. They were improvising Hamlet on a huge stage- not knowing where actors were coming from etc Of course the energy/pace was going to slow down! Despite all this though, their usual commitment ot the verse, strength of intention and cohesive ensemble was still there- it's just that it lost it's poignancy when the audience had the strange abreaction of laughing for 3 hours. A prime example being the placing of the gas mask on Hamlet's face, for his funeral at the conclusion of Act V. It got a big laugh. Had that same action been performed in a small intimate space, it would have been quite a harrowing theatrical moment.

And even with all that aside, I thought Saturday *still* had some very strong moments. As mentioned, the double Ophelia's harmonsing whilst beautifully showing an eventual descent into madness, Hamlet's soliliquy also in Act VI being split between the two Hamlet's conflicting with each other over end stops and the triumphant play within the play. (Although I am biased, since my K9 toy was involved!)

I guess what i'm saying, and Polonius would indeed be proud of my lack of brevity, is that I thought Saturday night was a phenomenal achievement for the company and i loved every minute. I also thought though, that if you had not seen the Factory's work previously, I can completely understand your concerns and to a lesser extent, agree with some of them.

I think the project brings up whole different questions about theatre about why would you perform Shakespeare in this way? Can a text not be new and spontaneous without obstructions? And is the audience then listening to a production of Hamlet or are they watching actors be clever? I felt the Globe for the first time tipped the balance in the wrong direction-- but as i think someone else said, sometimes you've got to let your hair down!

Thank you for your middle ground. I obviously really enjoyed the silly aspect of it, but it's nice (and even reassuring?) to hear that it's generally played much less for laughs.

You sound like a frequent visitor; do they usually do the thing with the different obstructions for each act? If so, was Saturday night fairly representative of the usual kind of obstructiveness, or is it usually quite different?

No problem.

The obstructions, I felt, were pretty representative of how the obstructions can be!

However, because of the space, they did feel considerably more obstructive. Consider in a church hall for instance, if only one person can be on the pew at once, it's not that difficult to navigate. Transfer that same obstruction into the Globe, and it's a completely different experience.

I really feel, as I said, that normally the obstructions aid and enhance the text. They challenge the actors to come up with new moments, and new creations that are then discarded and the story continues to be told. From what I understand, the company call it 'getting off the bus.' I felt on Saturday night, sometimes the route was too long, and the bus was too slow. It just became difficult for the actors to be aware of their fellow players physically in relation to the space whilst still maintaining relationships and telling a story. A counter argument would be that's what it's all about. You mean, I have to say these words in metre, play this game and express myself all at once? I'd argue back that is exactly what they did- but it just required more effort then usual.

Obstructions have ranged from "Act II, male audience members on this side of the room, females on the other.", "Act III played behind this small bar space," to as obstructive as "Act VI played with the audiences eyes closed until you hear a click, and then the audience will open their eyes and the actors will close theirs and continue. Audience please 'spot' for them!"

In truth, which is often also the middle ground, sometimes it works and sometimes it fails miserably. I'd argue both are thrilling to watch. But crucially, it should always come down to telling the story of a man's revenge on his uncle for the death of his father. Anything else is just white noise.

Here is my review of the night:

http://www.zpqa.myby.co.uk/facreview.htm