is the resident Dramaturg for the Silicon Valley Shakespeare Company. She has an MA in English Literature with an emphasis in Renaissance Drama, and has appeared in over 40 Shakespeare productions in multiple states. — View all posts by Doll Piccotto
Stay connected
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Comments
I am sorry, but I don’t buy the “sensitive man just trying to do his best after making a terrible mistake ” interpretation of Claudius. He murdered his brother to gain a throne and woman that he coveted. He has no love for his nephew or he wouldn’t want him out of the country or executed. He can’t honestly repent. He sets up Laertes to murder Hamlet when his scheme in England fails. While I realize that playing him as a dimentionless villain is not preferable, but embuing Claudius with female – like attributes is not staying true to the character as Shakespeare wrote him. As a female director/actor I may be behind the times, but I don’t think female actors are always right for any role. An all female cast is a nice experiment, but no more than that.
Susan Edgren — January 3, 2018
Hi Susan, as someone who has actually seen this particular production (multiple times, I might add), I respectfully disagree. I realize that there are many different interpretations on each Shakespeare role that we could debate for hours about this particular Shakespearean character. Interpretation is part of the actor’s job, along with the cast and creative team (as I’m sure you know), and there are many ways to play Claudius. As for the portrayal of the character staying true to Shakespeare’s ideals, as a female actor/director you should know that his plays were originally performed as all male. You would not be able to hold office as a director/actor if those ideals from Shakespeare’s time were still held today. A lot has changed since Shakespeare was performed more than 400 years ago. And yes, an all-female cast could be considered an “experiment,” as you worded, but Shakespeare’s plays are experiments with gender, all-female cast or not. His plays were not strictly binary: male actors played male and female roles. In this particular performance, the actors being female did not take away anything from the production, nor the authenticity of the characters. I am aware that we all see Shakespeare differently, it’s one of the great things about working as an actor :there are just so many diverse opinions and ideas on Shakespeare’s characters. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
Gina — January 3, 2018
I agree with Gina. If in Shakespeare’s time men were expected to convey all the nuances of the female characters they played, I don’t see why now we can’t have women trying to convey all the nuances of male characters. There is more variation within a sex than between them, after all, and if I were an actor I would love the opportunity to sink my teeth into Shakespeare’s major characters, regardless of their gender — perhaps even BECAUSE of their gender. I think this kind of experimentation opens us up to the realization that “male” and “female” are more fluid than we think and it might influence our modern writers to come up with characters less hampered by societal roles of any kind.
Katie Waitman — January 10, 2018
[…] all-female Shakespeare productions elsewhere in the world have had mixed reception. In 2017 The Silicon Valley Shakespeare Company produced an all-female Hamlet. And there has been a lot of talk recently about Phyllida Lloyd’s […]
All-Female Hamlet? Why? – Orcas Island Shakespeare Society — August 16, 2019
Stay connected
Find out what’s on, read our latest stories, and learn how you can get involved.
Comments
I am sorry, but I don’t buy the “sensitive man just trying to do his best after making a terrible mistake ” interpretation of Claudius. He murdered his brother to gain a throne and woman that he coveted. He has no love for his nephew or he wouldn’t want him out of the country or executed. He can’t honestly repent. He sets up Laertes to murder Hamlet when his scheme in England fails. While I realize that playing him as a dimentionless villain is not preferable, but embuing Claudius with female – like attributes is not staying true to the character as Shakespeare wrote him. As a female director/actor I may be behind the times, but I don’t think female actors are always right for any role. An all female cast is a nice experiment, but no more than that.
Susan Edgren — January 3, 2018
Hi Susan, as someone who has actually seen this particular production (multiple times, I might add), I respectfully disagree. I realize that there are many different interpretations on each Shakespeare role that we could debate for hours about this particular Shakespearean character. Interpretation is part of the actor’s job, along with the cast and creative team (as I’m sure you know), and there are many ways to play Claudius. As for the portrayal of the character staying true to Shakespeare’s ideals, as a female actor/director you should know that his plays were originally performed as all male. You would not be able to hold office as a director/actor if those ideals from Shakespeare’s time were still held today. A lot has changed since Shakespeare was performed more than 400 years ago. And yes, an all-female cast could be considered an “experiment,” as you worded, but Shakespeare’s plays are experiments with gender, all-female cast or not. His plays were not strictly binary: male actors played male and female roles. In this particular performance, the actors being female did not take away anything from the production, nor the authenticity of the characters. I am aware that we all see Shakespeare differently, it’s one of the great things about working as an actor :there are just so many diverse opinions and ideas on Shakespeare’s characters. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
Gina — January 3, 2018
I agree with Gina. If in Shakespeare’s time men were expected to convey all the nuances of the female characters they played, I don’t see why now we can’t have women trying to convey all the nuances of male characters. There is more variation within a sex than between them, after all, and if I were an actor I would love the opportunity to sink my teeth into Shakespeare’s major characters, regardless of their gender — perhaps even BECAUSE of their gender. I think this kind of experimentation opens us up to the realization that “male” and “female” are more fluid than we think and it might influence our modern writers to come up with characters less hampered by societal roles of any kind.
Katie Waitman — January 10, 2018
[…] all-female Shakespeare productions elsewhere in the world have had mixed reception. In 2017 The Silicon Valley Shakespeare Company produced an all-female Hamlet. And there has been a lot of talk recently about Phyllida Lloyd’s […]
All-Female Hamlet? Why? – Orcas Island Shakespeare Society — August 16, 2019