“NOT IMPRESSED”

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1004, 21 June 1930, Page 26

“NOT IMPRESSED”

R. C. Sheriff Sees Shakespeare for the First Time A FRANK INTERVIEW R. C. Sherriff, the author ol ".Tourney's End,” confessed some months i ago that he had neither seen nor read j a play by Shakespeare. Recently he j saw "Hamlet” for the first time. BeI fore the performance at the Haymarket started, all he knew of the plot was that the chief character was a ■ Prince of Denmark, and that a ghost j was involved in some way. Yesterday I asked Mr. Slierriff if ; he would let me record his impresi sions of “Hamlet,” writes Mr. G. W. Bishop in the London “Observer,” in : a special interview. “Yes, if you will make it clear at the beginning that they are my first impressions of. a play' by Shakespeare, and that when I have seen ‘Hamlet’ another five times (as I intend to do) I shall probably want to kick myself for having talked so foolishly. At the Hay-market, as far as I was concerned, I was present at • the first performance of a new play.” “What emotions did Hamlet stir in you?” I asked. j “Frankly', neither pity nor admira- { lion,” Mr. Sherriff replied. “My chief ! feeling was that the Prince of Denj mark was not a man yvith whom 1 | should like to spend a week-end. He | talked far too much and did too little.” I “But if a man talked as magniflj cently as Hamlet, wouldn't you want to sit and listen?” I said. “No, not if he was so conscious of the fine words he was using. Under all his feelings I felt the conceit of Hamlet. He seemed to me very pleased with the idea of revealing his uncle as a murderer, and that, although he felt the death .of his father at first, he became so lost in his own affairs that he ceased to do so as the play progressed. Hamlet yvas the sort of man who eats a nut-roast self-consciously in a vegetarian restaurant. I am afraid I liked the villain better than the hero. Claudius was a human being who knew what he wanted, who could suffer genuine | remorse. Too Intrusive Ghost i “Curiously', too, I was not impressed by Shakespeare's technique. I thought the introduction of the ghost was a mistake, for the reason that he made me dislike Hamlet’s father. The ghost was full of the spirit of revenge, such a little-minded attitude for a man who had suffered physical death. ‘Ham- | let,’ I felt, would be a better play if the ghost had not appeared. It would have strengthened the play scene, in which, by the way, I thought that Claudius came out so well. A really practised villain would have sat unmoved. and might have applauded the murder on the stage. The king's inj genious reaction to the play showed what a human being he really was! I “Surely it was bad technique to introduce the ghost for the second time! ( had the feeling that Shakespeare was more influenced by the actors than_ he should have been; that he brought, on the ghost again to please the player who rather fancied himself in the part.” “It is a tradition that Shakespeare himself acted the ghost,” I said. “There y'ou are,” said Mr. Sherj riff. “I expect Shakespeare thought i more of himself as an actor than he did as a playwright. We are all like that.” Was Hamlet Mad? I raised the stupid question, “Was Hamlet mad?” “I can see,” said Mr. Sherriff. “whypeople have suggested that Hamlet yvas mad. I did feel in the moments when he showed extreme resentment at the attitude of the people round him that he was verging on insanity, and not merely assuming the ‘antic disposition.’ Hoyv else account for his treatment of Ophelia, which seemed to me incredible?”

Mr. Sherriff yvould he the last person in the yvorld to pose or to express an opinion that he did not really feel. Although “Journey’s End” is the greatest theatrical success for generations, he is still a modest and unassuming creature. He was obviously sincere about “Hamlet.” I was interested —if distressed! “Were you never moved by the bigness of the tragedy, or interested in the yvorkings of Hamlet’s mind?” “Frankly', no,” he said. “t yvas much more moved by ‘Young Woodley,’ an ordinary boy yvho only half understood yvhat was happening round him. Hamlet yvas perfectly aware of everything, and I could feel no pityfor a man yvho could express his emotion so lucidly. I had real pity for the schoolboy in Mr. Van Druten's play; none for the Prince of Denmark.” “Put yourself in Hamlet’s place,” I said. “You have a premonition that your uncle has killed your father, and you are able to confirm the crime. What yvould y-ou do?” I questioned. • “In Elizabethan days I should have killed my uncle with the first instrument I could find.” “And today?” “I don't knoyv what I should do. The most sensible thing would he to go to the Public Prosecutor and put the whole thing before him. Certainly I should not have talked about the tragedy.” “An Acquired Taste” “But y-ou would have brooded as much as Hamlet did —and isn’t Hamlet Everyman thinking aloud,” I said. “Yes; but that sort of thing on the stage seems so unnatural. What I feel,” he said, “is that Shakespeare must be an acquired taste—that one must get used to blank verse as a medium, aud that in order to really enjoy ‘Hamlet’ one must knoyv the lines almost by heart. I loved the yvords, and for tyvo days afterward 1 hardly dared think of my own povertystricken language, yet, strangely enough, I found that Shakespeare’s glorious language got in the way cf the play-. ‘ “Hare I been very priggish?” Mr. Sherriff said as I left him. “Please do not let me give that impression. I feel very humble about it all. I thought about ‘Hamlet’ all the week, and am -wondering yvhat is wrong with me for not being carried away, not only by the beauty and majesty of the yvords, but by the leading character. When 1 know the play better I am sure this will appear foolish, but what »I have said are my sincere thoughts at the moment.”