or, What If Horatio Were a Girl?, Exams of Theatre

Download or, What If Horatio Were a Girl? and more Exams Theatre in PDF only on Docsity!

Something’s Different in the State of Denmark; or,

What If Horatio Were a Girl?

Haviva Avirom Candidate for Master of Arts Theatre History Spring 2011

At the Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas (LMDA) conference in the summer of 2010 in Banff, Alberta, a conversation was convened about feminism and dramaturgy, and how the feminist perspectives of the dramaturg might apply to theatre production. One participant raised the issue of the trend in production toward cross-casting male roles with female performers, particularly in Shakespeare^1. The discussion that ensued addressed the audience confusion that can occur in cases where the gender switch affects plot and character development in ways that the production did not fully anticipate. In order to avoid such confusion, production teams must carefully analyze the effect of a gender swap on the story they wish to tell. A dramaturg is a valuable asset here, as she may both draw together research and analyze the effect that the gender switch has on the text, while providing the critical eye in rehearsals to ensure that such choices do not confuse the story, in effect serving as the audience’s voice in the rehearsal room. As an example of the pre-production assistance a dramaturg may render in this circumstance, this article addresses the effect of a gender switch of the character of Horatio in a production of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet , presented for a modern twenty-first century audience. Though I aim to be prescriptive, the thoughts laid out here should not be interpreted as the only options possible when cross-casting Horatio. As Judith Shakespeare Company 2 artistic director Joanne Zipay puts it, “things change when they’re on their feet,” and some choices may only become apparent when there are actual bodies inhabiting the roles (Zipay). Instead, my goal is to provide a jumping off point in explorations of gender surrounding Horatio’s role. Some of the effects of, and changes necessary for, making Horatio a woman are textual and can be addressed in pre-production, some will become clear only in rehearsal, but the

(^1) We specifically discussed recent productions including a female Richard III, Julie Taymor’s then upcoming film adaptation of (^2) Judith Shakespeare Company is based in New York and is known for its work in gender-bending Shakespeare’s The Tempest with a female Prospero, and the work of local companies in New York and Minneapolis. works. Artistic Director Joanne Zipay founded the company to give women more opportunities to performShakespeare. Part of the company’s mission states that each production must be cast at least 50% female.

to grow: he advises the Queen of Denmark herself and acts as babysitter to Ophelia in her madness (IV.v). When Hamlet returns, Horatio is once more solidly at his side, advising him and offering warnings about the duel (V.ii.205-214). After the fatal blows have been dealt, Hamlet entrusts his legacy to Horatio. He passes his proxy vote in the Danish election to Horatio, which should be the deciding vote that will make Fortinbras the next king of Denmark (V.ii.360-361). And perhaps most importantly, Hamlet gives Horatio the responsibility of telling his story, which is all that will remain of Hamlet after his death (V.ii.343-363). He literally commends all that posterity will ever know about him to the one man he trusts above all others, Horatio. As one of the least verbose characters in Hamlet , with only 290 lines of the text’s nearly four thousand 4 , Horatio provides a critical function in the play, balancing the wildness of Hamlet’s “antic disposition” with a staunch, stoic, and quiet loyalty (Schoff 53, I.v.180). He is present at most of the turning points of the play: the opening, Hamlet’s meeting with the ghost, Hamlet’s return to Denmark, and the fatal duel at the end. Perhaps most importantly, he is the only central character who survives the bloodbath. Because of this, Horatio is essentially cast as the narrator of the story. So important is this narrator’s role that Horatio may function as the audience’s stand-in. In her novel Tam Lin , Pamela Dean has her heroine, Janet, attend a production of Hamlet , and she finds herself watching Horatio as he watches everyone else. She notes that Horatio’s reactions are “like a commentary that point[s] up all the important points” (Dean 147). Indeed, although Horatio is a minor character in terms of simple line-count, he is often present at crucial moments, viewing the proceedings and providing a silent reaction. By

(^4) There is currently a great deal of controversy surrounding the three texts of Hamlet , Quartos 1 and 2, and the First Folio (Jenstad). For purposes of this essay, the control text is the Arden second edition, which uses a blend of Q2and F. Though there are significant differences between the three texts, the overall methodology suggested in this article applies regardless of the text involved.

observing more than participating in the action, Horatio provides a sane and reliable perspective on the action, and one ideal for a narrator. If this narrator were to be a woman, the production would provide a much-needed female perspective on a story that is dominated by men. As written, Hamlet contains only Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude, and his ‘girlfriend,’ Ophelia. There is some suggestion that in the past Hamlet had a warm and loving relationship with both. His mother’s earnest entreaties that he stay in Denmark at the beginning of the play seem like those of a mother who is close to her son (I.ii.118-19). The poetry that Ophelia received in the past from Hamlet sounds like that of a man deeply in love. Hamlet clearly says “I love thee best, O most best, believe it” (II.ii.120). However, within the action of the play, he berates, physically attacks, and emotionally lambastes each woman (III.i.103-151, III.iv.7-103). Hamlet’s relationship with the only two female characters in the play is antagonistic and abusive, creating an overall impression that the prince is misogynistic. His treatment of Gertrude is relentlessly judgmental and cruel. During his first encounter with her onstage, he dismisses her concerns over his grief with the snide comment, “‘seems’ madam – nay it is, I know not ‘seems’,” and, once in private, he rains curses on her head and on that of all her gender, slandering half the human race in saying “frailty, thy name is woman” (I.ii.76, I.ii.146). Mother and son meet again at the Players’ performance. Gertrude appears to try to placate her wayward son, once again offering him kind words and desiring his presence close to her, and he rebuffs her (III.ii.107-108). When discussing the play itself, Hamlet is cutting and rude to his mother, intentionally goading her into a state of guilt (III.ii.224-226). It is when Hamlet is alone with his mother that his misogyny is most evident. Hamlet and Gertrude’s longest scene together is also their most intimate. He takes her to task for her

This disrespect is echoed in his manner with Ophelia, his supposed beloved and the only woman of his own generation in the play. Though, as previously noted, Ophelia’s love letters seem to show that at one point Hamlet offered her a passionate and romantic courtship, he is at best rude and at worst intentionally humiliating toward her throughout the play. Hamlet’s first scene with her is not seen by the audience, only told from the perspective of the frightened Ophelia, who recounts his bedraggled appearance, “doublet all unbrac’d,/…stockings foul’d,/ungarter’d and down-gyved to his ankle,” and how distraught he appeared, “as if he had been loosed out of hell/To speak of horrors” (II.i.78-80, 83-84). Nothing in her recounting immediately suggests misogyny. In fact, Ophelia appears to be the first person Hamlet goes to after seeing the Ghost, which some might see as a sign that he is more fond of her than anyone else. On closer examination, however, this proves an inaccurate reading of the circumstances. In the previous scene on the battlements, after Hamlet has finished his rendezvous with the Ghost, he is most likely still fully dressed. It is a cold night in Denmark in the dead of winter (I.i). If Hamlet had been so undone, on the battlements, he would have frozen. Horatio, upon coming to Hamlet after the ghost interlude, makes no statements about Hamlet’s appearance. Despite his previous concern that the ghost would drive Hamlet to madness, he simply asks Hamlet for the news (I.v.120). This indicates that Hamlet appears to be fine, at least physically. When Hamlet administers an oath to his liegemen to keep silent about his antic plans, he seems in full command of his faculties. He can articulate his intention to put on an antic disposition and has the presence of mind to explain that the falseness of his madness must remain a close secret. Horatio speaks of his “wild and whirling words,” but when questioned, Hamlet can give a coherent answer that fits within his plan (I.v.139). Nothing anywhere in the play indicates that Hamlet has another run-in with the ghost before he goes to see Ophelia. Therefore, this shift in

his manner, from his self-control on the battlements to his dishabille in Ophelia’s closet, instead implies that he has chosen Ophelia as the first person on whom to test his put-on madness. Since Polonius seems unconcerned about witnesses, it is safe to assume that Ophelia was alone in her closet when Hamlet showed up. If this is the case, this one-on-one meeting would have offered Hamlet the perfect opportunity to tell Ophelia about his plan. But he does not do so; instead, he puts on a mad show. This is not the act of a sincere lover; it is the choice of a man who does not consider the feelings of the woman he is tormenting. Similarly, in the infamous nunnery sequence, Hamlet is verbally abusive to Ophelia (III.i.88-163). Even if he has figured out that she is a participant in the schemes of Claudius and Polonius, his barbs are personal and, judging by Ophelia’s reaction, calculated to wound her as deeply as possible. She begins by trying to respond to his comments directly and politely: “Could beauty, my lord, have better commerce than with honesty?” (III.i.109-110). A few moments later, though, when she receives no sign that Hamlet even hears her, she turns to prayers, clearly worried about him, “O help him, you sweet heavens” (III.i.135). From this point in the play, Hamlet’s stabs at Ophelia’s dignity and his attempts to play mind-games with her become very public. He makes lewd references at the Players’ show, in full view of the court and her father, clearly intending to emotionally destabilize and humiliate her. He makes reference to “country matters,” or sex, and “puppets dallying” and lying “between maids’ legs” (III.ii.115, 242, 117). It would be inappropriate for a virtuous woman to respond to these sallies, yet he persists. These sexual provocations of Ophelia do not advance Hamlet’s goal of determining the guilt of the king; they are only casual attempts to embarrass a woman he claims to love, or, at best, calculating efforts to exploit her in order to establish his madness for others. After this traumatizing performance, his professions in Ophelia’s grave to have loved her more than her

worry “such a kind of gaingiving/as would perhaps trouble a woman” (V.ii.211-212). If Horatio actually were a woman, this line becomes even more insulting, likening Horatio to the other women to whom Hamlet shows such scorn. The actor playing Hamlet has other options, however. He could make the line into an uneasy jest or the Prince lashing out because his best friend doubts his ability to win. In any case, it would be a testament to a female Horatio’s concern for him that instead of responding to the insult, she continues in her course to dissuade and save him. This exchange could once more demonstrate Horatio’s loyalty to Hamlet, far above what either Gertrude or Ophelia offer him, marking her as a different kind of woman than the ones provided by Shakespeare in the play. Because Horatio’s sanity, loyalty, and narrative function would make the character such a potentially positive female force in the play, it makes sense to envision a production in which the character is made a woman. When making gender switches, some productions choose to cast female actors, but play the characters still male, in the tradition of operatic breeches roles, as well long standing theatrical traditions, such as Peter Pan being played by a woman. This type of cross-casting does not mandate any especial changes to the text or the manner of production, though it can be confusing for audience members if any part of the costuming or performance suggests gender ambiguity. However, if the character’s gender is altered, as well as the performer’s, the text must be examined for places where the gender change needs to show up in the language itself. Since the remainder of this article refers specifically to productions with a female Horatio, from this point on, the character will be referred to as female, with the appropriate feminine pronoun. The first textual issue to consider is Horatio’s name. The knee-jerk reaction upon changing the gender of a character from male to female is to alter the name, generally from an

“o” ending to an “a” ending, as Julie Taymor does in her film version of The Tempest , making Helen Mirren’s Prospero a Prospera. Horatio could similarly be changed to Horatia. However, there is some feeling, particularly among younger audiences, that this change is purely cosmetic and serves to further distance the audience from the character, who is no longer called what they expect her to be called. Joanne Zipay, founder and artistic director of the Judith Shakespeare Company, states that feminizing the name of a gender-switched character is “very self- conscious,” and that by “changing it, … you make people think about it” rather than simply accepting it as part of the play (Zipay). Feminizing the ending of the name points up the change in gender and may suggest that Horatio’s gender is the main fact that distinguishes her from other characters. However, the simpler solution is to retain Horatio, and consider it the character’s surname (i.e. Eleanor Horatio), where the mode of address is simply assumed to be in the male fashion of referring to all by their last names. For a woman in a man’s world, assuming a masculine form of address, such as professional athletes do, allows Horatio to fit in better. For purposes of this piece, the character name has been maintained as Horatio. After Horatio’s name, pronouns are the most obvious and widespread example of a necessary text change. The adapter must effect a sweeping change of “he” to “she” and “him” to “her” in order to maintain the integrity of the production. Then there are the masculine nouns. In act I scene i, Marcellus refers to himself and Horatio as “liegemen to the Dane” (I.i.16). This may require a change, though the editor may decide that liegemen is a gender-neutral term, like “mankind” or “actors.” In addition, “liegepersons” does not fit the meter of the line and may sound jarring in context. The adapter must keep in mind the gender of the character, the best choices for audience comprehension, and

equivalent, one may uncover new meanings for the lines: barely four lines later, Hamlet’s use of “man” and Horatio’s changed gender may combine for a new character choice for Hamlet. Hamlet says “Give me that man/That is not Passion’s slave, and I will wear him/In my heart’s core, ay, in my heart of heart,/as I do thee” (III.ii.71-74). In a traditionally gendered production, this is a sweeping rhetorical statement, since Hamlet already has that man in Horatio. In a production where Horatio is female, the line takes on the meaning that if Hamlet could find such a man, he would be best friends with him, but there is no such man because these qualities are unique in Horatio, a woman. A further textual concern to address is the use of vocatives like “sir.” This formal mode of address presents a thorny problem for the adapter. The female correlative might be “ma’am,” but in modern parlance “ma’am” implies an age difference between the speaker and the spoken to that does not suit Hamlet’s relationship with Horatio. One might consider changing “sir” to “lady.” However, “lady” has an extra syllable and therefore presents a metrical problem. In some circumstances, such as “sir, my good friend, I’ll change that name with you,” a gender-neutral “you” might be substituted, the line might be cut entirely, or the “sir” deleted for a metrical beat of silence to maintain the verse (I.ii.163). All of the previous discussion has dealt with the textual effects of a female Horatio. None of this addresses the physical possibilities inherent in a woman onstage rather than a man. Some of the implications of Horatio being female will only become apparent in production, when there is an actual female body where there would otherwise have been a male one. Depending on the era in which the production is set and the choices of the director and costume designer, Horatio may be more or less obviously female in her attire. According to Julie Siefkes’s unpublished 1996 BFA acting thesis, in which she discusses her own portrayal of

Horatio, the costume designer chose to keep her female Horatio fairly masculine in dress, employing military styling and pants, as well as the actress’s own short hair (Siefkes Appendix). This production at the University of Virginia chose to keep the relationship between Hamlet and Horatio purely platonic and the masculine design of her costume encouraged the audience not to view Horatio as a potential partner for Hamlet. Though Siefkes does not discuss the audience’s response to her somewhat androgynous Horatio, a director would need to consider whether the audience will understand that the character is female, rather than a woman playing a man. In any period prior to the 1920s, a woman in pants onstage implies either an unnatural woman character, as in Middleton’s The Roaring Girl , a woman disguised as a man, such as Viola in Twelfth Night , or a woman playing a male character, like Sarah Bernhardt playing Hamlet. These mores change as one approaches the 20th^ century and women on the street begin wearing trousers in everyday life^7 , but the director and designer must consider when making costuming changes whether they wish to risk the audience doubting Horatio’s gender, particularly in light of the patriarchal world of the play. Conversely, by costuming Horatio in a more obviously feminine style, the production has the opportunity to subvert some widespread cultural perceptions of Hamlet himself. As pointed out by Catherine Belsey in her essay “Was Hamlet a Man or a Woman?,” numerous artists, in portraying the tragic Prince beside his closest friend, have chosen a more effeminate style for Hamlet in contrast to Horatio’s bluff manliness (Belsey 145). In a cross-cast production, with Horatio no longer representing this obvious masculinity, the director may choose to play up the more masculine-coded behaviours in Hamlet himself. Belsey ascribes Hamlet’s lack of decisive action in the play to a femininity in his character (146). A female Horatio would make Hamlet the contrastingly masculine force in their relationship. Each decision the production team (^7) Actress Katherine Hepburn is often seen in casual photographs in trousers and pantsuits (Hepburn).

apparition speak. This calm, non-hysterical reaction to danger is only one of the ways in which Horatio does not fit the play’s profile of a stereotypical woman. Though she is, as Hamlet points out, one of “the poor,” not a member of the nobility, Horatio is secure enough in herself to make demands on the Prince of Denmark (III.ii.58). When Hamlet, all a-lather, prepares to follow an apparition of unknown origin and intent, Horatio does not plead or entreat him to reconsider. She gives him a command: “Be ruled, you shall not go” (I.iv.81). Though Hamlet does not heed it, the attempt shows that Horatio possesses a spine of steel in direct contrast to the other ladies of the play. Given the constraints of the opening sequence of the play, a winter midnight outdoors in Northern Europe, it may be possible for the director to surprise the audience with Horatio’s gender in I.ii. Even a lady might be excused for wearing heavy masculine outerwear on the battlements of Elsinore in the middle of the night, perhaps even a large hat that might camouflage her gender. Since she is not a regular member of the watch, her gear could plausibly be borrowed and not tailored to her actual measurements. Thus, in the next scene, when she and her compatriots of the watch find Hamlet the following morning, Hamlet may be forgiven for not immediately recognizing his best friend (or even potentially his lover) because she is camouflaged by her watch gear. As she begins to shed the outer layers, revealing more feminine garb and her true form, the line “Horatio, or I do forget myself” would make sense, given that Hamlet knows that Horatio was in Elsinore, having seen her at both the funeral and the wedding (I.ii.161). By moving the “reveal” forward a scene, the production would give a modern audience the opportunity to become accustomed to the language and style of a 16th^ -century work and the specific conceit of the production before throwing them the curve of a gender-switched main character.

Horatio’s attendance at the University of Wittenberg is another problem that would come from the gender switch. Before the 20th^ century, there were few or no coeducational universities, so Hamlet and Horatio’s relationship as schoolmates will be problematic. One solution would be to have Horatio cross-dress to attend university. As Charles Johnson’s account shows, there are records from as early as the mid-17 th^ century of women dressing convincingly as men in order to move outside of their proscribed female sphere, as in the case of female pirates Anne Bonny and Mary Read (Johnson 2-4). Mary Read shared a military tent with her future husband for some time during her army service with no one the wiser. It is plausible that Horatio might be leading this type of double life as well. These and other effects will of course depend on the way the team chooses to address Horatio and Hamlet’s relationship. There is a tendency amongst people in modern Western society to assume a sexual relationship whenever a woman and a man are close friends, as expressed in the famous line from When Harry Met Sally : “Women and men can’t be friends” (Reiner). Furthermore, many 20 th^ -century productions of Hamlet have emphasized its sexual aspects. In the film adaptations by Svend Gade (1920), Laurence Olivier (1948), and Franco Zeffirelli (1990), each director brought an element of sexuality to the text influenced, as they appear to have been, by Freud’s theory of the Oedipus Complex. As a result of these films, James Simmons quite rightly points out that “most of us now see Hamlet as a drama in which sexual issues are predominant” (Simmons 111). Because of this widespread public perception of Hamlet as a play about sex and sexuality, Horatio’s transformation into a woman will subject the relationship between Hamlet and Horatio to sexual scrutiny. Horatio and Hamlet seem to be closer emotionally than any other characters in the play. Hamlet trusts Horatio, lets her in on his plans, and demands her presence repeatedly. As

This scene appears to contain one of, if not the only honest and rational expression of emotion for another person that Hamlet is given, and the full force of his affection is directed at Horatio. Horatio furthers the apparent connection between the two characters by calling Hamlet “sweet lord” and “my dear lord,” terms of endearment that may easily be interpreted as more than mere flattery (III.ii.53, 56). Furthermore, Hamlet’s use of straightforward verse with Horatio contrasts sharply with his preference for highly figurative prose with Ophelia. All of Hamlet’s conversations with Ophelia are in prose and characterized by heavy use of metaphor, as in the nunnery scene or at the Players’ performance (III.i, III.ii). For example, Hamlet speaks to Ophelia in a muddle of churches and hobby-horses that does not make much sense: “But by’r lady a must build churches then, or else shall a suffer not thinking on, with the hobby-horse, whose epitaph is ‘For O, for O, the hobby-horse is forgot’” (III.ii.130-133). All of his comments contain ambiguities, puns, and innuendo calculated to confuse. In order to understand him, Ophelia is forced to decode Hamlet’s language. In contrast, Hamlet’s interactions with Horatio are almost entirely in verse. He explains his plan for the king and the players fully in III.ii and straightforwardly tells Horatio to watch his uncle’s responses (III.ii.75-87). There is no room for misinterpretation there. He offers Horatio the respect of an equal, rather than attempting to play with her mind. By keeping Horatio apprised of his schemes, rather than tangling her in his web, Hamlet obviously shows more caring towards her than he ever does towards Ophelia. Although Horatio and Ophelia rarely interact directly, the additional dimension of a romantic relationship between Hamlet and Horatio will affect what little contact there is between Horatio and Ophelia. Both women are present at the Players’ performance, though they do not speak to each other. It would be up to the actors and the director to determine whether either

woman is aware of the other’s connection to Hamlet and, if so, what form that knowledge takes. The only explicit interaction between the two characters occurs after Ophelia has gone mad, when she comes before Queen Gertrude, who is being waited upon by Horatio. Horatio encourages the reluctant queen to see Ophelia and, when Ophelia runs out, Horatio is tasked with watching her. Though Ophelia is mad, there is still a strong impression in her words that she remembers everything that has happened to her, as shown by her appropriate choice of flowers for each person in the room (IV.v.173-183). If she is similarly aware of Hamlet’s relationship with Horatio, sending the other woman after her might serve only to exacerbate her already frayed emotions. If Horatio is aware of Hamlet’s relationship with Ophelia, and surely she must be, since Hamlet shares all other information with her, Horatio might relish her only opportunity to be alone with Ophelia. When Ophelia and Horatio return to the Queen’s receiving room, Ophelia is in even higher dudgeon, madder than she had appeared before. What happens between Horatio and Ophelia is unknown, but since their feelings for Hamlet are similar, it could be a jealous confrontation between the rivals. Making Horatio a woman actually makes the whole of IV.v make more sense from a societal perspective. It is odd that Gertrude would be depicted spending time alone with a young man of common birth, as she is at the beginning of the scene as written. If Horatio were a woman and acting as a lady-in-waiting to the Queen while in Elsinore, she would have a legitimate reason to be present and to have the ear of the queen. This change seems minor in the grand scheme of the plot; however, it adds a small amount of logic to a situation that was previously troubling to theatre practitioners (Zipay). Making Horatio a woman may also allow her to be present in more scenes than she is officially in textually. In II.ii, an attendant enters with Claudius, Gertrude, and Rosencrantz and