Director Robert O’Hara has unveiled his latest adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” at the Mark Taper Forum, prompting reactions from various corners of the theater-going community.
The adaptation, which premiered Wednesday, deviates significantly from traditional interpretations of the tragic tale, offering a playful and unconventional experience.
O’Hara’s fresh take doesn’t cater to purists; instead, it treats the 400-year-old play as a playful canvas ripe for eccentricities and whimsical exploration.
Those familiar with the history of avant-garde adaptations may recall Richard Schechner’s 1999 production, which turned “Hamlet” into a surreal pop-culture spectacle with varied character portrayals and unconventional settings.
In comparison, O’Hara’s rendition appears somewhat tamer. While some may be taken aback by the dynamic interactions between Hamlet, played by Patrick Ball, and Ophelia, portrayed by Coral Peña, the overall approach leans towards a film noir aesthetic, reminiscent of some past adaptations like Laurence Olivier’s Oscar-winning 1948 film.
The production begins with cinematic credits, setting an intriguing stage courtesy of Clint Ramos’ design, which evokes a contemporary interpretation akin to a coastal McMansion from a reality TV show.
While the backdrop, featuring footage of the sea, suggests a California setting rather than a Danish one, the focus remains on Hamlet’s perspective throughout the first act.
Projection designer Yee Eun Nam skillfully crafts a surreal environment where the ghost of Hamlet’s father, played by Joe Chrest, looms large, leading Hamlet into a downward spiral embellished with visual motifs influenced by modern series like “Stranger Things.”
This two-hour performance, presented without an intermission, holds initial charm, yet struggles to maintain momentum as O’Hara’s audacious choices start to feel repetitive.
The early sections of the adaptation unfold rapidly, causing some actors to deliver lines at a breakneck pace, which diminishes the depth often found in Shakespearean texts.
O’Hara’s revisions to the dialogue, although intended for accessibility, sometimes compromise the inherent poetry of Shakespeare’s original work.
These alterations border on jarring, drawing attention away from the text’s richness, particularly in vital moments involving Hamlet’s intensity.
Some linguistic choices, notably in personal confrontations, take on a contemporary slang that, while humorous, risks alienating those seeking the classic themes intrinsic to the plot.
Despite these superficial missteps, the adaptation’s central issue lies in its lack of clear purpose behind the reinterpretation of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet.”
O’Hara’s instinct for outrageousness, already visible in his other works like “Barbecue” and “Bootycandy,” doesn’t seem to drive a meaningful exploration of the classic tragedy here.
As the play progresses, O’Hara introduces an original character, Detective Fortinbras, who aims to investigate the aftermath of the play’s tragic events with a humorous twist.
He serves as a plot device that shifts the focus from the existential questions of power and morality to a comically distorted narrative about corporate intrigue in a dysfunctional family.
The imaginative recreation of Hamlet as an over-aged film student makes for amusing commentary but sacrifices the gravity of the original tale.
Even the play’s thematic intricacies risk being overshadowed by O’Hara’s comedic pursuits, which sometimes feel more self-indulgent than insightful.
The humor embedded in the portrayal of characters, particularly Claudius’s party with the First Player and other characters, creates fleeting moments of levity, but they do not alleviate the overall thematic incoherence.
The performers, including Patrick Ball and Gina Torres, deliver their lines with distinctive styles, although Ball appears less grounded in Shakespearean interpretation compared to Torres, whose powers in her role command great attention.
Torres, through her portrayal of Gertrude, successfully finds complexity, leaving spectators wishing for deeper representations of all characters involved, particularly in light of O’Hara’s treatment.
Peña’s portrayal of Ophelia emerges as a strong point, expressing fierce independence, yet she too ultimately serves as just another pawn within O’Hara’s playful reimagining.
The dialogue throughout the performance often leans into comedy, notably with the antics of the characters reminiscent of films like “Dumb and Dumber,” which, while entertaining, may have dulled the impact of the original narrative.
O’Hara’s adaptation of “Hamlet” seems to explore the quirks of plot rather than its ethical and psychological undercurrents, failing to harness the intrigue that has captivated audiences for centuries.
The essence of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” lies in its intricate exploration of existential dilemmas, an element that O’Hara’s offbeat and playful approach does not fully engage.
In summation, while O’Hara’s adaptation is praiseworthy for its daring creativity, it lacks the depth and resonance typically expected from such a revered literary classic.
While “Hamlet” will stand the test of time, as will O’Hara as an enduring figure in theater, questions remain about whether this particular production will resonate in the long run, especially considering the expectations built around the classic tale.
image source from：https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2025-06-06/patrick-ball-gina-torres-robert-ohara-hamlet-adaptation-mark-taper-forum
