Saturday, July 7, 2007

Peter Marks's critique of the Shakespeare Theatre Company's production of "Hamlet," and particularly of Michael Kahn's interpretation and Jeffrey Carlson's portrayal of the title role, seemed excessively wedded to Aristotelian premises of tragedy and notions of authorial intention ["A Less Than Noble Youth: Hamlet the Childish," Style, June 13].

What is wrong, as Marks claimed, with a portrayal of Hamlet as a "post-adolescent . . . psychological mess"? Hamlet is post-adolescent and entitled to more than a little messiness given the many causes of his condition. And since this is the reality Kahn and Carlson chose to elaborate, it deserved to be judged on its merits, particularly when so well enacted -- not on the basis of whether such a choice violated some gold standard of tragic insight and resolution as supposedly defined by Shakespeare.

It seems as if Marks resorted, like Polonius, to hackneyed formulas instead of focusing on the performance. He did a disservice not only to Kahn and Carlson, who, I expect, will ignore it, but also to those who might not see this terrific, nuanced production because of his review.

-- Joe O'Neill

Reston