"After Hamlet": Two Perspectives Author(s): Michal Kobialka Reviewed work(s): Source: Theatre Journal, Vol. 38, No.

2, Con(Text) (May, 1986), pp. 196-205 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3208119 . Accessed: 06/06/2012 09:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theatre Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

AfterHamlet: Two Perspectives

Michal Kobialka

I
Dear Boris Leonidowich:
. . I cannot work out the finale at all.

I do not understand the image of Fortinbrasvery well, and, in the theatre, his entrance usually winds up being operatic: a feather on his helmet, banners, fanfares, a crowd of extras .... - Grigori Kozintsev- from a letter to B. L. Pasternak.

Shakespeare'splays have a long tradition of being altered and adapted to suit difthe ferent cultural tastes. This tendency to "regularize" texts began at least as early as the Restoration; e.g., Dryden's All for Love (1677), an attempt to "improve"Antony and Cleopatra, and Tate's happy ending in King Lear (1681). A tradition of alteration and imitation initially established in England has spread to other countries. Hamlet serves as a good example: it was common practice in nineteenth-centuryproductions of the play to omit Fortinbras.Moreover, most Shakespeareanburlesques of the same century did not include this character.' Fortinbrasseemed unnecessary and unwanted due to the scanty treatment afforded him in the original play.2 Rather than trying to

School CUNY, currently at is in MichalKobialka a doctoral candidate theTheatre of writing program theGraduate and theatre drama. his dissertation theareaof medieval in

'This attitude towards Fortinbras is reflected in Bernard Shaw's Our Theatre in the Nineties (London: Constable & Co., Ltd., 1931), vol. II, p. 16. In his review of the production of Hamlet from January 18, 1896, Shaw asserts that: "In Hamlet one cannot approve unreservedly of the views of Fortinbras: but generations of foolish actor-managers to the contrary notwithstanding what true Shakespearean ever thinks of Hamlet without seeing Fortinbras, in his winged helmet, swoop down at the end, and take by the divine right of a born 'captain of souls' the crown that slips through the dead fingers of the philosopher who went, at the bidding of his father's ghost in search of a revenge which he did not feel and a throne which he did not want? Fortinbrascan, of course, never be anything more than an Adelphi hero, because his bellicose instincts and imperial ambitions are comfortably vulgar; but both the Adelphi hero and the tragic hero have fundamentally the same heroic qualifications - fearless pursuit of their own ends and championship of their own faiths contra mundum." 2Fortinbras is mentioned four times, in I. 1 and 2, II. 2, and IV. 4; appears on stage for the first time in IV. 4 and for the second time in V. 2.

196

197

AFTER HAMLET: TWO PERSPECTIVES

understand the character, it was easier to ignore him entirely. Early on, Goethe posed a sticky question regarding the interpretation of this role. In light of the fact that Fortinbrasappears in the closing minutes of the tragedy and merely seems to distract us from Hamlet's death, how could this character be treated as a significant acting role?3 It almost seems as if Shakespeare had fumbled the ending of this magnificent drama. This problem invited the justification for eliminating Fortinbras.Thus, we are confronted with a startling aspect regardingtranslations and adaptations. When interpretation is difficult or irksome, it appears easier to omit whole sections of the text rather than to struggle with the meaning. Quite frequently, modem stage directors have the same problem with the character of the Prince of Norway. This dilemma is due to the fact that they focus solely on the presentation of the title character, making Hamlet the nucleus of the tragedy. The result is a great variety of productions, all featuring one element; e.g., Hamlet as a revival of Elizabethan staging techniques; Hamlet as a romantic hero simmering with rage and vengeance; Hamlet played by women; Hamlet in twentieth-centurycostume; or even "naked"Hamlet, as a symptom of avant-garde fashion. The reviews of productions in the United States and Great Britain during the last twenty years are an interesting source of information depicting and analyzing various trends in the staging of the play. They clearly demonstrate certain general patterns that might explain the approach toward Hamlet in those countries. For example, Alan Brien tries to make us believe that in Hamlet "we have been clearly instructedby the dramatist what his play is not about-it is not about politics."4 Therefore, Fortinbras, who is obviously a political figure, becomes a dispensable element in the play. If we disagree with Brien, and attempt to set the play in a political context of the plottings and imposed actions, we view Hamlet as a victim of a political mechanism which is indestructible. Thus, Fortinbras'sentrance again becomes obtrusive and only breaks the concept of the production. In both cases the major emphasis is laid on the fate of Hamlet, which might explain why so little attention is directed to Fortinbrasin modern Shakespeareanproductions and offshoots.5 The adaptations of Percy MacKaye, Tom Stoppard, Charles Marowitz, Joseph Papp, and Paul Baker could serve as examples of this textual perspective. In contrast with the theatrical adaptors, literary and theatre critics have tried to break this pattern to uncover new ways to analyze the play. Harley Granville-Barker, Francis Fergusson, and Jean Paris have all attempted to give Fortinbrasa new place, making him into a second Horatio who is close to Hamlet and serves as his "alterego" or "double."They have pointed out that the Norwegian Prince is the man who breaks the chain of crime and restores order in the Danish Kingdom. Jean Paris, in Hamlet ou les personnage du fils, establishes a link between the mythological figures of Ouranos, Kronos, and Zeus with Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras to illustrate a pattern of la deliberation - la decision- l'execution.6 In such a construct, Hamlet becomes an allegory for a history of creation, in which Fortinbras is a man who creates the
3Wolgang von Goethe, Wilhelm Meister (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1937), vol. I, p. 255. 4Alan Brien, "Peter Hall's Production of Hamlet," Sunday Telegraph, 22 August 1965. 5 See Ruby Cohn, Moder Shakespeare Offshoots (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976). 6Jean Paris, Hamlet ou les personnages du fils (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1953).

198

TI, May 1986

cosmos. Unfortunately, Paris's interpretation has come to be viewed as literary criticism, i.e., only another tentative speculation, and his concept has not materialized in West European productions. Like any other country, Poland has a long tradition of staging for this particular play. However, for the purpose of this essay I will concentrate only on the post-war history in order to explain the phenomenon of the Fortinbrasplays and show the attitudes that accompanied the production of After Hamlet in Poland. In the period of 1945-1955, Shakespearewas staged fifty-six times in Poland and productions adhered to the traditional psychological-realistic convention.7 Only a few of these productions were noteworthy, because the strict cultural policies of the state did not allow for changes and interpretationswhich might have suggested any relevance to the political situation in Poland. The year 1956, in which the Stalinist era ended in the country, brought a lifting of censorship that relaxed cultural restrictionsand permitted a revival of the arts. Thus, the years that followed were crucial in shaping a national consciousness whose development had been monitored by official policy for many decades. The spirit of the times was mirrored in the works of art. Writers, playwrights, and theatre directors published and staged works that commented on the quality of public and private life and criticized the government. Plays were produced in which political aspects relevant to the situation in Poland were brought to the foreground. In the context of 1956-1964, it is easy to understand why Shakespeare was produced one hundred and forty times. At the same time, one can observe a shift in interpretation of the major dramatic roles from the state-accepted conventions to new emphases on elements which reflected the dichotomy of man in a totalitarian state.8 Many theatre directors became especially interested in Hamlet and particularly in Fortinbras.9Their fascination with the Norwegian Prince has its roots in at least two aspects of the play: Fortinbrasleads his forces against Poland and returnsa conqueror; and he comes to Elsinore to restore peace in a country ruled by a tyrant. Fortinbras was perceived as the symbol of a savior, and the Epilogue was treated as the heralding of the new era. For the first time, his entrance was not an intrusion; rather, spotlights marked his way to the throne. However, there are two other significant aspects regarding the Norwegian Prince: his march to Poland; and his name, from the French fort en bras (spelled Fortenbrasse in the first quarto of 1603), which means "strong arm." On the one hand, they viewed Fortinbras as a splendid solution to national problems (he brings law and order to bloody, chaotic Denmark), and on the other hand, they had to adjust their interpretationto allow for the appearance of a political man. This incongruity in the character'simage and conqueror and a "strong-armed" the return of the pro-Russian policy in the late 1950s led to revisions in the interpreta7All statistical information has been quoted after Andrzej Zurowski's Myslenie Szekspirem (Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax, 1983). 8A good example of this shift could be Skuszanka's Measure for Measure (1956) and The Tempest (1959) or Woszczerowicz's Richard III (1960). A critical analysis of these productions will appear in Shakespeare: Notable International Revivals, eds. S. Leiter et al., to be published by Greenwood Press in 1986. 9For example, in the period of 1946-55, Hamlet was staged 3 times; in the period of 1956-65, the play was staged 13 times.

199

AFTER HAMLET: TWO PERSPECTIVES

tion of Fortinbras, as well as to new readings of Hamlet producing a new genre of plays which more or less directly tackled the problem of Fortinbras over the next twenty years. In his essay "AboutHamlet and Fortinbras" published in 1956, Roman Brandstaetter Fortinbras as the incarnation of a brutal and destructive force."?He is a perceives savage, historical necessity. Therefore, when the Prince of Norway assumes power over Elsinore, Brandstaetterportrays a vision of doom, of the long night in which the powers of evil triumph over the "sole honest man in a cursed Sodom." His views contrasted with the attitude of the younger generation which welcomed the political changes of 1956 with national euphoria. Polish youth viewed Fortinbras and his arrival at the court in Elsinore as the symbolic prediction of the new era, in which order and freedom would prevail over the abuses of the Stalinist period. The Hamlet production in Cracow only a few weeks after the XXth Congress of the Soviet Communist Partyl1 and Zbigniew Herbert's Elegy for Fortinbras both advocate this optimistic perception of a strong man, who comes full of vigor to purge rotten Denmark.12He becomes the model of a New Man, who, though he is not an intellectual, will view the pressures, constraints, and necessities of his new world through his common sense. Even from this brief outline, one can perceive that the portrayal of the figure of Fortinbras reflected the political history of Poland. Therefore, the return of the strict observance of the rules of socialism in the 1960s and 1970s brought yet another revision of the attitude towards Fortinbras.13 ceased to be the symbol of the new era. Instead, He he evolved into a figure that expressed the people's growing disillusionment with the situation in the country. In Stanislaw Grochowiak's King the Fourth, Fortinbrasloses his God-like qualities and becomes a part of the illusionary system of maintaining power.14 Even the events of the 1980s, including the Solidarity movement that triggered a new hope in the Polish people, were overshadowed by the lessons taught by history and the rules of Realpolitik (Realist Politics). The new order, as depicted in Fortinbras, is incapable of introducing anything truly new and meaningful. The old system simply perpetuates itself. Zurek's After Hamlet provides a good example of this new approach towards Fortinbras.15Fortinbras, whose entrance was cheered in 1956, and who became more of an enigma than a real leader in the 1960s and 1970s, is viewed by Zurek as a man who
10Roman Brandstaetter, "O Hamlecie i Fortynbrasie," Dialog 8 (August 1956). A catholic poet and playwright brought up in pre-war Poland, Brandstaetter was dedicated to humanist values and the romantic tradition. 11Hamlet, dir: Roman Zawistowski, sc: Tadeusz Kantor, thea: Krakow, Teatr Stary, 30 September 1956. 2Zbigniew Herbert, "Tren Fortynbrasa," trans. Czeslaw Milosz. In Post-War Polish Poetry: An Anthology (New York: Doubleday, 1975), pp. 111-12. 13For example, Mrozek's Tango (1965), Swinarski's production of Hamlet (1975), Tomaszewski's Hamlet, Irony, Mourning (1979 - a pantomime performance). 14 Stanislaw Grochowiak, "Krol IV," Dialog 1 (January 1963), 19-43. Also see Polish Plays in Translation; An Annotated Bibliography, ed. D. C. Gerould, B. Taborski, S. Hart, M. Kobialka (New York: A CASTA Publication, 1983), p. 23. 15 Jerzy Zurek, "Po Hamlecie," Dialog 4 (Arpil 1981), 5-32. Unpublished English translation by Michal Kobialka.

200

TI, May 1986

undergoes a metamorphosis from a potentially independent ruler to a politically impotent king. Thus, Zurek crashes the myth of a long-awaited savior of Poland proving that this has never been anything but a figment of the imagination in the minds of those who could not come to terms with their country's history, and who allowed themselves to be placated with illusions and charactermyths. In Zurek'splay, we meet Fortinbrason his way to "tamehaughty Slavonic tribes."He is young and thinks that he is able to make decisions concerning his own fate and that of others. The opening scene - the appearance of old Hamlet's Ghost - sets the mood of the play. We soon realize that the figures on stage are merely actors who are rehearsing their parts, which, according to the command of the Norwegian king, they will enact at the Danish court. Fortinbrasis against the ploy and is highly dissatisfied with the king, his uncle. The ambition to become a ruler is alien to him. Instead, he wants to flee to England with the help of his friend Grothe, hoping to withdraw from politics. However, receiving the unexpected command of the march to Poland awakens in Fortinbras a dormant desire to fight and to have adventures, which is in accord with the His symbolic meaning of his name, "strong-arm." attitude is evidenced in a loose command and in an absurdist question which draws a close parallel between Fortinbras and Ubu Roi: Fortinbras:Well, friends, to Poland. By the way, where is it? Grothe: (shrugging his shoulders) Somewhere. Fortinbras:Where? Frant: Maybe, nowhere. In order to depict the mechanism of Realpolitik, Zurek introduces Lizon-the King's governor-general, an embodiment of a provocateur, whose manipulations determine the fate of both Hamlet and Fortinbras. His ultimate goal is to eliminate Hamlet and after that, Fortinbras. As a corollary, he wants Denmark and Norway, and perhaps England, for himself and his son Vic. Fortinbrasslowly falls into the trap that has been set by Lizon. Flattered and blinded by his false words, the Prince will lose his only friend, Grothe, and his chance to establish himself as an independent ruler. Treason and treachery, indispensable elements of Realpolitik, triumph over the naive and lofty ideals of young Fortinbras. By the time he realizes the pattern of the game and Grothe has been strangled by Lizon, it is too late to reverse the action. All he can utter with a bitter voice is, "Politics is the world's whore. I don't want to meddle with her anymore."However, the wheels of the machine of Realpolitik continue to move forward, and Fortinbrasgoes to Elsinore to give the eulogy for Hamlet, boldly saying "Letfour captains .. ."We have already heard these words spoken by Lizon at the grave of Grothe. Struck by them, we suddenly perceive their meaning. It is not Fortinbrasbut Lizon who will wear the crown. The final scene, which has been taken from Shakespeare's Hamlet, crystallizes Zurek's interpretation. Zurek returns us to Elsinore only to reveal the bodies scattered around the stage. Hamlet is dead and his dreams have died with him. Inevitably, Fortinbraswill experience the same fate; he has already lost his game. Thus, by tracing the myth of Fortinbrasand combining it with the post-war history of Poland, the text of Shakespeare'sHamlet also expands to include a new dimension.

201

AFTER HAMLET: TWO PERSPECTIVES

Fortinbrasacquires a status of myth and becomes a semiotic sign, generating its value in the process of multiple historical changes. This particularphenomenon of the reception of the sign has been described by Umberto Eco: "the aesthetic text continously transforms its denotations into new connotations; none of its items stop at their first interpretant, contents are never received for their own sake but rather as the signvehicle for something else."16 This semiotic theory of artistic experience and changes in the perception of a character produce further knowledge of him and lead to different readings of the text. Various stagings of Hamlet offer proof of it. In their context, one could suggest that the meaning of the production stems from a combination of the text and extra-textual elements, such as the political, cultural, and economic situation in a given country. However, in order to achieve an entirely new aesthetic message we need still another or third element - the experience. In the Polish productions of Hamlet, Fortinbras appeared as a sign of a certain historical situation. The character had become such a sign through the historical experience of the Polish people. The ironies of history forced them, in consequence, to re-evaluate their perception of Hamlet in the context of the ensuing political situation.17Since theatre directorshad already exhausted their possibilities in the interpretation of Fortinbras, who had played more than merely an informative function, a new need arose to clarify his position in the Polish experience of the play. If we apply Eco's words to Fortinbras, this characterwas recreatedas a signifier of a higher order - a symbol which generated its own mythology independent from Shakespeare's Hamlet, particularly in the Fortinbras plays.18 II
The meaning of text depends on the introduced interpretant; the aim of the theatre is to support this meaning with para-linguisticsystems and signs. - Grzegorz Sinko in Opis przedstawienia teatralnego

These two perspectives on interpretingHamlet and Shakespeareanoffshoots in both Western Europe and Poland had existed independently of one another until the appearance of the play After Hamlet. The staging of After Hamlet both in Poland and England could be perceived as an attempt to bring these two traditions together. In other words, it could be perceived as an attempt to cross over the boundaries separating them. An analysis of the Polish and English productions will examine the problems encountered while mapping translations in a well-defined cultural context. The two Polish productions of After Hamlet serve as an example of the above mentioned semiotic speculations.19Although they presented different interpretations of
' Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976), p. 274. 17 See Jan Kott, Shakespeare Our Contemporary, trans. B. Taborski (New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,

1984).
18Another play of this kind is Janusz Glowacki's Fortinbras is Drunk, trans. K. Brodzinski (unpublished). 19Wroclaw, Teatr Polski, 3 June 1981; Warsaw, Teatr Ateneum, 22 May 1981.

202

TI, May 1986

the figure of Fortinbras- in Wroclaw he was a naive man drawn into a trap of power, while in Warsaw, he was a mature man, well aware of the rules which govern the world, a man who has much too quickly lost the belief that one can and should fight and defend his own convictions-the global meaning of the text-production was firmly revealed by the stage design.20 The interpretant, interpreting horizon and iconography used in these productions were derived from three sources: from the tradition of interpretingthe figure of Fortinbrasin the country; from the historical experience of the people; and from the ability of the audience to decipher the real meaning of the play between the lines.21 After Hamlet is open to such a reading. As one of the critics asserted, "theplay evokes in us numerous associations and parallels to the situation in Poland which call for applause, and at the same time, they compel us to ponder over and rethink our attitude to the situation in the country."22 The legacy of this statement found its roots not only in the acting but, first of all, in the stage designs for the productions of After Hamlet in Poland. In the Wroclaw production the set was "adim, gloomy, and large stage, with a constantly undulating sea in the background and a huge fishing net hanging over the stage in the first scene."23 The props, and especially a fishing net which appeared on stage, acquired a metaphorical dimension. They were used purposefully to create a feeling of a closed space from which there was no exit. This claustrophobic feeling was enhanced by spears falling unexpectedly from above, which stuck in the ground around Fortinbras.They encircled him not only in a physical sense but created a feeling of his political impotency by suggesting a prison or a trap. When soldiers surroundedFortinbras'sfriend Grothe, holding spears which were fastened by a few sackcloth strips, they signified that Norway is nothing more than a prison. In the Warsaw production a small stage was used. It was crammed with metal bars customarily used for scaffoldings. They created a synthetic image either of a military camp, a forest, the cemetery, or the Hall in Elsinore. On yet another level those bars suggested an image of prison in a metaphorical sense, i.e., a prison whose walls slowly caved in upon Fortinbras, trapping him inside and destroying his idealistic view of the world. His movements also slowed down. He appeared to stumble, trying to chop his way through the smoke floating
201would like to introduce a distinction between the text and the text-production. If the former refers to the text of the play, the latter signifies a director's interpretation of this text on stage. 21 The term interpretant is defined in Peircean terms as the idea which the sign generates or as a set of abstract structures at the disposal of the participants of the text for the purpose of understanding (competence in its narrower linguistic meaning). See Charles S. Peirce, Collected Papers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1931-1958), vol. 5, p. 484, and Keir Elam, The Semiotics of Theatre and

Drama (London: Methuen, 1980). The term interpreting horizon originated with German structuralists who introduced the principle of integrating the pragmatic component into structuralist theory. It means that, in Peirce's theory of sign, they stressed the interpretant as the horizon in which the object was constituted. When transferred from sign to text this approach indicates that the interpreting horizon is a set of interpretants at the disposal of the participants of the text for the purpose of its understanding in the context of historical, political, economic, etc. structures (competence in its broader cultural meaning). See W. A. Koch, "Onthologiethese und Relativitatshese fur eine Textlinguistik," Textsemiotik und strukturelle Rezeptionstheorie (New York: Hildesheim, 1976). 2 Marta Fik, "Po Hamlecie," from the play-bill to the production of After Hamlet in Poland. 23Elzbieta Baniewicz, "After Hamlet," Theatre in Poland 1 (January 1982), 6-7.

203

AFTER HAMLET: TWO PERSPECTIVES

over the floor of the stage. The stage design in these two productions generated the meaning of the textual surface structure that helped the audience to probe into the deep structure of the play - into its global meaning, that of political morality, of rules of history, of the entanglement of a human being within the frame of the system, and of the travesty of Fortinbras's statement concerning power, i.e., that power is the harshest form of slavery. A year after its Polish productions, After Hamlet had its British premiere at Royal Holloway College in London. As translator of the play and advisor to the director, I had a chance to observe this production in progress. The problems we encountered while staging the play could be categorized into two groups: those of literary criticism of the play, and those of performance. In the first part of this essay, I attempted to outline the ongoing tradition of imitations and alterations of Shakespeare'splays in England and to show the prevailing attitudes in readings of Hamlet. Many critics who reviewed After Hamlet attacked the value of the new text. Their major criticism of the play was that it was merely another offshoot of Hamlet and inferior to the witty and existential Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. It seemed that Stoppard's play had become the model by which to measure the value of the Polish text. Therefore, in the context of the devices used by Stoppard, After Hamlet was less witty, and its plot was accused of being thick with intrigues and actions which were undeniably confusing. It became clear to the director that After Hamlet, bereft of the Polish political context as well as of the tradition of the myth of Fortinbras,was but another attempt to reinterpretthe meaning of Hamlet. According to many, Zurek failed, since his emphasis was placed on the ambiguity of the language, the medium of spelling out important statements, rather than on a straightforward presentation of his idea in the form of brisk action and well-composed, smoothly running lines. As translator, I had difficulties in transferring the meaning of words which in Poland would immediately call forth applause due to their contextual ambiguity and the external situation. The lack of the similar interpretant meant that the same words sounded flat and could not possibly evoke their proper meaning among the British audiences. Stoppard's experiment in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead overshadowed After Hamlet to such an extent that it was impossible for the director to present Zurek's play in the universal context of the Zeittheater. Furthermore, Gordon was afraid that the British audience, well acquainted with different travesties of Hamlet, would not be able to perceive the new important questions raised in the Polish play and would immediately draw parallels with Stoppard's or Marowitz's versions which had been immensely popular in the past. Therefore, each play of this kind would be seen as still another idea, plot, and character;but nothing else. Bearingall these thoughts in mind, the director attempted to find a medium through which he might channel the issues that make the Polish play important in the literary tradition and its ideas valid in a universal context. In order to involve the audience in the play and help them to perceive the underlying meaning, Gordon decided to introduce the Polish context of the play. At the same time, he was also aiming at achieving a gradual transition from the Polish interpreting horizon to the broader universal meaning of the text. Indeed, the convention which was used was a mixture of the

204

TJ,May 1986

Englishand Polish traditions of Hamlet and the Fortinbrasplays. Its purpose was twofold: on a surface level, it was to establish the link between Hamlet and Fortinbras, to render the significance of the myth of the Prince of Norway in Poland; on a deeper level, its aim was to neutralize the concepts of time and space. Thus, fifteen minutes before the performance the actors from the troupe dispatched to Denmark in the first scene appeared on stage and started saying the soliloquies from Hamlet. The stage was a simple rostrum, used for multiple purposes during the performance, with a curtain. Both the rostrum and the curtain were intended to emphasize the theatrical qualities of the play. "Lifeimitates Art," as Oscar Wilde once said, was the motto of the whole production. The gradual dimming of the house lights symbolized the diminishing of the boundary between external reality and illusion. Slides of recent events in Poland and Polish music were used in the intervals between the scenes to create the reference to the situation in Poland. The actors complemented the visual effects with lines in the play concerning the issues of freedom, power, and governmental system. The actors became the common people who protested against their entanglement in political plotting and the struggle for power. As the action proper began, it presented a nation seething with uprising, plots and sub-plots, and the babel of war. The story of Fortinbras slowly unfolded to reveal his futile fight against Lizon. While he was alone on stage, an echo chamber provided an elevated timbre to his voice as he announced his reforms and his power as a leader. However, when Lizon appeared on stage, the Prince of Norway faded in the shadow thrown by the governor-general. In the Epilogue, the bodies of Hamlet, Gertrude, Claudius, and Laerteslaid scattered around the rostrum. The whole scene was presented in the convention of the tableau with the echo chamber marking each pronounced word. Fortinbras and Lizon stood next to the empty throne as Fortinbrasgave the eulogy. Lizon turned to him and kept staring at the Prince. The sign of victory was painted on his face. The sound of the cannon. Silence. The theatricality of the final scene and of the opening monologues of the actors created the frame of the English production. One could not escape the feeling that the action presented in the theatre might happen anywhere and anytime. The Polish context became the major image in the performance, which, thick with intrigueand parallelswith the recentPolishhistory, . . plungesone into a of over the impotence the individual senseof despair againstthe system.Hamlethas died a aboutthestageassume new significance but canhissucuselessly thebodiesscattered to Zurekappears doubtit, but theaudifailed? of whenthePrince Denmark cessorsucceed ence can drawtheirown conclusions.24 The two perspectives of After Hamlet in the Polish and English productions introduce us to a very interesting problem of mapping the meaning and expression of both the text and the text-production. Shakespeare'sHamlet had been translated into Polish and then used as a springboard for After Hamlet, which acquired a new semiotic dimension due to setting the Ur-play in the Polish political context. While translating Zurek's play, I became conscious of the fact that the outcome would be devoid of the extra-textelement, i.e., the context of Polish history, and the tradition of
24Eric Braun, "Thick with Intrigue and Parallels," The Stage, 22 July 1982.

205

AFTER HAMLET: TWO PERSPECTIVES

the myth of Fortinbras. However, it still was of great interest to me to see the reaction of the English audience towards a text which was based on Shakespeare, but which had undergone multiple textual and cultural changes. It became evident that such a chain of transformations was bound to clash with the different cultural traditions and historical perceptions in England. If I were to visualize this process, I might suggest that the surface structure of the play (i.e., the text itself) which was viewed as yet another imitation, blocked the perception of its deep structure(Aristotelian concept of "thought")concerned with the political and economic situation as well as the literary tradition in Poland. Since there was no common interpretant, or similar historical context, Robert Gordon's production of the play seemed to be a successful way to render the meaning of After Hamlet universal. It is true that Zurek's play and his heroes are full of political connotations specifically referring to the situation in Poland. However, it is also true that it contains universal truths concerning any system of power. For the director of the English version that was the common interpretant which he attempted to foreground in his production. In Poland, paralinguistic systems and signs used to generate the global meaning (that of a political morality play) were of a comparatively simple nature. In England, the iconography of the production had to be more complex. First, it had to use the signs that would localize the space, establishing a specific place of referencein order to let the audience perceive the deep structure of the play. Therefore, the rostrum, curtains, slides, music, echo chamber, and tableaux were used to anaesthetize the comparison with Stoppard and Marowitz. These elements also introduced Polish history and the myth of Fortinbraswhile plunging one into treating Zurek's After Hamlet as Zeittheater. Thus the meaning of the text itself transcended the boundaries separating the two theatrical traditions. This was achieved through supporting the meaning with paralinguistic systems and signs which enhanced the introduced interpretant. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to assert that these two perspectives, originating in the problem of mapping the meaning of the text and its expression on stage, merged into one, despite the different historical contexts and Shakespearean traditions in England and in Poland.