Hamlet Does Fundraising
Artistic Director Albert Schultz and others September 24, 2005 Dear Mr. Schultz & co., Instants after the last lines written by Shakespeare had been spoken last night, the revived "Hamlet" made an earnest pitch to the audience for MONEY -- money to help the "wonderful people" who do "wonderful work" for a favored charity. The theatrical illusion abruptly shattered, audience members were back in the modern age, with its unceasing clamoring for cash. We came for art. It came with the ad attached. Now even Shakespeare productions feature product placement, with the lead actor swiftly dispelling lingering reflections as he coaxes audiences to get out their wallets. What is the goal? To do your best to fund a cause? Then why not have "Hamlet" pitch hair lotion or Barbie dolls or whatever else maximizes revenue? And why wait til the show's over? Hamlet could pour himself a sponsor's scotch as he ponders the thousand natural shocks. Or, really, why not tweak the lines for a good cause? "To drink brand A ... or brand X. Good question. Lemme say why A's my favorite." Or are you dealing with a Hamlet-like ennui among the actors? Does the mere service of their art leave them unfulfilled? Is a sense of practical usefulness necessary to troupe morale? What about battered women, the environment, third-world poverty, cancer research? Who is pitching for Katrina victims? Ah, but, of course, the theatre community is not disinterested when it solicits charity. The cause you speak for is AIDS. And why, when I'm paying you to perform Hamlet, are you more entitled to pitch me your cause than I am to pitch you mine? Is a form of tipping being introduced to the theatre? Is applause no longer sufficient? Is audience appreciation now to be monetized? There are many worthy causes. There is also art. And its exploitation. And artistic sacrilege too. Know at least, if you don't understand this, that you have inspired feelings, in this audience member, of betrayal and disgust.
Uriel Wittenberg
|