MovieChat Forums > Slings and Arrows (2003) Discussion > Weak link in climax of Season One

Weak link in climax of Season One

posted 17 years ago by ciocio-2
16 replies | jump to latest

Does anyone else find a weakness in the climactic sequence of Season One, as HAMLET is being performed? I find I have to really use my suspension of disbelief and just pretend that Jack Crew is giving a good (or even decent) performance as Hamlet, as we are clearly supposed to see it. I'm not saying Luke Kirby is not a good actor (I rather like him in the rest of his S&A scenes); I just don't think his character is doing a good Hamlet. It would have been extra nice to have that part of the storyline really pay off, rather than pretending that it has. Still, the entire show is so good that even this central problem does not spoil it for me. I will say that the scene when Jack and Kate finally go to bed together is pretty damn hot. I LOVE SLINGS & ARROWS!

[–] vickimtubridy 17 years ago

Didn't really notice that but i will watch out for it i must say i love Slings and Arrows as well

[–] devilly49 17 years ago

Actually, I remember thinking that Luke Kirby's performance of "Hamlet" was a little wooden. In his defence, though, I doubt I would've noticed if it wasn't for the fact that he contrasted so strongly with the other actors, who were incredible - Paul Gross's Ophelia speech, for example, was amazing. I thought he was very good in his non-Shakespeare parts, though.

[–] batboy126 17 years ago

I doubt I would've noticed if it wasn't for the fact that he contrasted so strongly with the other actors, who were incredible - Paul Gross's Ophelia speech, for example, was amazing.

I suppose that's the problem. But then, things like Paul's Ophelia speech (which I agree, was fantastic) aren't actually supposed to be acting, they're supposed to be real. If you see what I mean.
But it's true, we have to accept that Jack's acting is incredible, because that's part of the plot, in much the same way that we have to accept that a piece of set design is a real wall or door.

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!

[–] rbarry2 17 years ago

I thoroughly agree.

[–] Ant_Lan 17 years ago

I don't think Jack was meant to be earth-shattering as Hamlet. Geoffrey (Paul Gross) mentions in the 5th episode that he needs to find what Jack brings to the part. And what he brings is an urban quality, instead of a truly classical performance. In that sense, yes, Jack is amazing because the play is adapted to his own voice. The actor found the emotionl involvment of the play, and the play found a different quality through him.

Everybody's a critick
http://canuckcritick.blogspot.com/

[–] the sphynx 16 years ago

Just finished watching the first season of "Slings and Arrows" for the first time. I guess I can see your point: Jack's Hamlet is okay, not fabulous. However, given the context of brilliant but questionably sane direction, lead actor picked for movie star notoriety rather than stage experience, inadequate rehearsal, bare-bones set and non-costumes, lack of previews, emotional fireworks, and backstage sabotage, the miracle is not that Jack is brilliant, but that the show comes together as a creditable whole at all! That is the magic they're all admiring. To me, that IS a reasonable climax. Anyone else see it that way?

[–] dentree 16 years ago

My take exactly. Everyone is just thrilled, Jack too, that his Hamlet is at least credible. No one expected brilliance, in fact most expected him to fall on his face, so when he did just fine there was a big sigh of releief.

[–] bradgad 16 years ago

In E.M. Forster's _Howards End_, there's this wonderful scene where the characters are listening to Beethoven's 5th.

In fact, here's a link:

http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/2005/10/forster_on_beethoven.html

It ends with this: "But the goblins were there. They could return. He had said so bravely, and that is why one can trust Beethoven when he says other things."

I think the show asks us to believe Jack's Hamlet is really really good... And I do believe it, when I'm watching it. I believe it in large part because of things like the "Explaining Ophelia" and the "Here's How to Play MacBeth" scenes, but not just because of those. I know that the writers and actors "get it" (probably better than I do)... So, when that piano music, the modulating 1-2-3-4,1-2-3-4 eighth notes, which queue you that "it's working!", comes in during Jack's Hamlet, I'm right there... It requires very little if any willing suspension of disbelief on my part, because the show has earned my belief up to this climactic point.

[–] mbphilly 16 years ago

I think he is giving a decent, professional, thoughtful performance. It is not astounding, but he is giving it his actor's due justice. He is respectful of the character in his performance. He is not Olivier, Burton, Gibson, or even Branagh, but he is far more passible and concerning than Keanu Reeves in Much Ado About Nothing. Keanu seemed to be just going through the motions there, but Jack actually has vulernability and control with his performance. It could have been better, but for the first time theatrical performance of one of the most studied characters in drama from an American film star actor whose career had been high-octane action flicks, it was an impressive turn. Geoffrey had little to work with: Darren Nichols' production was a tragic idea that had to be scrapped so close to the play, the rehearsals were mired by Claire's mindless interpretation and Jack's frustration and anxiety, Ellen was fighting him, Richard and Holly were trying to sabotage the production, and he managed to squeak out a good, solid, keen production of Hamlet with simple costume and production and an un-experienced star. When you manage to make daisies out of *beep* it's certainly something impressive and good.

What doesn't kill you, can make you stronger or leave you crippled.
--Brenicus

[–] megatosspot 15 years ago

I think you're meant to see that pretty much every character is nowhere near as impressive as they keep telling each other. They're all self-absorbed to an obscene degree.

[–] singingcynic 14 years ago

I think that the actor playing Jack just couldn't cut it. The first season is near-perfect except for the failure of the final Hamlet to be what the script called for -- which was brilliant. I just choose to forgive it the flaw and suspend my disbelief.

Oh, an if you haven't seen them yet, the next two seasons final performances are in fact, legitimately good. In fact, season 3's Lear is downright transcendent.

[–] Hokay 14 years ago

Despite what everyone else has said, I still agree with the original post.

[–] TcH3rNo 14 years ago

I think Luke Kirby was the weak link throughout the first season of Slings and Arrows. I don't mean to say he was bad, because he was competent but there were moments (the ending as OP mentions among others) where he clearly was the limiting factor among a cast of really good performers.

http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/

[–] tigheman 14 years ago

The Jack character is not suppose to be a great actor which is a hard thing to pull off. He is an American teenage heart-throb who wants to see if he can pull off something serious (coughZachEfroncough).

The advice given to him before opening night was not how to be great but how to get through it. Jack is "Rocky" to Hamlet's "Apollo Creed", and he just wants to make it to the end. I half expected Jack to wear a "I survived Hamlet" T-shirt at the after party.

[–] antonymartin 13 years ago

Exactly. Jack triumphed, not by giving a brilliant performance, but by being merely adequate. Geoffrey was aware of this, which was why he said that the critics would slate the production.

So, Jack's performance is quite clearly not a flaw - Geoffrey isn't meant to be a miracle worker, bringing out a superlative performance from an action movie star in the space of a few weeks - that would have been a big cliche. No, we're supposed to recognise that, under the circumstances, the theatre troupe have overcome the odds - that is a smaller (and much more satisfying) cliche.

[–] jmatrixrenegade 12 years ago

I have never seen a theater version of Hamlet, so perhaps can't be deemed a good judge, but I think he did a decent enough job. I'm with others as well that we have to see it in context of the lack of preparation time and him truly being in the moment / owning the role in his own way. I also agree that Paul Gross' commentary about Ophelia etc. was well sublime.

Again, I never saw it in the theater, though have seen dramatic roles there, and it really didn't throw me or anything. I too enjoyed the show. I saw the first season and will see the next two when they arrive at the library.