Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 2007 - 24

of scenography, and was an example of what Hofman meant
when he spoke of Hilar as a master of lighting, adding that "Hilar was very interested in scenery; perhaps more interested in
scenery than in directing." (Hofman 1936, 285) Still another
evidence of Hilar's acute sensitivity to matters of staging was
his concern with sound and silence, one instance of which was
his having the actors in special footgear: "The actors wore slippers with sound absorbing felt soles; everything took place in
silence, like in a dream." (Hofman 1951, 23)
All in all, Hilar and Hofman's Hamlet was human centered and modest in scale when compared to the Hamlet of
Craig and Stanislavsky with its towering screens reducing the
stature of the characters before them. On the other hand, the
staging of the Prague Hamlet had much more variety and nimbleness in its scenography, costuming, and total mise-en-scene.
Undoubtedly, this more lively and yet more nuanced staging of
the Prague Hamlet owed much of its successful synthesis of elements to the unified efforts of its director and designer and actors, in contrast to the misunderstandings and cross-purposes
that plagued the creators of the Moscow Hamlet. Symptomatic
of the difference, I believe, were the more flexibly functional
and expressive panels of Prague in relation to the intimidating
austerity and scale of the Moscow screens.
Although not a unanimous hit, the 1926 Prague production was hailed by most critics as the work of a creatively
mature director and designer. Miroslav Rutte said that the production "is considered not only one of Hilar's best scenic designs but also one of the most influential achievements of Czech
Theatre." (Hilar 2002, 110) The production was performed

forty-five times in a repertory context, giving its final performance in November 1931.
Forty-seven years after the MCHAT production, and thirty-three years after the Hilar-Hofman verson, another notable
Hamlet had its premiere in Prague's National Theatre, on 27
November 1959. A second World War had taken place, the
Czechoslovak Republic had become the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, and, by 1959, Czech theatre was experiencing a
greater degree of freedom of expression than had been possible during the previous ten years, when dogmatic Socialist Realism had been an official guideline.
The 1959 National Theatre Hamlet was directed by Jirˇ í
Pleskot and designed by Josef Svoboda. They had previously worked on two productions together, the most recent being Death of a Salesman a few months earlier. Their Hamlet,
which was to be performed 174 times between 1959 and 1966,
presented still another form of panels in its staging; in fact,
more than in either of the previous Hamlets, panels became
the only tangible scenic element except for a few chairs. Moreover, these panels and their usage differed strikingly from their
earlier counterparts in several ways, and embodied part of the
"statement" being made by the production. While both Pleskot and Svoboda were undoubtedly aware of the Craig and Hilar productions, it is unclear to what degree they might have
been influenced by that awareness, especially Svoboda. I am
not aware of any earlier use of similar panels by Svoboda, but
I believe that his use of laterally moving curtains in Osborne's
Komik in 1957 had similarities to the later Hamlet panels.
Director Pleskot succinctly communicated his concept of
the production to Radovan Lukavský (Hamlet): "Hamlet should
be a play for everyone-Hamlet without mystery, Hamlet as a
human being, a thinker among the ones who act...a play for
the masses." (Lukavský 1965, 8) The implicit emphasis on an
indirect critique of a socio-political system seems evident, as
does Lukavský's subsequent remark: "the most touching parts
of the play are the ones reminding us of our current situation;
parts which we would love to speak out loud." (Lukavský 1965,
8) Even apart from its political overtones, Pleskot's concept of
Hamlet's character clearly indicates contrasts to the two previous Hamlets of this study: "...acting style based in simplicity: dynamic yet not forced, strong but not overpowering, with
sweeping motion yet balanced; internally complex but simple in
its form, truthful but not boring...modern and sincere!" (Lukavský 1965, 19) Reinforcing the concept of Hamlet and his line
of action was the new translation by Zdeneˇ k Urbánek, which
stressed ease of delivery and intelligibility, even if at the expense
of eloquent poetry: "Text by itself ...simple and unusual at the
same time; easily spoken, immediately understandable." (Lukavský 1965, 8) In essence, the production was to present a
clear, unromantic, purposeful, and morally driven action of discovering and eliminating the evils of a community.
A vigorous, brisk pace became part of the recipe for the
production. Recollectiong the production almost fifty years
later, Pleskot wrote, "I asked Svoboda to create a set capable
THEATRE

SPRING

2007

DESIGN

&

TECHNOLOGY

23
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 2007
