Yeah. The problem is that it's such a big/prestige part that few young actors have the chops and/or status to get the role.

given the time it was written, wasn't 35 middle age back then? I always thought of Hamlet in his early 20s. Kind of like how Ethan Hawke played him.

Hamlet's age is a debate among scholars, if I remember my dramaturgy class. There was the school of thought for late-teens, 20-ish and then there was an argument that he was older, maybe 30. (Remember Mel Gibson's Hamlet when he look older than his mother?) I can't remember the reasons why anymore.

I believe there is a reference somewhere in the text that implies Hamlet is 30. However, he has supposedly just come home from school, and it doesn't make sense to many scholars that Hamlet would be still studying at 30. I don't remember all of the specifics anymore.

It's in the gravedigger scene:

***********

HAMLET

How absolute the knave is! we must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us. By the Lord, Horatio, these three years I have taken a note of it; the age is grown so picked that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier, he gaffs his kibe. How long hast thou been a grave-maker?

First Clown

Of all the days i' the year, I came to't that day that our last king Hamlet overcame Fortinbras.

HAMLET

How long is that since?

First Clown

Cannot you tell that? every fool can tell that: it was the very day that young Hamlet was born; he that is mad, and sent into England.

HAMLET

Ay, marry, why was he sent into England?

First Clown

Why, because he was mad: he shall recover his wits there; or, if he do not, it's no great matter there.

HAMLET

Why?

First Clown

'Twill, a not be seen in him there; there the men are as mad as he.

HAMLET

How came he mad?

First Clown

Very strangely, they say.

HAMLET

How strangely?

First Clown

Faith, e'en with losing his wits.

HAMLET

Upon what ground?

First Clown

Why, here in Denmark: I have been sexton here, man and boy, thirty years.

***********

I don't have a problem with Hamlet being 30 and scholarly - I mean, it's not like the heir to the throne is SUPPOSED to go to University at the age of 18 and study a 3 or 4 year degree, or something. The guy's a scholar, a Renaissance Man. He's a good swordsman but he's not of a military bent, and he doesn't want to sit around twiddling his thumbs - he's been enjoying getting immersed in academe. (Beats bitching about the nation's architecture and shagging Camilla Parker Bowles while you wait for your parent to shuffle off this mortal coil.)

I don't have a problem with Hamlet being 30 and scholarly - I mean, it's not like the heir to the throne is SUPPOSED to go to University at the age of 18 and study a 3 or 4 year degree, or something. The guy's a scholar, a Renaissance Man. He's a good swordsman but he's not of a military bent, and he doesn't want to sit around twiddling his thumbs - he's been enjoying getting immersed in academe. (Beats bitching about the nation's architecture and shagging Camilla Parker Bowles while you wait for your parent to shuffle off this mortal coil.)

Thanks for finding the quote! I don't have a problem with it either, I was just trying to explain the age controversy as I remembered it.

The problem is that it's such a big/prestige part that few young actors have the chops and/or status to get the role.

Same issue you run into with Romeo and Juliet-- they're supposed to be fourteen? At least, Juliet, I remember for sure is. I can't remember if Romeo is the same age or older. But you have to find some youthful looking actors who have the chops to take on the part.

I read and loved Les Miserables in Jr Hi, but could not get through Don Quixote. It may have been a bad translation, though.

With Les Mis, I learned about the power of hope and with Don Quixote, I learned about the power of dreams. The nice thing about both is that I was able to talk about them with my grandma who was a voracious reader. And of course, her copy of Don Quixote was in the original Spanish, so I think I got more out of it because she could explain things that maybe didn't translate as well.

Yeah, Juliet's supposed to be just shy of her 14th birthday.

NURSE: "Even or odd, of all days of the year/Come Lammas Eve at night shall she be fourteen."

(...er, I may be misquoting that one slightly, because it's, fuck, eighteen years since I played the Nurse, but that's the jist.) I think it's fair to assume that Romeo's only a little older.

iirc, the Franco Zefirelli movie had Juliet played by a girl of 16 or so, and she was awesome. But, yeah, it must be a bastard getting sufficiently young actors with the chops for the roles.

Olivia Hussey made a wonderful Juliet, Fay.

I think the King James Bible is something that people should read at least once in their lives, being the antecedent to a number of phrases and traditions that carry through the English language and American culture.

I have to vote meh. I had a churchy kindergarden. So I knew The Story of Easter, and How Christ Was Born, and Jonah And The Whale. Maybe one or two others? And these were "portrayed by pieces of felt on posterboard" vague. That was the extent of my religious education. I picked things up from context, or I looked them up when I was curious enough. Or I missed them completely and later on went "Oh, wow! I missed that!" And if none of those things happened and I still didn't get the reference (and I'm sure that has happened) it probably wasn't that important. Nice, yes. An added bonus that I missed. But not crucial.

I certainly haven't read the entire Bible in any translation. I suppose I might someday, but I don't feel like I'm missing so much that it's a priority. I guess I think a good education is more about stimulating the desire to learn. The rote "you need to read this, even if it's drudge work, because it'll be referenced later in other things that will also feel like complete drudgery" is what puts people off reading completely. If you already like reading, you'll put up with it. If you don't, that'll guarantee that you associate literature with misery.

I think the same thing happens with math and science. I understand the attitude of "first you must learn the fundamentals, and then you can learn about the cool shit" but when you're dealing with pre-teens and teens, and the cool shit is years away, I'm not sure that's reasonable. You obviously need some basics, but as far as inspiring the desire to learn, I think it's a lot more effective to dive in and then go, "Why'd that happen? Let's dig in and figure it out. Oh dear, we appear to have learned some fundamentals. Damn our luck."

...Wow, apparently I had a rant built up that I didn't know about. Sorry, Corwood, I didn't mean to turn you into a straw man. I think reading portions of the Bible has benefits, but only if you're already interested. So I guess on review this was all about the implications of the word "should" and that's petty nitpicking but I already wrote all of this so: ha!

My Mom always wanted to start a class at my high school that she called cocktail party culture, where you would learn things like basic plots of major operas and such. I imagine there could be a whole week on "Bible stories you should know the gist of."