Where good actors go to die? Not!!

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you now to a fictionalized sci-fi convention in Seattle, WA, where Frasier Crane (played by Kelsey Grammer) spies one of his childhood heroes, former Shakespearean actor turned sci-fi tv android, Jackson Hedley (played by the incomparable Derek Jacobi). Yes, dear readers, we are watching an episode of Frasier (“The Show Must Go Off” season 8), which may seem like a strange place to start for a Shakespeare/Sci-fi blog. On the contrary, reader, this episode is the perfect place to start a discussion of Shakespeare/Sci-fi crossover actors.

Here is a brief summation of the episode (if you’d rather watch it, as of now, it is available on youtube). Frasier and Roz are attending a sci-fi convention in order to purchase X-Men comics for Frasier’s son, Freddy, a task Frasier finds absolutely demeaning. After asking a Klingon for directions to the comics tables, Frasier spies Jackson, the Shakespearean actor who “opened [Frasier’s] young eyes to the wonders of Shakespeare.” Frasier finds Jackson’s role as an android in a sci-fi tv show “demeaning,” and he bemoans that fact that Jackson was “reduced” to science fiction television and conventions, when he was, or at least Frasier remembers him to be, “the man that defined Hamlet.” Because science fiction acting is a “waste of talent” that “no artist should endure,” Frasier and Niles plan Jackson’s come back. As they produce, Jackson’s one-man Shakespeare extravaganza, they realize what a horrible actor he really is and, by viewing an early recorded performance of Jackson’s show, has always been. The rest of the show revolves around Frasier and Niles’s antics to stop the production from happening, but the show does go on. The brothers Crane are publicly and artistically humiliated. The man that defined Hamlet for them was a crap actor. Shakespeare’s grandeur, then, is based on their overly-nostalgic and overly-glorified childhood memories.

As the Frasier episode illustrates, several common stereotypes or assumptions exist about the value of both Shakespearean and sci-fi acting: 1) Shakespeare is “real” acting; everything else pales in comparison. (AKA Shakespearean snobbery), 2) Sci-fi is where bad actors find employment, 3) Should a good actor be cast in sci-fi roles, his/her talent will diminish, 4) Shakespearean acting and sci-fi acting are two opposing ends of the acting spectrum and ne’er the twain shall meet.

In the episode, Frasier’s detestation of sci-fi acting practically oozes from the screen, until the viewer can almost taste the bitterness of snobbery. As the Crane brother’s illustrate so well, a palpable snobbery seems integral to the interpretations of various levels of acting; Shakespeare being the most snooty. Now this is not to detract from good Shakespearean actors who may or may not share in this prejudice, but the acting hierarchy does exist. For example, within the acting profession there is an assumption that being in a Shakespearean play will boost an actor’s credibility. Because if an actor can (or even just does) play one of Shakespeare’s great roles, then he or she will have more credibility as an actor. Well it worked for Keanu Reeves, didn’t it?

To boost his credibility, Keanu Reeves traveled to Canada to perform in a production of Hamlet, a reality that was fictionalized in the Canadian TV show Slings and Arrows. The reviews of the Reeves’ Hamlet are not overtly negative; one critic said “Keanu is Hamlet.” He defined Hamlet, but, yet, so did Jackson Hedley? Other reviews were summations of the play or descriptions of the scenery and costuming. What I found most odd, were the numerous reviews that almost blatantly refused to comment on Reeves’ performance. If you can’t say something nice....? Well perhaps. Not having seen the Reeves’ Hamlet, I cannot really comment on his performance, but if Reeves’ performance as an overly emo Don John in Kenneth Brannagh’s Much Ado is any indication, then Reeves’ typical mode of acting does not meet the skills and requirements of good Shakespearean acting. He is a flat actor; thus he plays similarly flat roles. It is hard to imagine him playing Hamlet, who is anything but flat.

Shakespearean acting is not “real” acting, and all other modes of acting are not “fake” in comparison. Shakespearean acting, like any other kind of acting, requires a certain skill set. Unfortunately not all actors have this skill set, but that does not mean they are lesser actors. Denzel Washington is a great example of this. In the same version of Much Ado, Washington, playing Don Pedro, struggles with the flow and rhythm of the lines throughout the movie. Now Washington is a great actor whom I have admired for years, but his inability to converse in iambic pentameter gets in the way of his performance. Oh well...that doesn’t mean he’s any less of an actor. I mean...have you seen American Gangster? Amazing!

There is no denying that Shakespeare is commonly viewed as high-brow entertainment for the snobby intellectual and science fiction is viewed as the low-brow popular entertainment of the sad and disillusioned. Shakespeare is high-art, and science fiction low-art. Frasier endorses these perceptions in with his snide attitude toward the other convention attendees.

But before continuing, I’d like to remind us all that during the time Shakespeare was writing his plays, theatre was the popular low-brow entertainment. Shakespeare created his works for the common public, as well his high-class patrons and audience members. What made Shakespeare such a popular playwright during his day was his ability to write in numerous linguistic registers. Shakespeare had at his command a range of dialectic and linguistic modes allowing him to create characters like Poins, the uneducated tavern crawler; Hotspur, the hot-headed aristocrat; Glendower, the overly self-confident Welshman; The Douglas, the Scotsman, King Henry IV, the aristocratic usurper of the throne; Falstaff, the cowardly and thieving nobleman; and Prince Hal, the man who, like Shakespeare “can drink with any tinker in his own language” (1 HIV 2.3). Because of this, I think the Shakespearean snobbery is detrimental to understanding and interacting with Shakespeare’s texts. I might go so far as to say it goes against Shakespeare’s own perception of the theatre (as can be gleaned from his works, since we have no recorded statement from Shakespeare about how he viewed the theatre).


But I digress...

Despite the apparent gulf between Shakespearean acting and sci-fi acting, numerous actors have, almost effortlessly, have hopped from one side to the other and back. The incomparable Derek Jacobi, himself, is a prime example. He has played The Master/Professor Yana in Doctor Who and has done numerous Shakespearean productions, including playing Claudius in Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet. The Doctor Who-Hamlet crossover has also been attempted by David Tennant, whose quirky yet brooding performance of Hamlet completely overshadows Brannagh’s stiff and emo version. Of course, we cannot forget the Claudius to Tennant’s Hamlet, Patrick Stewart, who was amazing in Hamlet and has performed in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, a race-reversed version of Othello, and soon to be on BBC TV Macbeth. Picard....um...I mean Stewart is a wonderfully talented actor whether on stage or on a starship. Ian Mckellen, Patrick’s fellow mutant in the X-Men movies, is also an avid Shakespearean actor. His portrayal of Lear was fantastic because of his ability to transform his entire demeanor and body posture to portray Lear’s age and weakness. I feel at this point I am just rambling off names....I could go on (heck you guys contribute some of your favs)...but that would take forever.

What unites Shakespeare and science fiction? Why is does it seem that great sci-fi actors are also great Shakespearean actors, especially when the common snobbish perception would lead us to believe otherwise? The answer actually came to me while watching Them! (1954), a wonderful classic sci-fi movie about giant radioactively-mutated ants. Both Shakespeare’s works and science fiction movies/TV shows require an ability to interact, realistically with elements of fantasy. Shakespeare’s The Tempest or King Lear ask us to imagine eerie and powerful storms, Macbeth and Hamlet require ghosts, and on stage especially, the effects can never quite match up to reality. The actor then must convincingly stage his/her reaction to the supernatural events taking place in order to convince the viewer of its realness. This suspension of disbelief is also necessary for interactions with representations of the paranormal. For example in Them!, actors James Whitmore and James Arness have to convince the viewer of the imminent danger these giant prosthetic ants present. In science fiction, as in Shakespeare, the actor’s interaction with the fantastical makes it real. Not all actors can do this. It’s easy to understand and depict realism...fantasy must be convincing to be real.

I am sure there are more possible answers for this Shakespeare/sci-fi phenomenon; however, I think those answers will need to be explored later. For now, I think I will just enjoy the research.