Talk:Moscow Art Theatre production of Hamlet

Gallery?
Have you considered putting the pictures you have into a gallery at the bottom of the article? Then the page will be less cluttered and you will be able to show all that you need to... Wrad 03:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, maybe. There are more pictures of the screens that I would like to upload, though many of them are photographs of models that aren't in the public domain, so they're out. I'd prefer to integrate with text, though. Do you know of a page that's a good example of a gallery working well? DionysosProteus 14:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Haystacks (Monet) Wrad 14:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work
For just a few days. Keep it up!  JHMM13 (Disc) 19:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did it open?
This is a really interesting article, well-written and referenced, but just one thing is bugging me about it - the lead doesn't seem to state where the play actually opened. The "obvious" answer is Moscow, but the rest of the text makes it clear that the MAT's activities were not restricted to Moscow. I was expecting to see a location specified at "eventually opening in December 1911" but it wasn't followed by the "in ..." that I was anticipating. In fact I don't think at any place in the article is the location of the opening specified. Could that nagging little omission be cleared up from the sources? Similarly, the rest of the run of the play is only very briefly dealt with; the first sentence says "in 1911-12" which suggests that the run continued but the "Chronology" section ends abruptly at the opening. I guess there's probably not much to say about the remainder of the run (was it a commercial success, whether it ever was taken out on tour or not, was there any controversy such as a change in actors?) but at least a mention of how long the the run went on for would seem justified, "1911-12" isn't particularly informative given that it opened so late December that 1911-12 might only signify it was performed for a couple of days, or on the flipside for over a year! Only niggling queries really, great article nonetheless! TheGrappler 00:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

GA hold
This is a very interesting and well-written article. There are just a few items that need sprucing up:


 * Could you add a paragraph or two on the impact of this performance? There must be a reason why it is still remembered. Are elements of it copied a lot, for example? Also, any more information on the reception you could manage to find would be good. I found that the thinnest section of the article.
 * The Moscow Art Theatre's (MAT) production of Hamlet in 1911-12, on which two of the 20th century's most influential theatre practitioners—Constantin Stanislavski and Edward Gordon Craig—collaborated, is particularly important in the history of performances of Shakespeare's play and of 20th-century theatre in general. - The reader is overwhelmed with this first sentence - split it into two sentences.
 * There are two sentences with links that appear as "symbolist" in the "Aesthetic approaches" section - one goes to Russian symbolism and one goes to Symbolism (arts). Somehow the article has to make it clear to readers that these links are going to lead them to different places.
 * The most famous aspect of the production is Craig's use of a single, plain set that varied from scene to scene by means of large, abstract screens that altered the size and shape of the acting area. - Perhaps foregrounding the most important aspect in the sentence itself would be more effectively rhetorically?
 * This forced a curtain close and delay between scenes, which disrupted the sense of fluidity and movement inherent to Craig's conception. - a little hard to follow
 * The different arrangements of the screens for each scene were used to provide a spatial representation of the character's state of mind or to underline a dramaturgical progression across a sequence of scenes visually, as elements were retained or transformed. - Could you provide an example?
 * Chicago or MLA-style in notes and bibliography would make the article look more professional (optional, obviously).

A very well-done article. If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. Let me know when you want me to re-review it. Awadewit | talk  23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ten days have passed, so I'm afraid that I have to fail this article. I hate to do so, because I really feel that it is quite excellent and a few additions would have made it a good fit for GA. I left a message on the nominator's page a few days ago, just in case s/he wasn't watching this page, but I have heard nothing. Awadewit | talk  21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)