Theatre panel scrutinises Sarnet’s Hamlet at Estonia’s Drama Theatre

ERR reports that Estonia’s annual discussion among theatre researchers and critics focused this year on Rainer Sarnet’s production of Hamlet at Estonia’s Drama Theatre. The discussion took place on April 25, 2026, at the Estonian Theatre Union, and a summary was published in Teater. Muusika. Kino.

Theatre scholar Luule Epner compared Sarnet’s production with Lembit Peterson’s 2003 Hamlet at Theatrum. Both directors have a Christian worldview and focus on metaphysical categories rather than reflecting political tensions. Although the productions differ aesthetically, both use a largely black, grey and white colour scheme, and the same actor plays the Ghost of Hamlet’s Father and the Player in each production.

Epner said the directors’ stated aims also overlap, as both have spoken about mercy and love.

Madli Pesti connected Sarnet’s production with the present day, highlighting the themes of redemption and time. She saw the revolving stage as resembling a clock face, with a wedge-shaped element suggesting a clock hand or a sundial. The production brought together contemporary time and eternity, including a reference to Donald Trump. Pesti also viewed Hamlet as a story about generations, pointing to the line, “I have no future,” which she said sounded like a contemporary concern about young people losing faith in the future because the older generation is corrupt.

Anneli Saro described the production as being assembled from many separate pieces, comparing them to Lego blocks of different colours and sizes that nevertheless fit together. She said the production was filled with large images and symbols whose relationship to the whole was not always clear.

Enn Siimer said he was initially captivated by the production’s imagery, Japanese aesthetic, choreography and ambiguous visual language. However, he felt that Hamlet’s suffering remained in the background. Siimer agreed that the production consisted of separate “Lego blocks”, but argued that the director had become so fascinated with individual “pearls” that he had forgotten the whole. He cited the gravedigger scene, in which Ivo Uukkivi gives a powerful performance, as an example of a moment that was admired for too long despite no longer serving the production’s overall purpose.

From the perspective of psychological reception, Siimer said the audience did not always follow the shifts between tragedy and comedy, which could otherwise have made the experience more lively. He added that the production did contain considerable stage comedy.