The text and the problematic that the work proposes
The theatre performer comes out from the ruins of history to announce that ‘[he] was Hamlet'. Hamlet, who mimics the contemporary cultivated person for Müller, is no longer concerned with the existential question related to his action or its negation when confronting destiny, like Shakespeare's Hamlet, but his concern is rather turned to an auto-criticism of the cultivated person in confrontation with his history. There is a “huge wall” rising between him and the ‘ideologized' history, between his being and his action, between him and his testimony, between the futility of his testimony and the futility of watching him.
The futility produced by the succession of conflicting ideologies on the thoughts of the cultivated person is the same futility with which the protagonist of the play kills time: “I go home and kill time”, and distributes with “the blunt remainder” of his sword, the meat of his “dead procreator” “among the bums around” him, and we see him hitting time and death with futility; futility confronting futility.
But he is “a privileged person”, “protected by torture”, his nausea is his privilege with which he faces the history that burdens him with ruins. He says that if his drama was to happen it “would happen in the time of the uprising”, but we see him amidst the revolution divided between its two fronts, dispersed within himself as a mere “typewriter”, a “soldier” with “an empty head under the helmet”, a “stifled scream under the tracks. He is his “own prisoner”, just a “data bank”, for there is no place for his drama, “The script has been lost [and] the actors put their faces on the rack in the dressing room”, he goes home and kills time, like the rest of the people: “stuffed corpses in the house [who] don't stir a hand”.
This is the state of the player of Hamlet in the post World War 2 Europe, so how would be his state in our region? And what would be the form of the question that the performer asks the character and the theatre and the reality of his ‘ideologized' presence which is in constant waiting? Our history – despite some exceptions- represents the ruins of revolutions and dreams based on the ruins of powers and ideologies thrown out by the sea to our shores. Here, the performer of Hamlet is burdened with the history of collapses, failures and depressions, after each war he will carry his body and face his dispersed self in the roles which he performs onstage. His position is his revolution; even if it's a damaged revolution or a “petrification of a hope”, it still is an undeniable privilege.
Here we wonder: if it were true that the questions posed by Shakespearian tragedies – and the Greek ones before him- were eligible to be generalized to the global world due to their metaphysical or psychological or other levels, is it possible then to generalize the politicized questions posed by Müller's text enough to mimic our reality? And if the performance ignored the politicized trails of the Müller's text, will it also avoid shouting to its public the traces of these trails in our surroundings and our present?
What the performance tries to do is to tackle these trails which are very much related to Müller's time and era. In Müller's attempt to write a tragedy contemporary to his time, the history is shown as dismembered and fractured into pieces with mere illusions linking them, while the present is only a piling up of the disasters of these pieces. In front of the fatalistic absurdity of this present, the text is incapable of leading a dramatic chronology, like his –contemporary- protagonist who is incapable of taking an intellectual stand in the face of this absurd supremacy of the present.
The work, considered as an attempt to touch upon the traits of the contemporary theatrical tragedy, does not imitate the human being's existential crisis from the angle of the classical metaphysical fatality, but the human being's crisis in a present charged with disasters inherited from a politicized disfigured past, it is the tragedy of history, or the tragedy of history's present. The position of the performer with regards that tragedy whose characters he/she plays onstage, becomes a stand from these characters, from theatre and its audience...

The theatrical treatment of the text
Postmodern texts are often treated from a point of view which relies on the use of visual arts, the creation of images and the employment of multimedia as theatrical means; this is done since the question around which the theatrical action turns emanates from an impression rooted in the classical understanding of the act of narration. In our theatrical treatment of the text we attempt to experiment the non-linearity of narrative through the action. This comes form our belief that the absence of linearity in narrative does not eliminate the actual story.