William Shakespeare famously wrote, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” One suspects that even the Bard, whose imagination produced ghosts, witches, and a man with a donkey’s head, would have struggled to envision a theatrical production inspired by Hamlet in which the principal attractions were sheep, dogs, and people wandering around a field.

Nevertheless, such a production exists. It’s called Doggie Hamlet, and in 2017, it became the subject of a national controversy involving a $30,000 federal arts grant, taxpayer dollars, and the surprisingly difficult question of whether watching sheep wander around a pasture constitutes high culture.

What Is Doggie Hamlet, and Where Is Shakespeare?

Doggie Hamlet is an approximately 70-minute outdoor theatrical performance conceived by choreographer and performance artist Ann Carlson. Depending on the particular production, the cast includes several human performers, herding dogs, a dog handler, a trainer, and a flock of sheep. The performance combines elements of dance, theater, and competitive sheep herding into what its creator describes as a three-dimensional pastoral poem.

If you’re imagining a border collie delivering Hamlet’s famous “To be, or not to be” soliloquy while a flock of sheep portrays the Danish royal court, prepare for disappointment. Despite the title, there are no recognizable scenes from Shakespeare’s tragedy, no dramatic sword fights, and no sheep attempting to convince their offspring to avenge a murdered father.

Instead, Doggie Hamlet draws inspiration from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book, and David Wroblewski’s novel The Story of Edgar Sawtelle. Wroblewski’s novel concerns a boy who cannot speak but communicates with the dogs his family raises, eventually becoming involved in a tragedy with unmistakable Shakespearean influences.

Carlson took those themes of communication, instinct, and the relationship between humans and animals and transformed them into an experimental performance involving humans interacting with herding dogs and sheep. The animals follow their instincts while the human performers respond through choreographed and partly improvised movement.

In other words, the production is inspired by a novel inspired by Hamlet, but it doesn’t actually tell the story of either one. At some point in this creative process, Shakespeare left the building, and the sheep took over.

How Did Doggie Hamlet Become a Government Spending Controversy?

The performance might have remained a relatively obscure curiosity in the world of experimental theater if it hadn’t attracted the attention of people who spend their days examining federal expenditures.

In December 2016, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) announced a $30,000 grant to Dartmouth College’s Hopkins Center for the Arts. The grant supported a broader program of performances, artistic residencies, and related activities, including a presentation of Doggie Hamlet. The $30,000 was not awarded exclusively for this particular production, an important distinction that sometimes disappeared during the ensuing controversy.

The production also received a separate $45,000 National Dance Project production grant from the New England Foundation for the Arts, an organization whose programs have received support from the NEA and other funding sources.

That combination of federal arts funding, experimental dance, and livestock proved irresistible to critics of government spending. After all, explaining to taxpayers that their money helped support a performance involving sheep and dogs, with no actual Shakespearean dialogue, presents certain public-relations challenges.

In November 2017, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma featured Doggie Hamlet in his annual Federal Fumbles report, a collection of federal expenditures and government activities he considered questionable or wasteful. Lankford criticized the use of taxpayer money to support a performance in which humans ran and shouted around sheep and dogs in an outdoor field.

To be fair, sheep have been wandering around fields for thousands of years without government assistance, although few have managed to secure a supporting role in a nationally touring artistic production.

Is Doggie Hamlet Art or Government Waste?

The criticism raises an interesting question: when does an unusual artistic experiment become an example of questionable government spending?

Supporters of experimental art argue that public funding allows artists to explore ideas that commercial theaters and private investors might otherwise reject. Not every worthwhile artistic endeavor comes with a recognizable plot, familiar dialogue, or a leading actor who has appeared in a Marvel movie. Carlson’s work explores relationships between humans, animals, and the natural world through movement rather than conventional storytelling.

Critics, on the other hand, question whether taxpayers should help finance performances whose artistic value may be difficult for the general public to appreciate. One need not dislike art to wonder whether the federal government is the appropriate source of funding for such productions. The fact that something qualifies as art does not necessarily settle the question of who ought to pay for it.

For its part, Doggie Hamlet was not simply an abandoned experiment. It premiered at Dartmouth College in June 2017 and subsequently appeared at other venues, including performances in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Audiences and critics had opportunities to evaluate the production as a completed work rather than merely as an unusual description in a government spending report.

Admittedly, the cultural sophistication of the editorial department of Commonplace Fun Facts does not extend much beyond Doctor Who and comic books. We are therefore reluctant to declare ourselves the final authorities on the artistic significance of livestock performing interpretive dance.

Still, the controversy does illustrate why discussions of government waste can become unexpectedly complicated. Some expenditures look ridiculous when described in a sentence or two, while defenders argue that their broader purpose deserves consideration. Whether that argument succeeds in this particular case is something each taxpayer must decide.

Watch Doggie Hamlet and Judge for Yourself

Ultimately, the best way to evaluate Doggie Hamlet is to watch it. The following video shows an excerpt from a performance in Westminster, Vermont, where the performers and their four-legged colleagues demonstrate what happens when experimental theater meets agricultural activity.

As you watch, consider whether you’re witnessing a groundbreaking exploration of the relationship between humans and nature or simply an unusually elaborate afternoon on the farm. Either way, it’s difficult to imagine Shakespeare predicting that, four centuries after his death, his most famous tragedy would help inspire a debate about federal funding for sheep.

Was Doggie Hamlet an imaginative work of contemporary art or a questionable use of taxpayer-supported funding? The answer may depend on your appreciation for experimental theater, your views on government spending, and just how much cultural enlightenment you believe can be obtained from watching a sheep eat grass.

One thing is certain: when Shakespeare wrote about the many things beyond human understanding, he probably wasn’t thinking about the federal budget. Then again, perhaps that was precisely the sort of thing he had in mind.

---