In Shakespeare's time, Hamlet would have been produced under different circumstances and met by a different audience. Even so, there are more similarities than one might expect.

The 16th century audience was made up of a variety of people: apprentices, noblemen, gentlemen, authors, ladies, women of the streets, and others, who enthusiastically took their seats (or places, standing) in the Globe when a raised flag and trumpet call sounded the beginning of a play. The audience would sometimes get restless or rowdy, causing the actors to "project the voice lustily", act with "forthright attack", or assume a style "garnished by picturesque poses" (Brown 146). The "groundlings" standing in front, who were less educated but avid play goers, were known to hurl insults at the players, or even - as in 19th century Paris - fruit.

Music was a highlight, employing a large range of instruments, including the "hautboy", the "rebeck", and the "cithern" - something like a reed instrument, a string instrument, and a guitar (Brown 153). The plays, even the serious ones, often ended with a "jig", a musical sketch with a farcical plot, music and dancing - perhaps a concession to the audience, and perhaps to Shakespeare's chagrin (Brown 146). Shakespeare seemed to discriminate between good and bad audience members; he also seemed to criticize acting of the time in general, counseling actors not "to o'er step the modesty of nature, not to split the ears of the groundlings, not to saw the air with their hands, not to strut and bellow, not if they were playing comedy scenes, to introduce gags and seek the easy laughs of the shallow listeners and the barren spectators" (Brown 143).

It is uncertain if Shakespeare conducted the rehearsals himself, but it has been surmised that preparation time was inadequate, with few rehearsals spaced far apart. It is also uncertain how the rehearsals were carried out, but there is evidence of the use of the terms "rehearsal", "prompter", "wardrobe", and "the book" (the text of the play), as well as mention of a "guider"- perhaps the equivalent of a producer or director (Brown 157).

Kemble's company in 1827 was probably better prepared. Part of the preparation included abridging and censoring the text, whereas Shakespeare's company most likely performed the plays uncut. Much of the sexual references between Hamlet and Ophelia were cut out, along with parts that were deemed "useless gossip" or "philosophical tirades that might have rendered the performance either boring or dangerous" (Bloom 43).

Also, Kemble's actors, especially Smithson, enjoyed glamour and fame that wasn't shared with the Elizabethan actors. In contrast, the Tudor boy actors were considered "insignificant youngsters" for the most part, and even though the first Romeo and Juliet was a success and was much talked about, we don't hear anything about the boy who played Juliet and don't know who played the part (Brown 165). In contrast, after Hamlet in Paris, the "coiffure á la Miss Smithson" became a fashionable hairstyle--black veil, wisps of straw and all (Raby 75).