HAMLET
A film review by Sandra J. Grossmann
Copyright 1991 Sandra J. Grossmann
Cast: Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, Alan Bates, Helena Bonham-Carter,
Ian Holm, Paul Scofield, Nat Parker
Director: Franco Zeffirelli
Screenplay: Christopher De Vore and Franco Zeffirelli, based on Shakespeare
Synopsis: A bold, risky version of Shakespeare's most challenging play.
Worth seeing on the big screen at full price even if you hate
the cast, the director, and Shakespeare in general.
Maybe you did your Master's thesis on Gertrude's libido. Or maybe you never read HAMLET and never want to. Whatever your background, this version of HAMLET will give you something new.
Zeffirelli has taken a complex and ambiguous 4.5 hour play and transformed it into a 2-hour film. Gone are subplots, political intrigue, secondary characters, and much of the rich dialog that makes Hamlet-the-play so fascinating to read. What's left? A captivating tale so visually rich, with such strong characters, you can't help but be carried along.
The sets, the costumes, the lighting, the sound: all are perfect. Faultless. At a price tag of 15.5 million, producer Lovell got one hell of a bargain. The cast worked for pittance; apparently they felt that the play's the thing. And just how well did this cast do? At worst, moderately well. At best, phenomenally well. One thing is clear: the cast got to experiment and play and create new dimensions within their characters.
Each part--except Horatio--seemed to break new interpretive ground. Sometimes it worked to great advantage. For example, Laertes (Nat Parker) is a younger, more impressionable lad than I'd ever imagined him. That fits. Sometimes, though, the new ground seems unwarranted. For example, Polonius (Ian Holm) seems more savvy than his lines would indicate; he only plays the fool instead of being a fool. This interpretation doesn't fit, even though Holm does his usual excellent job in delivering a performance.
A brief commentary on each of the major roles and their new ground:
The ghost of King Hamlet, played by Paul Scofield, is less a frightening aberation than a haggard and sorrowful soul. Scofield's rendition is particularly effective, especially since Zeffirelli refused to use hokey special effects and decided the ghost should appear as a man. (Zeffirelli claims to have seen a ghost three times; he says they're just there. Guess you could say he plays them as he sees them...)
Ophelia (Helena Bonham-Carter) is a stronger, smarter lass than is usually portrayed. Her descent into madness is therefore inexplicable and absolutely does not work. Also, Bonham-Carter's performance is unexpectedly weak in spots. Because Zeffirelli's "screenplay " emphasizes her importance, this weakens the film. The only places the film dragged were her "madness" scenes. (And there were too many of those, as long as I'm complaining.)
King Claudius (Alan Bates) is more a lovesick puppy than a calculating, power-hungry politician. This is certainly new ground! Personally, I found this the most curious of all the portrayals. Perhaps Bates (and Zeffirelli) felt that all the missing subplots took the oomph out of Claudius' political maneuverings, but Claudius the Cuddly never occurred to me as a possibility. In rereading the play, I still don't see it. Does it work in the movie if you've never read the play? Yes! Is that enough? For those who haven't read it, obviously yes. For those who have, probably not.
Hamlet (Mel Gibson) is a displaced son with all the confusion and frustration that implies. Most of Shakespeare's dialog that explored Hamlet's displacement from the throne is missing from this version. Therefore, the only remaining displacement for Hamlet is as the major object of his mother's affection. While other Hamlets have been contemplative and/or indecisive, this Hamlet is a prince of action trapped by circumstance into inaction.
Queen Gertrude (Glenn Close) is so surprisingly sensual that it'll catch you off-guard even if you know it's coming, so as to speak. (No wonder this Hamlet has trouble weaning himself.) Yes, yes, yes, the basis for this interpretation is certainly in the "script", but Close pushes it much further than it's probably ever been taken before. This isn't the regal queen of Elizabethan theatre. This is a queen for a lusty king, the medieval King of Denmark.
Speaking of lust and times medieval, one thing Zeffirelli has most definitely accomplished is making the story of HAMLET a tale of real people--folks with hopes and drives and hates and fears. These aren't stiff, serious, solemn renditions. Neither are they one-dimensional. However, some purists accuse Zeffirelli of creating too simple and easy a version of HAMLET.
Is this a simple, easy version? Are you kidding?
It is a short version, though. And rearranged. Now, it must be mentioned that there are at least four "original" versions of Shakespeare's HAMLET. Scenes are shuffled, lines are changed. All by Shakespeare's own hand. Zeffirelli contends that few audiences of Shakespeare's time would sit through nearly 5 hours of play, and that the shuffled scenes and changed lines of the surviving versions are proof that Shakespeare himself played with the presentation of HAMLET. Well, yes, but I doubt he left out key characters such as Fortinbras, and I doubt he ever left Denmark without an apparent ruler in sight.
For those familiar with the play, the movie may give you vertigo sometimes as it combines disparate scenes and condenses dialog and cuts particular lines out only to reinsert them in completely unexpected places. It ain't pure, but it sure is interesting. I suspect that viewers who haven't read the play recently (or never read it) will find the film quite fluid and sensible.
I saw HAMLET during a Saturday matinee. The audience was mostly quiet and attentive. I say "mostly" because at least three teenage girls--in different parts of the theatre--giggled at the beginning of each of Gibson's soliloquies. Behind me sat a couple in their late 40s or early 50s who consistently commented at the end of each soliloquy, "Wasn't that nice." If it hadn't been for such "bookending" of the soliloquies, they would have been seamless. In other words, they were soliloquies, not Soliloquies. Although I've heard them delivered better, I've never heard them as well-incorporated into the play. When in doubt, Gibson underplays.
There are so many good moments in this rendition. Here's a short list. The interactions between Hamlet and Gertrude, Gertrude and Claudius, and Claudius and Hamlet are more dynamic than I've ever seen them before. The "get thee to a nunnery" scene between Hamlet and Ophelia, although oddly placed in time, is extremely effective. The wistful "Yorick's skull" scene is quiet and lovely. The sporting contest between Hamlet and Laertes is done with more humor, then more temper, then more pathos than any other on film. The moment Gertrude realizes she's been poisoned is more poignant than you'll ever see it again. And Hamlet's shock at his own mortality is profoundly right.
For these moments and more like them, for the thrill of the spectacle, and for the majesty of the language, get thee to a theatre and see HAMLET. The film's the thing.
Sandra J. Grossmann sandyg@sail.labs.tek.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews