HAMLET
A film review by Kathy Li
Copyright 1991 Kathy Li
Laurie Mann writes, "HAMLET is a superbly-produced version of Shakespeare's play, with strong performances all around. Zeffirelli catches the look and feel of medieval Europe very well."
I don't know if Laurie's saying the two things are linked, but my personal taste runs in the other direction; I would have preferred modern-dress. We've got too many Hamlet's leaping around in doublet and hose as it is.
Actually, I knew from previous experience with Zeffirelli Shakespearean films to expect huge cuts, Renaissance/medieval dress/setting, and a more traditional interpretation (I bet 4:1 odds with myself that Jones' Oedipal interpretation would rear its hoary old head. :-) Within these limitations, he does an excellent job; I just don't like those limitations. Especially when it comes to knee-jerk interpretation.
"Mel Gibson gives a fine performance as Hamlet."
Yes, definitely. I have to admit I underestimated him, and he does a great job with speaking the lines with understanding, clarity, and above all, acting through them. A really good job; I just don't like the way Zeffirelli set most of the soliloquies away from the rest of the action. Helena Bonham-Carter did a great mad scene. Glenn Close was a wonderfully sympathetic Gertrude, and Alan Bates had a lot of fun being a slightly gluttonous and lustful Claudius.
But, not surprisingly Paul Scofield, and Ian Holm struck me as the
most effective actors in the movie. Scofield, with the tiny role of the
Ghost nevertheless makes a lasting impression, and Ian Holm steals the
film in his scenes. The advising of Laertes was wonderfully done
(although we don't get to see Polonius sending Reynaldo to spy on
Laertes in Paris), and I'm fully convinced that the "The very best
players for ..." bit was cut and then stuck back in (where it didn't
belong
For the other Zeffirellia Shakespeare watchers out there, John McEnery has had a bit of a comedown from Mercutio to Osric (and Osric doesn't even get to blow hot and cold while toad-eating Hamlet with the hat.)
"Zeffirelli completely divorces HAMLET from theater, and opens up the play by adding a few short scenes that had only been described in the original. While I tend to be a purist about original material, the additions keep true to the spirit of the play."
Zeffirelli did the same thing in TAMING OF THE SHREW (e.g. the Wedding); he's fearless when it comes to adapting Shakespeare for his needs.
And he tends to make good cuts. I think most of the cuts were probably necessitated by the commercial need to bring in a film under three hours. So, Act I, Scene i goes, because all the action in it is later related by Horatio and then repeated. Of course, the joke of Hamlet saying, "Methinks I see my father" and Horatio yelping "Where, my lord?!" is then lost, but it's worth it for the amount of time gained. Even splitting Act I, Scene ii into three or four smaller bits is good, because it shifts the focus onto the individual characters of Hamlet, Gertrude and Claudius, which the audience needs to know.
And naturally, he goes for the more common cuts: Fortinbras, the dumbshow before the play-within-the-play, and Laertes *and* Hamlet both jumping into Ophelia's grave in a macho display of I-loved-her-more- than-you-did! are all gone.
But by the time Hamlet gets to To Be or Not to Be in a crypt --entirely divorced from where it's supposed to be (i.e., in a hall where he knows he's being overheard by Claudius and Polonius, and where Ophelia is laid as bait to trap him (--which was about three scenes earlier, in which he *doesn't* launch into "Get thee to a nunnery!"), and then about four or five scenes later when the play-within-the-play is just about to start (which by the way, we don't know is of Hamlet's authorship, because the "Speak the speech" bit was cut) and Hamlet says "That's a fair thought to lie between maid's legs" (shocking all those people who thought this was high art :-), and *then* turns to Ophelia and starts railing "Get thee to a nunnery!" which was from the scene before which didn't have the soliloquy ... you start to wonder if maybe there wasn't a little *too* much violence done to the text.
Call me an anal-retentive Shakespeare snob (I am one, anyways), but I *missed* "The rugged Phyrrus.." bit and then the subsequent necessary line cuts from "Oh what a rogue and peasant slave..." I *like* the jokes in HAMLET. I missed it when Zeffirelli cut "What's his weapon?" "Rapier and dagger." "That's *two* of his weapons..." because he wanted the final scene to look like a bash-em-up fight/duel with big blades, and then climax with them swinging two big swords apiece, rather than have anything so finicky as a four-bladed-fencing-match-with-wimpy- foils-and-daggers. (I couldn't help snorting, when Laertes, after *slicing* Hamlet has to tell him the sword is unbated. Yeah, right, like Hamlet hasn't figured that it's not a blunt blade.)
All of Zeffirelli's choices *are* made for a purpose, and this movie is admirably straightforward and powerful in telling the story of HAMLET. But while the movie is undoubtedly HAMLET, it's HAMLET with most of the texture (all puns intended) rubbed off. It's fun, it's worth seeing; but be aware that it's a simplification.
At least now people are primed to see Stoppard's ROSENCRANZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD. :-)
--Kathy Li aka the Rev. Mom (and Shakespeare snob.) -- kathy@fps.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