HAMLET
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1997 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule: Lavish production made by the
numbers. The film has major actors, is beautifully
filmed, but in spite of a great swashbuckling
sword-fight at the end fails to breathe life into
its play the way MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING did. Its
biggest attraction is that it covers the entire
play. There are serious logic problems implicit in
Branagh's choice of setting. Rating: low +2 (-4 to
+4) This review contains minor spoilers for those
unfamiliar with the play. I suppose there must be
somebody out there.
New York Critics: 3 positive, 0 negative, 4 mixed
Kenneth Branagh has now directed his third Shakespeare film. His HENRY V surprised all by being a vivid and powerful adaptation that transcended the frequent language barrier that some feel seeing Shakespeare's plays. Branagh managed this by putting more modern intonation into the words and by just plain good acting. His MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING proved to be a joyful romp that was even more approachable than HENRY V. It demonstrated that Shakespeare comedies could really be made as enjoyable and even as funny as most modern comedies being produced. For his third Shakespeare adaptation Branagh decided to make his most ambitious film to date, an unabridged HAMLET. Until now his Shakespeare films have been abridged to fit the standard screentime of two hours or less. And while HENRY V had the exciting Battle of Agincourt and MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING was a light and frothy comedy, HAMLET is much more weighty and cerebral. The producers asked would audiences accept sitting through a four-hour film adaptation of a tragedy? Well, they would not have to. Two versions would be released: a limited full-length version for the few who would be willing sit through the whole thing and a faster-moving version edited down to two and a half hours. What happened must have startled the film distributors and undermined the old truism that nobody every went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public. What was discovered was there was almost no market for the peppier abridged version. Had the shorter version been the only film made the public would likely have flocked to it, but just about anybody erudite enough to want to see the short version actually preferred to see the full play performed. After nearly a century of cutting down Shakespeare plays to make versions the public would want to see--Shakespeare films go back as least as far as the 1899 KING JOHN--it turned out that the public really did not want their Shakespeare cut down for them. This discovery may affect many Shakespeare film productions to come. So even before its release HAMLET had broken new ground.
Unfortunately, that new ground is among the precious little innovation this new version of HAMLET gives us. Not that it is not an estimable film, but unfortunately it is not so much ingenious as just highly competent. Branagh has assembled a terrific cast, particularly considering the cameo roles, and created a lavish and beautiful production that is at the same time just a bit dull and safe. This is a surprisingly unsurprising adaptation particularly since it is coming from the innovative Kenneth Branagh. The only major creative touch-- beyond telling the whole story--is to move the setting to the late 19th Century. A year earlier when Ian McKellan moved RICHARD III to Britain in the 1930s, he chose a time which many of us could actually picture and for which we had rich associations. He chose a time when similar events could have almost taken place in Britain and were actually taking place in Germany. But Branagh's change of setting is comparatively pointless. The public has few associations with his chosen setting beyond perhaps the plays of Strindberg and Ibsen in other parts of Scandinavia. Branagh's recreation of this time and place is a time impressive and perhaps a bit exaggerated and overdone. A major setting is a huge mirrored palace ballroom equipped to drop a blizzard of white confetti to celebrate the first, rather prosaic, pronouncements of the new king. This may be spectacle, but it is unnecessary and overdone. The film, set in the harsh Danish winter, is being distributed at the height of a particularly harsh American winter when the viewer may well ask himself, "Isn't there enough ice and cold in the world without having to pay to see it on the screen?" For visual effect Branagh has moved the story to the Danish winter in spite of the play having Ophelia find fresh flowers and unfrozen water late in the story. Also the setting calls for an unstrung Ophelia to be committed to an oppressive asylum, but without comment from any of the characters she seems to be able to escape it not unlike DRACULA's Renfield. Is this what Shakespeare intended? But then, frequently the visuals contradict the play. A character who supposedly has found "a muddy death" is found floating in clear water. A scene in which the ghost is said to turn in a start shows no such action from the ghost.
Branagh's great talent for use of modern inflection to make Shakespeare understandable is somehow missing here from his performance. This is never more clear than in an exchange with that great Shakespearean, Billy Crystal, playing the gravedigger. It is surprising how much easier it is to follow Crystal's end of the conversation. Crystal seems a little out place, but less so than Michael Keaton was in MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, and his diction is plainer and easier to understand than Branagh's by far. At times Branagh races through his speeches as if his goal is to get to the other side. While we are on the subject of famous comedians in smaller roles, Robin Williams who discusses Shakespearean acting in DEAD POETS SOCIETY gets a chance to do some as Osiric. For once he is reasonably restrained and while his fans may be disappointed he really should not be the focus in his scenes and he shows commendable control. Derek Jacobi plays the new king with quiet dignity and few strong emotions though why the queen should prefer him to his brother Old Hamlet (Brian Blessed) is never convincingly clarified. Julie Christie begins with the same quiet dignity, but of course her role improves as the story progresses and as an actress she takes full advantage. Other small roles go to the likes of Charleton Heston, Jack Lemmon, and Gerard Depardieu to no strong effect.
Branagh has a taste for the visually over-dramatic particularly on scenes that feature him. He holds the intermission until the end of Act 4, Scene 4, very late in the play, so that he can bring the break with what comes the closest to the usually-vacillating Hamlet giving something approaching a stirring speech. Trying to recapture some of the fire of Henry V doing the St. Crispin's Day speech, he has Hamlet giving the soliloquy on a field of ice and stone to a camera tracking back and back from him. Hot dang, that's dramatic! Later he self- indulgently has himself carried from the floor of the palace in a Christ-like pose. Once again Patrick Doyle provides the music, though rarely with the effect of the pre-intermission sequence. His music is used to a much lesser degree than in MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, perhaps because of the more thoughtful nature of the themes. Sadly the score is not particularly original or exciting and like Branagh his newer efforts are strongly reminiscent of his earlier work.
By its very completeness, Kenneth Branagh's HAMLET will probably be the definitive version for our generation and beyond. It stands head and shoulders above the 1990 Franco Zefferelli version that starred Mel Gibson. It probably even outshines the Laurence Olivier version. But this was Branagh's opportunity to make what is probably the most celebrated play of the most celebrated playwright. As such it is something of a disappointment and is certainly the least artful and most overdone of the three Branagh- directed Shakespeare films. It is a flawed adaptation, but still probably the best cinematic theatrical release of Shakespeare's HAMLET. I rate it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
mleeper@lucent.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