sandyg@sail.labs.tek.com (Sandra J. Grossmann) (01/22/91)
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.comsvihla@evax0.eng.fsu.edu (01/22/91)
HAMLET
A film review by svihla@evax0.eng.fsu.edu
Copyright 1991 svihla@evax0.eng.fsu.edu
I saw HAMLET this weekend and was favorably impressed. It looks
wonderful -- the costumes, sets, and scenery elicited oohs and ahs from
the audience. The performances are adequate -- Mel Gibson is much better
than I would have expected and Glenn Close is quite good as well. My
caveats have to do with a certain lack of subtlety and the irritation I
felt at the director's cutting, rearrangement, and truncation of
certain scenes. Hamlet's "Get thee to a nunnery" scene with Ophelia is
set *before* his "To be or not to be" soliloquy, except that the actual
"Get thee to a nunnery" dialogue is grafted onto the "Murder of Gonzago"
sequence. I liked the original sequence better. Hamlet's speech to the
players is cut inexplicably as is the actual leaping into graves which
punches up Ophelia's funeral. Gibson is adequate when he is charging
around ranting and having swordfights, but he is less believable in more
restrained moments. The "to be or not to be" soliloquy is
atmospherically set, but Gibson's delivery struck me as that of someone
who is delivering a pretty speech, and not considering matters of life
and death. The director chose to develop a couple of scenes directly
rather than by exposition through a character, and let me say that the
scene where a disheveled Hamlet has a wordless encounter with a
bewildered Ophelia does not play well. It elicited hoots of derisive
laughter in the theater, which was probably not the desired effect.
Maybe Shakespeare left it out for a reason -- maybe it didn't play well
in the Sixteenth Century either. I couldn't detect any real chemistry
between Gibson and Helen Bonham-Carter who plays Ophelia.
Ms. Bonham-Carter may have one of the prettiest faces on the planet, but I
was not overly impressed with her portrayal of Ophelia. The friendship
between Hamlet and Horatio is also given rather short shrift.
In summary, a credible effort, beautifully photographed and
exceedingly atmospheric. Well worth seeing, but neither deep or subtle
enough to qualify as a definitive version. I hope some people who see
it will be tempted to rent Olivier's version or make an effort to see
the entire play somewhere. ***lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) (01/22/91)
HAMLET
A film review by Laurie Mann
Copyright 1991 Laurie Mann
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.
Zeffirelli's HAMLET opens at the funeral of King Hamlet, and cuts
quickly to a feast, about two months later, when Queen Gertrude has
married her dead husband's brother, King Claudius. The old king Hamlet
has been almost forgotten, except by his grieving son, Hamlet. Nothing
can rouse Hamlet from his stupor, and seeing the ghost of his father
unhinges him.
Hamlet seems unhinged by more than his father's ghost. The spectre
of sex also unhinges him. He's torn by his feelings for Ophelia, his
feelings for his mother, and his convictions that his mother has
dishonored his father. His madness is more than just a mask---he's
loosing it early in the film, and spends the rest of the movie loosing
it.
Mel Gibson gives a fine performance as Hamlet. I particularly
liked Helena Bonham-Carter, who gives a really strong performance as
Ophelia. Ophelia comes off as a very weak woman in most productions of
HAMLET, but in this version you can hear the passion in her voice. Glen
Close and Alan Bates portray Queen Gertrude and King Claudius as
love-sick adolescents, but it works very well. And Ian Holm is
sufficiently dottering as the advice-giving Polonius.
In HENRY V, Kenneth Branagh kept the frame of a theatrical
production around the film, by starting the movie on a sound stage and
keeping the Chorus (Derek Jacobi) in the film. 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.
My only reservation about the movie is that Gibson's performance is
a little erratic. His early scenes of madness are a tad too wild-eyed.
He is brilliant late in the movie, particularly in the climatic scene
with Gertrude. However, Hamlet is a tough role to simply "act" in; it
requires a theatrical performance.
It's rated PG-13. I'm not sure why--the killings aren't
particularly brutal, there isn't much in the way of bad language, and
the sex is only implied. (Actually, the "country matters" speech was
said somewhat more laciviously than I'd seen before, and Hamlet attacks
Gertrude in an almost rape-like manner.) Our ten-year-old begged to go,
so we took her. Unfortunately, she was rather bored by it. (I forgot
to note earlier that she enjoyed AWAKENINGS, but is now worried about
getting encephalitis!) If your pre-teen wants to go, you might suggest
they watch Zeffirelli's ROMEO AND JULIET on tape first, to see if they can
follow it.
HAMLET is definitely worth seeing on a big screen. There are some
lovely sweeping shots that will get lost on TV. It's also worth paying
full price for. I'd give it an 8.
Laurie Mann ** lmann@jjmhome.UUCP ** Laurie_Mann@m80.stratus.com
NeXT mail: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.comleeper@mtgzy.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (01/30/91)
HAMLET
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Unexceptional is really the word for
the new HAMLET from Franco Zeffirelli. Gibson is okay as
Hamlet but is nothing startling. Glenn Close is the only
actor experimenting with her role. The scenery is nice but
this much-trimmed re-telling is nothing Shakespeare would
feel bad for missing. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4).
Generally in reviewing a film, first consideration is given to how good
the story is. It is a little tougher to review a Shakespeare film because,
whatever the good qualities of the story itself or even the dialogue, it is
pointless to praise the gentleman who contributed them. HAMLET is a film
that gets no points, positive or negative, for story. The question is not
whether HAMLET is a good story, but rather whether this is a good HAMLET.
First of all, this is not so much HAMLET as HAMLETTE. Every line
that's there is Shakespeare's, but not every line that is Shakespeare's is
there. Franco Zeffirelli tells the story slowly, taking time to bathe the
viewer in the impressive scenery, then cutting much of the play--half, I am
told--to make it fit into two and a quarter hours. As one expects from a
Zeffirelli film, it is lushly filmed, though perhaps not so much as some of
his other films, particularly the ones set in Italy. This film has less of
the soft focus of, say, ROMEO AND JULIET. The scenery is mostly in stoney
castles shot with a much harder focus. Some of the exteriors look much like
the real Elsinore, but the Scottish castles used for the interiors has far
too much Celtic-looking decoration. Ennio Morricone's score is not only much
less intrusive than usual, it seems nearly non-existent. Surprisingly few
scenes have any score at all.
The important question is whether a popular actor like Mel Gibson can
play a good Hamlet. In many ways Hamlet is very much a character of the
1990s. He has horrible family problems, he screws up his love life, and he
has absolutely atrocious audience manners. Gibson's Hamlet, however, is
surprisingly uninteresting and not particularly relevant to either Hamlet's
time or our own. Gibson's performance makes no statement about the Dane
that was not on the printed page. By contrast Glenn Close's Gertrude takes
the incest a step further than Shakespeare's did by apparently being
attracted to her own son. Alan Bates plays new King Claudius not very
notably and even the great Paul Scofield seems unable to do much with his
role. Helena Bonham-Carter of A ROOM WITH A VIEW and LADY JANE needs a new
character to play.
This film has too many problems to become the definitive HAMLET the way
Zeffirelli's is the best known version of ROMEO AND JULIET. It is simply an
okay retelling of the classic story. Rent HENRY V instead. I give it a +1
on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzy!leeper
leeper@mtgzy.att.comboyajian@ruby.dec.com (Cisco's Buddy) (02/05/91)
HAMLET
A film review by Jerry Boyajian
Copyright 1991 Jerry Boyajian
Zeffirelli's ROMEO AND JULIET was what sparked my interest in
Shakespeare over 20 years ago, so I was looking forward to this very
much. I thought this film version was more than good but less than
great.
(For the record, it might be worth noting that I've never seen a
production of HAMLET -- even the Olivier film version! -- though I have
read the play a couple of times and studied it as part of a college
course.)
The heart of the production is in the performances, and here the
film gets generally high marks. Gibson was, on the whole, adequate. It
comes as no surprise that his better moments in the film were those
moments of action and passion (I mean strong emotion here, not
romancing), but I found his quiet moments too dry and uninvolving. Most
of his soliloquies came off relatively poorly (the most notable
exception in my mind being the "conscience of the King" soliloquy). The
worst aspect of his performance to my mind was the fact that he almost
always came off as second banana to me whenever he was playing against
someone else. Even the lesser parts, such as Horatio and Laertes, seemed
better to me than Gibson's Hamlet. But as I said, in the scenes that
required more "action" and emoting, he worked better, with his best
scene being the aftermath of the play-within-a- play.
Glenn Close, however, was wonderful as Gertrude, playing her as a
sincere and passionate woman who was, unfortunately, totally without a
clue about anything (which is a nice switch from the usual
interpretation of Gertrude as being co-conspirator with Claudius). I've
never been a particularly big Close fan, but this is the best of her
performances that I've seen.
My favorite of the cast was Ian Holm as Polonius. I'd never
pictured Polonius as the "comic relief" character of the play, but Holm
does a great job of playing it this way. Paul Scofield has, lamentably,
too small a part (as the ghost of the dead king). Helena Bonham-Carter
came alive as Ophelia descends into madness, but unfortunately played
the character as so thoroughly dull as dishwater earlier in the film
that I was almost (note: almost) unable to feel much for the character
later. I think, though, that Zeffirelli purposely had her play it that
way to contrast with the later madness.
Zeffirelli's direction was pretty straightforward for the most
part, so much so that when he occasionally threw in a "trick," it seemed
totally out of place. The more obvious examples were the circular
tracking shot around Hamlet and Ophelia during their meeting in the hall
when he "dumps" her, and the exterior shots of her leading up to her
drowning made me feel like I was watching a Swedish "art film" (I was
almost expecting the camera to pull back and reveal Death standing there
in black cloak, right out of THE SEVENTH SEAL). Still, he did a good
job of "opening up" the play from the confines of stage sets.
I'm not a purist, so a lot of the cuts didn't bother me overmuch,
other than my occasionally reacting, "Waitaminute ... isn't there
supposed to be a scene with so-and-so here?" And I was a bit thrown
when the entire first scene of the play was missing (as contrasted to
ROMEO AND JULIET, which starts out exactly as the play). The only part
that really threw me was hearing Hamlet's "Get thee to a nunnery" speech
during the play-within-a-play scene. I'd *thought* that it came in the
scene where he "dumps" Ophelia, and flipping through the play after I
got home, I saw that I was correct. But the cut-and-paste aspects of
the screenplay will most likely affect only the purist.
Overall, HAMLET is worth seeing, but don't expect to be overawed.
--- jerryRJKIM%AMHERST.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu (02/05/91)
HAMLET
A film review by X
Copyright 1991 X
Seeing this HAMLET I thought of a scene from AMADEUS: "Wolfy" sits
slumped in the balcony. It is towards the end of the flic and Wolfy is
already far down the degenerate's path. He smile and watches as his
dark and somber Don Giovanni is enacted by the "regular folk." He
smiles. He laughs as the midgets scramble across the stage singing
bawdily. The audience applauds and laughs at the, seemingly, proper
moments. The moments are duly exaggerated by the populist engineers.
His wife protests but is calmed when she is reassured that such "art" as
this will surely bring in a ton of dough.
This HAMLET has been made for the median. I understand the
Shakespeare should be made accessible to everyone. But we can't just
dish it out or cut and paste it down the throat of a commercial society.
I strongly believe there are two parts to literature and two parts to
any expressive art--the creator and partaker. Art should challenge us.
It should make us think hard and arrive at whatever artistic realization
we surprised to see. I feel good art should ask of us more than it
gives of us.
This HAMLET gives a lot. It demands very little. And what it
gives, however well served, has been seen again and again. This HAMLET
is the haute cuisine of Hollywood commercial pastry.
Well, at least this HAMLET wasn't as bad as my typing.frankm@microsoft.UUCP (Frank MALONEY) (04/03/91)
HAMLET
A film review by Frank Maloney
Copyright 1991 Frank Maloney
Two Shakespeare plays translated to film in one year is my idea of
a good year. I liked HENRY V despite the staginess and some of other
cavils. Likewise, I liked HAMLET (with reservations).
Now I know the movie (and opera) world divides pretty neatly into
those who like Franco Zeffirelli's work and those who abominate him and
it. Likewise, the world of Shakespeare divides into purists who
sanctify the full and complete received texts and those who don't mind
having a bit a fun here and there and aren't above playing fast and
loose with the Master.
I happen to be a bit-of-fun Zeffirellist, so don't say I didn't
warn you.
Zeffirelli's HAMLET is no more Shakespeare's HAMLET than his ROMEO
AND JULIET or his TRAVIATA was anybody's but his own. What I like about
his work is that he understands the difference between a play and a
movie. His HAMLET is absolutely, positively a movie and not a filmed
play. And movies always muck about with the source material, very much
as Shakespeare mucked about with his source material. Even in the
titles, it doesn't say "Shakespeare's Hamlet"; it says, quite honestly,
"Based on the play by William Shakespeare."
Zeffirelli has excised scenes, moved scenes around, relocated
scenes. Almost every fan of Shakespeare's HAMLET will find a favorite
scene missing or altered. There is even added material such as the
executions of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and the death of Ophelia.
These edits seem to me to be fully justified in the name of making a
movie out of a play.
Of course, most of us will agree that Zeffirelli has a vast and
dramatic visual sense, whether or not we can agree that he always uses
that visual sense with the best of taste. He uses locales, sets, and
costumes with exuberance and care. And it makes this movie, like his
others, visual feasts. He also shoots many of his scenes en plein air,
others indoors in something like available light. His camera is busy,
perhaps busier than is strictly necessary or desirable, but that may be
preferable to long static shots of actors declaiming (no names,
please).
Another thing to like about Zeffirelli's HAMLET is the diction of
the actors. They speak their parts more naturally, less hurriedly, and
swallow less of the words than is the general rule with Shakespearean
productions.
Without a doubt, I understand HAMLET better now that I've seen
Zeffirelli's version. I've studied it in school and seen live and
filmed versions, but I missed, not being a great Shakespearean scholar
even in my grad school days, some basic structural details that came
through loud and clear this time for the first time. Par exemple, just
as the play-within-the-play mirrors the major action, so too does
Laertes mirror Hamlet and his situation when he lets Claudius
manipulate him into killing Hamlet but with the telling difference that
Laertes never questions Claudius's honesty or motives and proceeds
without scruples to do his treachery. Probably everyone else in the
civilized world knew all about this; to me it came as a revelation while
watching the final scene in the movie.
And there are some fine actors in this movie. I don't have the
cast list in front of me so rather than bollix the actors' names as is
my wont, let me just say that the Ghost, Polonius, Laertes, and
Guildenstern & Rosencrantz (one of whom was almost certainly a Maloney,
by the way) were all first rate; the Polonius was especially fine, in my
humble opinion, balancing comedy and an underlying seriousness with
great deftness and precision. And the Ghost made the most of his small
role with some fine physical shtick, especially one gesture where he
covers half his face by fanning it with a kind of broken wrist movement
as he tells Hamlet he is forbidden to speak of the afterlife: a gem of
acting.
I was almost as impressed by the acting of the "name" stars, Helena
Bonham-Carter, Glenn Close, and Mel Gibson, in descending order of
impressiveness. Bonham-Carter brought a knowing strength to Ophelia
that I've seldom seen; her mad scene was disturbing and pathetic. Close
looked marvelous and her scene with her son that ends with a hint of
incest was strong and moving; it had me in tears. Gibson, a
Shakespearean dark horse if ever there were one, was surprisingly good
in most of his scenes with other actors; the art of the soliloquy,
however, has eluded him so far. He moves well, brings a brooding energy
to his part, and did not embarrass. There were times, though, when I
feared his eyes would pop right out of his head, which is distracting at
the least. And I have to say that he was too old for the part, at least
as I envision Hamlet the young scholar-prince.
Part of Gibson's trouble with the soliloquies perhaps derives from
Zeffirelli's direction. The movie has tendency to pause and almost
clear its throat before launching into a famous speech; at times the
quotation marks were nearly visible. I think any director has to work
very hard to overcome the Barlett's-Familiar-Quotations aspect of
HAMLET. Too often, I felt Zeffirelli instead of downplaying this
distracting aspect was playing it up, as if he had just realized "Oh,
that's were that comes from."
Overall, despite its shortcomings, I don't think you can regret
going to Zeffirelli's HAMLET.
--
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney