This is only the second film directed by Branagh I have seen, the first being his execrable "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" - a film so laughably bad it is almost good - so I was quite apprehensive about this movie. As it turns out, Branagh does a passable job here, so presumably he learned from some of the mistakes made with the earlier film.
There are nonetheless some ill-conceived moments in this film. Chief among them is the play-within-a-play scene, which in my view is completely misconceived. This is the scene where Hamlet springs upon King Claudius a re-enactment of the latter's purported murder of Hamlet's father, the previous king, in order to look for evidence of a guilty conscience in Claudius' reaction. But plainly for this ruse to work, Hamlet must behave as though he himself were unaware of the king's guilt, or the king will realize he is being accused of the crime and be put on his guard.
Unfortunately though, Branagh plays this scene in a rage, all but calling the king out publicly as a murderer before the entire court. But how could he possibly expect to catch the king off-guard, and thus reveal a guilty conscience, with such an approach? It's basically a complete misreading of the text. More importantly, it defies belief that a prince would behave in such a way toward an autocratic ruler who could have him imprisoned or killed for such insolence.
Indeed, this scene was so bad that I almost quit the movie on the spot. But because I had rented it for a limited time, I decided to persevere, and am glad I did so, because that particular scene turned out to be the low point.
There are, however, a number of other missteps in the film. One that comes immediately to mind is Hamlet's soliloquy following Fortinbras' march on Poland. Branagh backs this with a growing swell of triumphant music, which seems completely inappropriate in the circumstances. Dramatic music, sure, but triumphant? Hamlet is reflecting here on the stupidity of war, what is triumphant about that? Yes, he does use the moment to try and urge himself on to more bloody deeds of his own, but that too is essentially a dark moment, not a triumphant one. Branagh just seems to completely misread the mood of the play at times.
Then there are the gratuitous inventions, like the killing of Osric, which is not in the original play, or the sneak attack by Fortinbras, which is not there either. And the gratuitous flashback scenes - like the ones featuring Yorick, which add nothing but an incongruous note of farce to an otherwise serious moment. There are a number of similar missteps, but over the course of a four-hour film watched over two evenings, I'm afraid I cannot immediately recall others to mind. Technically speaking, the film also appears to have a few flaws, such as voices fading out at times, evidently due to actors moving too far from the microphone.
Having said that, the film also has its strengths. Not least of these is of course, Branagh's decision to present the entire play rather than a truncated version of it. Indeed, it is the only film that is faithful to the full text, and for that alone, it is probably worth seeing by anyone with an appreciation of Shakespeare. And certainly, commercially it was a courageous choice, given the difficulty of marketing a film with a running time in excess of four hours.
Apart from the completeness however, the film also has some particular strengths of its own. Though Branagh gets some things very wrong, as I have indicated above, there are other moments when he manages to bring out nuances in the text that I for one have not previously noted, so for that alone I found it a worthwhile experience.
With regard to the performances, I would rate most of them as mediocre - not bad, but not particularly good either. This includes the performance of Branagh himself as Hamlet, who is good in some scenes and pretty unexceptional in others. He delivers none of the soliloquies in an especially memorable manner, but to his credit, does seem to have a knack of bringing some lines alive in unexpected ways.
Richard Briars as Polonious gives a suprisingly creditable performance early, bringing a degree of dignity and intelligence to the role. Later though, he is presented as a comic figure, as if Branagh could not make up his mind how he wanted to present him. Derek Jacobi as King Claudius is generally adequate, but lacks the emotional depth needed to play the more demanding scenes. His rendition of perhaps his character's most important soliloquy, "Oh my offence is rank", is particularly disappointing, as he whispers the entire thing barely audibly, with a blank expression on his face. Indeed this entire scene is poorly conceived, as Hamlet's accompanying soliloquy, which should be passionate, is also delivered sotto voce, as thoughts rather than spoken words.
Julie Christie as Claudius' wife Gertrude has her moments, particularly in the bedroom scene, but flops in some others, for example, when she informs Laertes of the demise of his sister, which news she delivers with scarcely any discernible affect save a sort of robotic half-smile. Robin Williams and Billy Crystal in my view were both miscast, not because they were Americans, but because they were simply unsuited for their roles. Williams though, probably gives the worst performance of all. He plays Osric not as an effeminate fop, but more like a stand-up comic *playing the role of* an effeminate fop. His smirking, self-conscious performance looks completely out of place in a serious play.
The one real standout for me was Kate Winslet as Ophelia. Momentarily, I was alienated by her performance, as it is so very different from other interpretations of the role I have seen. But she quickly won me over, indeed, brought me to tears more than once. The tragedy of Ophelia, although secondary to Hamlet's, is in some ways the heart of the play, and Winslet's performance, for me at least, provided the high point of the film. It's no surprise that she won several awards for it.
One final thing that perhaps I should mention is that I think that moving the play from its original medieval setting to a 19th-century one works surprisingly well, so I disagree with those who criticized it.
To summarize: for aficionados of Shakespeare the film is probably a must-see, if only for the full presentation of the text. For others, I would probably say it's a matter of buyer beware. Not everybody is going to be able to sit through four hours of dense archaic English, no matter how good the underlying story might be.
There are nonetheless some ill-conceived moments in this film. Chief among them is the play-within-a-play scene, which in my view is completely misconceived. This is the scene where Hamlet springs upon King Claudius a re-enactment of the latter's purported murder of Hamlet's father, the previous king, in order to look for evidence of a guilty conscience in Claudius' reaction. But plainly for this ruse to work, Hamlet must behave as though he himself were unaware of the king's guilt, or the king will realize he is being accused of the crime and be put on his guard.
Unfortunately though, Branagh plays this scene in a rage, all but calling the king out publicly as a murderer before the entire court. But how could he possibly expect to catch the king off-guard, and thus reveal a guilty conscience, with such an approach? It's basically a complete misreading of the text. More importantly, it defies belief that a prince would behave in such a way toward an autocratic ruler who could have him imprisoned or killed for such insolence.
Indeed, this scene was so bad that I almost quit the movie on the spot. But because I had rented it for a limited time, I decided to persevere, and am glad I did so, because that particular scene turned out to be the low point.
There are, however, a number of other missteps in the film. One that comes immediately to mind is Hamlet's soliloquy following Fortinbras' march on Poland. Branagh backs this with a growing swell of triumphant music, which seems completely inappropriate in the circumstances. Dramatic music, sure, but triumphant? Hamlet is reflecting here on the stupidity of war, what is triumphant about that? Yes, he does use the moment to try and urge himself on to more bloody deeds of his own, but that too is essentially a dark moment, not a triumphant one. Branagh just seems to completely misread the mood of the play at times.
Then there are the gratuitous inventions, like the killing of Osric, which is not in the original play, or the sneak attack by Fortinbras, which is not there either. And the gratuitous flashback scenes - like the ones featuring Yorick, which add nothing but an incongruous note of farce to an otherwise serious moment. There are a number of similar missteps, but over the course of a four-hour film watched over two evenings, I'm afraid I cannot immediately recall others to mind. Technically speaking, the film also appears to have a few flaws, such as voices fading out at times, evidently due to actors moving too far from the microphone.
Having said that, the film also has its strengths. Not least of these is of course, Branagh's decision to present the entire play rather than a truncated version of it. Indeed, it is the only film that is faithful to the full text, and for that alone, it is probably worth seeing by anyone with an appreciation of Shakespeare. And certainly, commercially it was a courageous choice, given the difficulty of marketing a film with a running time in excess of four hours.
Apart from the completeness however, the film also has some particular strengths of its own. Though Branagh gets some things very wrong, as I have indicated above, there are other moments when he manages to bring out nuances in the text that I for one have not previously noted, so for that alone I found it a worthwhile experience.
With regard to the performances, I would rate most of them as mediocre - not bad, but not particularly good either. This includes the performance of Branagh himself as Hamlet, who is good in some scenes and pretty unexceptional in others. He delivers none of the soliloquies in an especially memorable manner, but to his credit, does seem to have a knack of bringing some lines alive in unexpected ways.
Richard Briars as Polonious gives a suprisingly creditable performance early, bringing a degree of dignity and intelligence to the role. Later though, he is presented as a comic figure, as if Branagh could not make up his mind how he wanted to present him. Derek Jacobi as King Claudius is generally adequate, but lacks the emotional depth needed to play the more demanding scenes. His rendition of perhaps his character's most important soliloquy, "Oh my offence is rank", is particularly disappointing, as he whispers the entire thing barely audibly, with a blank expression on his face. Indeed this entire scene is poorly conceived, as Hamlet's accompanying soliloquy, which should be passionate, is also delivered sotto voce, as thoughts rather than spoken words.
Julie Christie as Claudius' wife Gertrude has her moments, particularly in the bedroom scene, but flops in some others, for example, when she informs Laertes of the demise of his sister, which news she delivers with scarcely any discernible affect save a sort of robotic half-smile. Robin Williams and Billy Crystal in my view were both miscast, not because they were Americans, but because they were simply unsuited for their roles. Williams though, probably gives the worst performance of all. He plays Osric not as an effeminate fop, but more like a stand-up comic *playing the role of* an effeminate fop. His smirking, self-conscious performance looks completely out of place in a serious play.
The one real standout for me was Kate Winslet as Ophelia. Momentarily, I was alienated by her performance, as it is so very different from other interpretations of the role I have seen. But she quickly won me over, indeed, brought me to tears more than once. The tragedy of Ophelia, although secondary to Hamlet's, is in some ways the heart of the play, and Winslet's performance, for me at least, provided the high point of the film. It's no surprise that she won several awards for it.
One final thing that perhaps I should mention is that I think that moving the play from its original medieval setting to a 19th-century one works surprisingly well, so I disagree with those who criticized it.
To summarize: for aficionados of Shakespeare the film is probably a must-see, if only for the full presentation of the text. For others, I would probably say it's a matter of buyer beware. Not everybody is going to be able to sit through four hours of dense archaic English, no matter how good the underlying story might be.
Tell Your Friends