Hamlet

Any film based on Shakespeare is worth seeing because the scaffolding is so rich that even a failure is interesting. And in the case of Hamlets, we have several to compare. Here we have the celebrated Olivier Hamlet, much celebrated.

I see a few very strong elements with some blots, and I suppose these have both become amplified with the passage of 50 years.

First, the blots:

-- Every actor but Olivier is of lesser caliber. I suspect that some of this is what he had to work with, and some apparent clumsiness results from the then standard rendering of the Bard's works as speechifying.

-- The women, especially Ophelia are dreadful, absolutely dreadful -- Ophelia's only present because she screwed the boss.

-- The score was so heavy, so dated and so hard to ignore it almost made me turn away, regardless of the balancing strengths.

-- Hamlet's text presents problems. The best choice in my opinion is to keep it all as Branagh has. But the standard wisdom is that audiences won't sit through 4 hours, no matter how engaging. Then, the question is what to cut. One often keeps the well-known speeches and cuts into the plot about ideas. So here we lose Fortinbras, Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern, together with some rather lovely related language and notions. Too bad because there is a development in the logic of metaphor in the later, longer version of the play, and this is totally lost here.

-- Olivier insists on including the notion of Oedipus and Gertrude, absolutely not supported by the text, and only inferred if you don't understand that Hamlet's initial distress is because his succession has been interrupted (not that his access to his Mother has been interrupted).

-- Worse, Olivier not only believes Hamlet is a 'man that couldn't make up his mind' but tells us so at the beginning! Does he not get it? Does he not understand the complexities of reason? This is not a play about doubt, but about reasoning.

Now the gems:

-- Even though Olivier gets the character wrong, and has cut some good lines, he has a natural talent for living well in the language. Even though he's coming from the wrong place, and overly postures, his rendering of the lines comes from a rare genius. Worth experiencing, despite the surrounding distractions.

-- The costumes are too lush for my tastes, but they fit the set. And my, what a set it is. Except for the cheesy painted sky, this castle is pretty wonderful: lots of colonnaded corridors, mezzanines, stairs, aligned archways. Olivier may be trying to top archrival Orson Wells, but I think he has done very well in using the building to frame the action in a way that is fully cinematic, transcending the stage. The only effect that jarred was the thrice-done long pullback when Claudius conspires with Laertes.

--The film is in Black and White. Olivier had no choice of course, but it is a happy accident. Allows the photography to be more artistic, better lit, more abstract, just as the mood of the play would have it.

Bottom line: This is worth seeing to discuss, but the Branagh version is more true and has many fewer distracting blots.

For years I've considered the classical soviet screen-version of Hamlet directed by Kozintsev (1964) as the best adaptation of the play. I still think it's a masterpiece, however now it fills the second place in my preferences and the first one belongs to Lord Laurence Olivier. To begin with, I was astonished to find out that scenery, costumes and make-up in Kozintsev's film clearly resemble those from Olivier's version. No doubts, our producer knew and appreciated earlier English movie and deliberately copied the settings. Well, I don't blame him: he used it successfully, but the lack of originality is somehow disappointing. The scenery is really wonderful: cold, gloomy, dark, gothic, haunting and even more impressive for being black-and-white. And then… LORD LAURENCE OLIVIER IS THE BEST SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR EVER. No one else can make the 16th century Bard's text sound modern, natural, alive, expressive, exciting, clear and full of hidden before meaning. Indeed, soviet actors pronounce the text fantastically well, but in Russian: I mean in translation by talented Russian poet Pasternak. And recently I've become interested in reading and watching Shakespeare in original. And here Olivier is an unparalleled performer. He portraits his hero wonderfully. His Hamlet is dignified and noble, reserved and mistrustful, emotional and ruthless (when he knows it is justified), and deeply frustrated (for he is disappointed in everyone except the foreigner Horatio). He is willing to act and yet waits to understand what's happening better. However events take an unexpected course and lead to the final tragedy. At the beginning Hamlet is called `a man who couldn't make up his mind'. Well, I would choose other words: `a man who changed his mind too often', but it wasn't his fault – so were circumstances. And Olivier presents these changes very vividly and truthfully. He makes `To be or not to be' an unusually powerful scene showing Hamlet just a man who sees so much evil all around that he nearly commits suicide. He is stopped only by sudden understanding that death is unremediable and too frightening – natural thought for any sensible man, brave as he is. Such simple variant pleases me better than more sophisticated ones. Somebody may disagree with Olivier's conception of the character but everyone has to admit that while Larry acts he creates complete, convincing, living image of his hero (and very sympathetic, by the way). I also would like to mention Jean Simmons. She seems to be severely misjudged by most reviewers. Simmons is an excellent Ophelia – a simple, naive young girl, merely a child, affectionate, light-hearted, playful, flirting and exceptionally sensitive. An absolutely charming scene is that of Laertes' departure. Polonius makes his solemn speech and Ophelia all the time mischievously distracts attention of her brother. I like all Olivier's films for such amusing trifles. Gertrude is well chosen too, quite believable. Eileen Herlie clear shows that at the end Gertrude understands her husband's wicked game and takes the poison consciously. However, Claudius is not impressive enough, to my mind. To see a perfect thrilling Shakespearean villain you have to watch Kozintsev's film.

Of course the play is noticeably cut. I confess I miss Hamlet's passionate soliloquy `Is not this monstrous that this player here…', and also Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (they are important, for Hamlet faces the treachery of friends in their part). On the other hand more complete versions are rather overlong. I am not sure that Branagh's four hours movie gains anything from using the full text. This film is dynamic and worth seeing not only for the sake of Lord Laurence's outstanding performance, but because it is extraordinary interesting version of the familiar play.

I understand that Laurence Olivier called his adaptation of William Shakespeare's masterpiece more of a study of "Hamlet" than a direct adaptation. Nonetheless, the result was a marvelous film. At heart, the movie is a look at base impulses. In fact, I see a connection to another 1948 movie: "Treasure of the Sierra Madre". The latter focuses on the horrific actions to which greed drives people, much like how "Hamlet" looks at vindictiveness. Neither offers a rosy view of humanity.

The cold, Gothic sets frame the story perfectly. Elsinore's dreary look does as much to emphasize the characters' futile existence as any of the actors do. I should note that I've never seen a stage production of "Hamlet", so I'm not the best person to offer a comparison to a live version. I understand that Olivier cut much of the story to condense the movie so that he could emphasize the psychological aspect. Even so, he turned out a masterpiece, becoming the first person to direct himself to an acting Oscar, and giving us the first Best Picture winner not from the US. As for whether it was the year's best movie, I'd rank it as equal to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", with both offering devastating focuses on the human condition. Definitely see it.

The amount of lines taken from this play and used in our everyday conversation is staggering. Like all of the Bard's works, his endurance is not only the mastery of language, but really in storylines that just never get old. Above, everything else, Hamlet is an interesting tale. Olivier's interpretation however, is very dark. Very deliberate. He shies away from the humor completely, and instead takes a slow, purposeful tack. To that, it might not appeal to some. In such a long play and movie, the humor is sorta needed to jostle you a bit, and break the overall bleakness of the tragedy. You don't catch a break here I'm afraid. Id classify this therefore as for more advanced taste, and not for the average moviegoer. Olivier's other two attempts, Henry V and Richard III, specifically the latter, will garner more mainstream appeal.

Olivier is absolutely mesmerizing as the dane of Denmark. I have seen Gibson's and Branagh's versions, and Olivier is still far and away the most impressive performance. Whenever I think of Hamlet, I always think of Olivier's Hamlet. The picture as a whole is very well done, although in parts it can seem a bit chinsy. Olivier (as director) firmly establishes the mood for the picture, and the ensemble acting is terrific. Watch for a very pompous Polonius!