Mentula Reviews

Hamlet (1990)

A Hamlet without the prince

[1/10 · 5 February 1999]

It is one of the joys of Shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances - no single performance can be ‘right', but some can be wrong, and this one is. There are at least two things about Hamlet which cannot be dispensed with: 1. His indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. For God's sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. If you had Othello there instead of Hamlet, Claudius would be dead by the end of Act One. Any production has to try to explain why Hamlet delays, why he is incapable of action. 2. His sexual disgust. His total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with Ophelia is impossible. At the slightest hint of sex, Hamlet throws up. So, what does Mel Gibson give us? Lusty action-man. You could not get further from the character of Hamlet if you tried. There are lots of ways Hamlet can be played, but this isn't one of them! What I don't understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts - Claudius, Polonius and so on, why couldn't they find one to play Hamlet as well. Mark Rylance in the part would have made this a great film. This ‘Mel Gibson', whoever he is, completely let down the rest of the cast. And lets face it, Hamlet without the prince really doesn't work.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

A dangerous film

[28 January 1999]

One thing about this film disturbs me. I heard a schoolgirl say, ‘It was wonderful. I have been studying Romeo and Juliet in class, and now it is so good to know what Shakespeare was really like.' Okay, so most people know this is sheer fiction, that it no more tells us what Shakespeare was ‘really like', than Shakespeare's tragedy tells us what King Richard the Third was ‘really like'. But there will be some people who go through life thinking that Shakespeare was ‘really like' this. Film is such a powerful medium that often such an impression is difficult to brush off. I have met intelligent people who think Thomas More was ‘really like' Robert Bolt's unhistorical and anachronistic version in that fine film A Man for all Seasons. The Shakespeare of this screenplay is a long way from the ambivalent man we glimpse in the Sonnets as Katherine Duncan-Jones's wonderful introduction to the new Arden Edition of the Sonnets (London, 1997) shows. And here comes the really dangerous bit. Once you think you know what Shakespeare was ‘really like', it is a short step to thinking you know what he ‘really meant'. And that suggests there is a ‘right' way and a ‘wrong' way to do the plays; it allows the possibility of definitive performances. The glory of Shakespeare is that we know virtually nothing about him except what the plays tell us. And the plays tell us what we are able to hear. By interpreting Shakespeare's plays, we learn about ourselves. All interpretations are valid. But that wonderful fact is in danger if people start to think they know what Shakespeare is ‘really like'.

So enjoy the film, have a good laugh, but please don't think there is any connection at all between the fictional character in this film and the man from Stratford-upon-Avon who wrote the plays. He is as much of a mystery as ever - and thank God for it.

Twelfth Night (1996)

More romance than comedy

[24 January 1999]

This was an intelligent, but oddly unbalanced production. The strength of the major romantic characters - Orsino, Viola, Olivia and an outstanding Sebastian - was undermined by the weakness of the comic roles. Toby and Andrew were neither funny nor darkly sad. And that left a potentially fine Malvolio rather stranded, and allowed Feste to steal the show. The film is well worth seeing - but how one longs for Ralph Richardson!