Hamlet

Portrayals of Hamlet always seem to provoke a personal response that stimulates vocabulary and reflection, without addressing the central dilemma of the tragedy; a reflection perhaps of the powerful influence of the central character who imposes his contemplative posturing on his reviewers as he does on stage and in film.

Widely regarded as the greatest play of the greatest writer in the English language, it is easy to understand why Hollywood stars turn to Hamlet for proof of their status as serious actors. Yet, to be a success in a film or television version requires so much more than the boyish good looks of a Richard Chamberlain (1970), the Max Max certainty of Mel Gibson (1990) or even the studied intensity of Laurence Olivier (1948).

In Nicol Williamson we find a temperamental, anti-establishment, questioning actor who is at his very best in Hamlet (1969). Perhaps he understood more than any other actor of the modern era why Hamlet says what he says, doesn't do what he doesn't do and finally does what he does.

No English play has produced so many commentaries or provoked so much analysis as Hamlet. Like the Mona Lisa's smile, there is an essential attraction in the enigma which defies casual analysis. As a child, it took me a long time to appreciate my father's gentle humour in passing the twin verdicts that "It wasn't written by Shakespeare but by someone else with the same name" and "Hamlet is alright, but it is full of quotes".

Nicol Williamson's genius is evident not only in the set-piece soliloquies that illustrate countless anthologies, but in the minor gestures and less-well-known asides that give such depth and perspective on Hamlet. Just as you might check a new dictionary to see if the definition of "rant" is superior to Dr Johnson's "high sounding language unsupported by dignity of thought" (1755), you might see a performance of Hamlet and note how the actor handles the intonation of "except my life, except my life, except my life". Not even the sweet steam radio voice of John Gielgud (1948) or the majestic splendour of Richard Burton (1964) can match the intoned pathos of Nicol Williamson.

Team GB's recent successes in achieving 7 of the 10 gold medals available for track cycling at the London 2012 Olympics have been ascribed to coach Dave Brailsford's obsession with successive minor improvements in what has become known as a "doctrine of marginal gains". When comparing Nicol Williamson's performance to his predecessors, we find that our Scottish-born actor from Birmingham demonstrates a marked marginal gain in almost every scene.

If Tony Richardson's direction is unduly restrictive in putting Nicol Williamson in sharp close up lying down in bed for most of the "To be or not to be" speech, he surely cannot be faulted further for bringing out fine performances from Gordon Jackson, Anthony Hopkins, Roger Liversy and Marianne Faithful.

The reviews expressed on this website vary from the "Absolutely Horrific" of 20 March 2000 from "Movie Fan from Tennessee" to "highly recommend this movie" of 2 September 2001 from "Denise from Ohio". Every viewer will have a personal response and quite rightly so; but for me, this is the best ever film version of Hamlet. It preserves the mystery, illustrates the history, vivifies the comedy and reveals magnificently the Tragedy of Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark.

The opening moments in any production of Hamlet are critical because the audience, assuming they know the play fairly well, will already be asking the 'How are they going to do...' question. It's the ghost. Hamlet senior. What is he going to look like? In a film, it's an even bigger challenge, because some people watching might expect a special effect. The approach here is a shot of bright light across the young Dane's face and his voice echoing through the frame. The style of the film is already crystallised. It's not about the surroundings or set dressing. It's about the emotion of the piece, the words. In this key moment we are looking in his eyes as he hear's his fathers words, and that's a device used throughout the piece.

On first appearance, Nicol Williamson might seem a bit old for the part. Certainly, I've seen Claudius's who look younger. But that does a disservice to his performance, which commands every scene he appears in. His Hamlet is far from mad; he's using a bluff technique to search for the why's of his father's death and how he's reacting to it. Unusually. in the intimate moments, during the soliloquy's he's at his most vulnerable, as though he's unable to come to terms with these feelings, and only really comes to life when there a peers to relate to.

A very young looking Anthony Hopkins makes a compelling Claudius, who with his gluttony seems like a man who could do wrong. Equally Judy Parfitt passes the test of being attractive enough for a man to kill for even if her skin is worryingly grey. Although not at grey as Ophelia, played by Marianne Faithful who in some shots looks positively black and white, almost as though the trickery of the film 'Pleasantville' had been used. Which is a shame because it detracts from rather a good performance.

The production was filmed at The Roundhouse Theatre which explains that use of extreme close up and the complete lack of establishing shots. The lighting absolutely picks up the actors faces, making what settings there are perfunctory. It mustn't have been a very easy shoot -- most of the speeches and scenes are played out in one shots -- there is very little editing in places, which allows the text the breath. I've seen the play many times and it was a joy on this occasion to hear how much of our language found a basis here.

The main oddity this time are the supporting actors. This is the only Hamlet you'd expect to find Michael Elphick and Angelica Houston standing around in the background, along with Roger Lloyd-Pack popularly known as Trigger in 'Only Fools and Horses'. The latter is particularly distracting because his face is so familiar and he appears, not only as Ronaldo, but also as a player, one of Laertes friends and a miscellaneous bystander in the duel at the end. One man should not have that many different beards. Also worth noting is the approach to the credits at the end, which are spoken, in a style similar to Truffaut's 'Farenheit 451' over a shot of Hamlet.

Yes, I'll concede that Kenneth Branaugh's uncut version of Shakespeare's text (never played on the Elizabethan stage, in all likelihood) is a benchmark for cinematic *Hamlet*s, but Williamson's performance (particularly his voice-over soliloquies) is still highly thought-provoking thirty years later. The film is like a moving Rembrandt painting (*The Night Watch* comes to mind) with its restless, shifting light and dissolves. It took great courage, for example, for Richardson not to show the Ghost, but rather to reveal him as a burning white light whose impact we feel by the responses of Horatio and the guards. Big budget and big screen it's not, but Richardson's direction has meticulously thought out many significant production details. This is definitely a cerebral *Hamlet* that gives the view

This is a passable re-telling of Shakespeare's great tragedy, but here's the rotten thing in Denmark. Not only does Nicol Williamson not fit the concept of a young Prince Hamlet. He actually looks a good many years older than both his mother and his stepfather (Judy Parfitt and a young Anthony Hopkins).

I was switching channels one Saturday evening when my dial stopped--Nicol was on the screen, and there was no mistaking him. I didn't recognize the role at first, until he spoke a few words; then the play came to me like a flash. Hamlet. I stayed, and finished out the play as much as I could (I was suffering insomia and just channel-surfing to fall asleep by) before cursed sleep took over. (Sleep that knits the raveled sleep of care, oh, wait. That's another of his movies!)

In all seriousness, I was intrigued by his portray of the mad-Prince. The mood changes were all down perfectly--you could see the insanity truly right below the eyes. Now, either Nicol's a brillant actor (natch!) or he's a bit touched himself! Every little thing he did onscreen, ever muscle twitch in his facial expressions--you really believed that he was insane, and it was perfect. I had never seen any of the other Hamlet plays, just local-type ones by amateurs, and he blew my socks off.

I HIGHLY recommend this movie. Now, if you get a copy, you'd better tell me where--I've been looking for footage since that night! I even opened the TV-Guide, tore out the little paragraph that was in there about it, and stashed it so I could have all the particulars.

Never found a copy yet (video stores and libraries), but I haven't given up home.

Do check out this movie if you see it's coming on cable again--it's very worth the few hours!

:)

Dee