Hamlet

One can see why 'Hamlet' is one of Shakespeare's best known and acclaimed plays with such memorable characters, some of the most deservedly famous in all literature, and text often quoted and referenced. It is long and not easy to perform at all (namely physchologically), but the characterisation, language and complex emotions and psychology have always riveted me and it has always been one of my favourites from Shakespeare. Royal Shakespeare Company's Shakespeare productions are always worth a peek, whether traditional or not.

Even if not every "live" production of theirs has completely worked. Despite preferring traditional productions myself, as there is less of a risk of distaste and unnecessary touches, that has not stopped me from appreciating things done differently as different can work. Whether this is the best filmed 'Hamlet' ever is up for debate. For me, although it isn't quite perfect, this 2009 production fares favourably and is not just the best 'Hamlet' seen in some while (since seeing the BBC Television Shakespeare production) but the best of all the viewed modern-dress productions of the play (better than both National Theatre Live performances).

Some people, well those not familiar with the play namely, may be at times perplexed by having some actors playing more than one character. This has been done more than once in Shakespeare and while it has always been interesting when it's done the execution has been variable.

Likewise with the CCTV style filming, which did confuse me at times and didn't always seem necessary. The production should have stuck with either doing it filmed play style or as a film, instead of seemingly trying to do both. There are times where it is very effectively atmospheric and clever, at others it's on the gimmicky side.

On the other hand, this was a modern dress Shakespeare production that actually looked appealing. The costumes look tasteful and aren't too much of a mishmash and the sets aren't drab or too simple with a shimmering look that is quite striking on film. The staging is always involving and the drama easy to follow, always worry in modern dress productions for anything that there would be gratuitous distaste going on or if there are things happening that don't make sense. Some of the National Theatre Live Shakespeare productions had this, such as 2018's 'Macbeth', but not so much here. The re-ordering of some of the text even makes sense, even moving the "to be or not to be" solliloquy to earlier.

The performances are on point. Some have criticised David Tennant as overacting, personally disagree respectfully. His interpretation is more manic than one usually sees from this difficult title role, but he balances inner turmoil and sarcasm movingly and intensely. Of the cast, Oliver Ford Davies is a big standout in one of the best interpretations of Polonious seen in a while, a very powerful performance that brings out every one of the character's characteristics. Patrick Stewart is a noble looking but suitably deadly Claudius, also effectively spooky as the Ghost. It was great to see Penny Downie again (it's been a while) and her Gertrude is touchingly conflicted and dignified. Mariah Gale's Orphelia, not an easy part to make interesting as it is potentially passive, is both brittle and affecting.

Concluding, very good and nearly great. 8/10

Living as close as I do in Birmingham, I have gone done to Stratford-upon-Avon on four or five occasions to see various adaptations by the RSC but by the time I casually enquired about this production, tickets were long gone. The casting of the two big sci-fi names made this no surprise but it was a little annoying still when I later read the good reviews it got. Credit to the BBC then for not only bringing a filmed version of the production to the television but also doing it in primetime on Boxing Day. I can't remember the last time the BBC did such a thing but it is certainly befitting their remit to do this and hopefully it will not be the last time.

To the film itself though. Three hours long as it is, the time does move well because the source material is as good as it is. Moments of drama, comedy, tragedy and intensity all blend well together, with lots going on in the main and on the edges – in summary the plot is simple but there are lots of nuances to be had here and, in this regard, it does help that the cast have done this material in full many times on stage. Focusing on the production as a production rather than a film, there is much to appreciate. Normally I'm not a fan of contemporary or modern settings for Shakespeare but here it doesn't get in the way – it doesn't add much to be sure but nor does it irritate or get in the way as I have seen it do in other productions. The reflective black stage is retained from the theatre version and it does provide a suitably stark backdrop to allow the viewer to focus on the actors. All of this relates to the production but the biggest difference here is that this is being made for television rather than a theatre and this is no small change.

Others have commented on the loss of the physical audience as a point in space for the cast but in fairness one would have thought that the focal point of the camera would have actually made this easier – particularly given the way that the stage in Stratford this was on is surrounded by the audience on three sides. However it doesn't work like that because stage director Doran (who directs here) doesn't seem to make a decision to either shoot it as a stage play or to embrace the use of the camera. This manifests itself in a sort of halfway house where at times it does one or the other well but mostly it resides in the middle where it isn't comfortable with either. Thus while we have moments where the camera compliments the action by virtue of its movement or where it is, mostly it just stays out of the way, apart from the CCTV gimmick (which fortunately is quickly dropped as an idea). As such it makes for an odd television film and I do think that more could have been done to make it more than just a filmed version of the stage production (which is what the makers said they were trying to avoid the film being).

The cast are mostly impressive. I have seen more impacting Hamlets but Tennant does do well and demonstrates a lot more range than he has the chance to do on Doctor Who. Is he a great Hamlet? I'd have to say no but he does engage and do a good job nonetheless. Stewart adds gravitas to his characters and he delivers a very good Claudius – not too slippery and treacherous but enough so we can see it in his heart. Downie is very good as Queen Gertrude while Davies, Gale, De Jersey and indeed most of the supporting cast are equally good. The only slight downside is that the habit of using the same actor for multiple very minor characters is a little more obvious on the screen than on the stage and it does distract at times.

Overall this version of Hamlet deserves credit for being produced for prime time on a terrestrial channel and it does have much about it to appeal to viewers. As a production of Hamlet it is enjoyable and very well put together but it does not replace seeing it on the stage, since it doesn't do a particularly good job of moving from stage to the screen.

Being an American rather new to Shakespeare, I have come to discover that Hamlet is my favorite play, and as of today the David Tennant and Patrick Stewart version provides the breakthrough to understanding this complicated play. I have watched all versions of Hamlet available and was quick to check out the newest one; however, Patrick Stewart was the only familiar actor to me. I have not a clue who Dr. Who might be. Just as well, as that might have tainted my view of Mr. Tennant's acting. Most contemporary productions of Shakespeare border on silly (Leonardo D's version of Romeo and Juliet) to ridiculous (Ethan Hawke's Hamlet), but this version rocks, to use an overused phrase.

I thought the juxtaposition of Shakespeare Old English in a Modern Setting worked amazingly well. The talents of the cast came together superbly (wished for a different Ophelia though). Polonius reminded me of a more dignified version of Bill Murray's treatment, but still caught the pompous drift of the character. Horatio played the devoted and loyal friend to great satisfaction. His Roman to the death speech had me crying all three times I watched the dramatization. I thought Tennant's version of Hamlet contained a measured lunacy, the intelligent fool who had mostly everyone fooled. The To Be soliloquy had the right intensity and then in a moment Tennant switches to Guarded Lover with Ophelia and Knave of Fools to Polonius.

I'm up for another view after writing this. Three hours spin by as I absorb new nuances and understanding. What a marvelous way to spend the afternoon.

No matter how many times I see Hamlet (and I've seen it a LOT), I always seem to be in directorial mode, mostly to the detriment of what I'm watching. This is one of only two Hamlets where I was capable of actually watching the PLAY, rather than the director's mistakes. Tennant's very tense and tightly-wound Prince exhibits a pain and obtusion almost excruciating to watch. The contemporary gloss (LOVED those black interiors, shiny floors, endless reaches of doors and columns and the infinite dark starkness) doesn't feel superficial and does not distract at all from the text, unless you're one of those Renaissance Purists. Patrick Stewart's Claudius was slick, smooth, menacing, and (oddly enough), almost touchingly revealing. This production's Queen Gertrude had that haggard, 'wanna be young' angst seen in so many truly beautiful women once they hit fifty -- and I liked that she seemed to age as the battalions of misfortune kept coming in waves. Most importantly, I liked that the director allowed the TEXT to take center stage, rather than some radical new interpretational agenda. For once, a director that allows the audience to draw their own conclusions.

After seeing Branagh's version years ago, I honestly never thought it could be improved upon. However, while that version relied heavily on pageantry, this one thrives on the script. I may have minimal theater experience, but I do have an English degree and felt that this was a wonderful interpretation of the play. The difficult thing for many people is, having seen it performed before, cannot re-imagine it any other way. It's a shame to hear some of the reviewers bash the actors when we all know that no two Hamlets are (or should ever be) the same. Who's to say how it was performed during Shakespeare's time? That's the beauty of the play. In a time of constant Hollywood remakes where the original is available to be seen and borrowed from, the RSC has made it fresh and new again. I hung on the words as if hearing them for the first time, and in some cases thought of them in an entirely different fashion. Plus, as a long-time Dr. Who and Star Trek fan, it didn't feel as if I was watching the Doctor or Captain Picard performing. The staging was quite brilliant as well; it didn't distract or become a character in and of itself. The rest of the cast performed quite well and should be celebrated also.