Hamlet

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!

This version has been topped now, but it's still not to be missed if only for nostalgic purposes. The setting, lighting, and cinematography are wondrous; the acting is superb (though by today's standards Olivier perhaps chews the scenery a bit much); the tone is somber and Gothic. And, I feel the tragedy every time I see it. I personally feel too much was cut, and I find fault with Olivier's interpretation: but then again, it's everybody's part now. Ambitious, effective, and just good theater.

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.

The titled melancholy Danish prince (Oscar-winner Laurence Olivier) seeks to avenge those involved with his father's death. It seems that Olivier's father (voiced by John Gielgud) still roams the Earth as a spirit that walks around aimlessly, unable to find Heaven or Hell (Purgatory for the most part). Gielgud makes it clear that his brother (Basil Sydney) was the culprit in his death and Olivier becomes enraged. The fact that Sydney has become king by marrying the titled character's mother (Eileen Herlie) just makes the tension build. Herlie and Olivier's relationship pushes the envelope hard on a typical mother-son bond (there are incestuous tones abound here). Oscar-nominee Jean Simmons appears to be Olivier's one true love, but after a terrible tragedy she falls down a path of mental anguish. It appears that the only logical conclusion for Shakespeare's famed character is to have that famous sword fight dual with Simmons' brother (Terence Morgan). Of course you know that not everything is the way it seems, right? "Hamlet" was a surprising success in 1948. Produced in Britain (and strictly a British project for all intensive purposes), the film became a runaway hit with most all audiences and critics (becoming the year's Best Picture Oscar winner). Shakespeare's plays have never really warranted excellence on the silver screen, but this adaptation (also by Olivier) is about as close as we have seen thus far. The movie runs nearly three hours and I was about to fall asleep after the first 60 minutes (the film is almost dragging to a crawl by that point), but after the set-up the movie soars very high. Lots of data that is somewhat confusing hogs up a little too much time when the pacing could have been much crisper. Olivier's spin on the timeless classic is truly uncanny nonetheless. His direction (he was Oscar-nominated in the category) and vision are something to behold. The production values are strong and I ended up enjoying the movie for what it is and what it ultimately wanted to be. Olivier became the first of only two people presently to direct himself to an Oscar victory (Roberto Benigni duplicated the feat with 1998's "Life Is Beautiful"). 4.5 out of 5 stars.

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.