Hamlet

I've seen many productions of this play on screen - Olivier, Branagh, Plummer, Chamberlain, Williamson. I've also studied the play and am used to thinking of Hamlet as severely depressed. He's the "gloomy Dane," is he not? Tennant's Hamlet is much more manic, say, than Olivier's or the agonized melancholic in my mind, and it took some getting used to. He embodies the ambiguity about Hamlet's madness. Is Hamlet crazy with grief, or is he feigning madness to distract from his plans to revenge his father's murder, or is the line between those two perforated? This is a great production, and I recommend it enthusiastically.

I was fortunate enough to see one of the previews this production on stage while David Tennant was still fit. It was spellbinding , every actor on the stage was immaculate in their performance, the audience laughed and cried openly. The DVD version is a very good representation of the stage version but it lacks the magic of watching a live production, the interaction that the characters have with the audience, the emotional responses of a theatre full of people that allows you as an individual to show greater emotion than sitting in front of a TV. I also feel that the nature of filming in close up and multi angle sometime gets the viewer too close to the characters. All that said, this is a tremendous production, the comedy is brought to the fore which makes the tragedy even more profound. The cast is absolutely superb and I do mean the entire cast, not only the big name leads.The delivery of the dialogue is so beautifully done that even a Shakespeare novice will understand what is being conveyed. I have seen Hamlet performed live a dozen times and have left before the end on at least six occasions. This version when performed live is by far and away my favourite. My favourite film version is still the 1948 Laurence Olivier version....but this is a close second

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.

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.