Amleto

Zeferelli, although cut some seemingly vital parts to the play, made it his own, and created a beautiful tribute to Shakespeare. I am sure if the Bard had a camera, he would have filmed and wrote the screenplay somewhat the same.

Mel Gibson has portrayed Hamlet in the most true-to-human nature as anyone ever has. His brooding and depressing personality is realistic. Gibson doesn't allow the madness to overcome him. He is passionate, powerful and the epitome of the son who has gone through hell over his father's death and incestuous marriage of his mother. His performance brings tears to my eyes.

Glenn Close is amazing; her motherly attitude and sincerity toward Hamlet is so much that one sometimes cannot feel anger towards her. Close gives life to Gertrude that no one has been able to before or after. She is a real character, with traits both despicable and kind.

The other performances are astounding, especially when it comes to Helena Bonham-Carter's moment of lunacy in Ophelia. Her reaction to her father's death is so convincing and terribly sad that I cry at merely seeing her.

The interpretation of the story is a perfect one that required surely a great amount of thought and reading of the very play. Zeferelli interprets it so well, that it flows like real life. Every aspect comes together to form a very real event.

Zeferelli is a master filmmaker, and I highly suggest this film to anyone who has ever marveled at the human spirit portrayed through film, and literature as well.

After the king of Denmark dies(yes, back then, battles over ascension were common), his widow soon marries the man's brother. But Hamlet, the natural heir to the throne suspects that it was not as natural a demise as it might appear... could the man now bearing the crown be implicated? I have not read the play itself, but I have seen other adaptations(and I can definitely tell that the dialog is kept intact, if there are trims... so we get the undeniable lyrical skill, wit and cleverness of Shakespeare, with sayings that people sometimes forget actually are from him), and the '48 one with Olivier is a tad better. Gibson in the role is obviously the more crowd-pleasing choice, if he does do a good job. Everyone does give a passionate performance, and we are graced with immense talent in the cast, counting Close, Bates, Holm and a young Bonham Carter. This is a visual approach(I don't know if that is how this director goes about these, it's the only one I've watched), rather than the "filmed theater" of the half a century old take on it. It is photographed rather nicely, if there aren't really any stand-out images. This does have a solid pace, and the 2 hour, 7 minute running time sans credits is never boring. It is a story dealing with how death causes pain, as the survivors are devastated and the killer is haunted by the deed. There is disturbing content, including sexuality, in this. The DVD comes with a two minute trailer. I recommend this to fans of ol' Will. 7/10

Once again, I read reviews saying this is the worst portrayal of Hamlet in the history of cinema. Hey, I'm not a big fan of Mel Gibson, but this film makes the story and some of the language accessible. Personally, I would much prefer a more sophisticated adaptation, but I have had extensive Shakespeare studies in my education. This is Shakespeare for a more pedestrian audience (young people included) and what's wrong with that? I love classical music and theatre, but the snobbishness that some approach it with is a real turnoff. I believe that for certain individuals, they feel these things need to be protected so they can be the only ones to enjoy these things. I agree that Gibson is much too old to be playing the young prince and it is pretty sparse in language. But isn't it better to have a populace that knows the story and doesn't have to wade through a 60 line soliloquy, than to have them just ignore the whole thing. I showed this to some of my nigh grade students and heard very few complaints.

I'd put off viewing this version of "Hamlet" for a long time, because I'd heard that they'd turned this most cerebral of plays into an "action movie", but I ended up quite liking it.

I should begin by saying that I approve of ALL interpretations, because each choice reflects different possibilities all of which are supportable by the text; no one vision can encompass every potentiality inherent in the play. And the text per se, of course, will always exist in absolute form despite the number of hands that manipulate it.

All productions (except Branagh's) cut certain elements as a sacrifice to tighter (though narrower) focus. And the use of film rather than stage allows (even necessitates) different types of dramatic development. Films unfold at a different pace than stage plays. Zefirelli's adaptations WORK as film-making, without detracting from (or unnecessarily supplementing) Shakespeare's language. For instance, the little "prologue" scene showing the internment of the dead king. It is original to the movie, and yet the dialogue is still from the play; it doesn't misrepresent anything about the characters in its new context. And perhaps most importantly, it "works" in the movie that the director is making. But on to the substantive comment...

Mel Gibson was, in my opinion, too old to be Hamlet (making Glenn Close, by extension, too young to be Gertrude), but the issue of Hamlet's age has always been a problem. He's 30 in the text (this version leaves out that calculation), but that makes some of his relationships (with Ophelia, for instance) seem a little... immature. And yet if he's portrayed too young, his depth of thought is almost impossibly precocious. But I thought he was convincing nonetheless, particularly in expressing something that I've found central to my understanding of the play but I all too rarely see dealt with in Hamlet's portrayal, which is this:

Hamlet IS quite mad. 'Tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true. From his first meeting with the ghost onwards, he is profoundly disturbed. It is irony that he then puts an 'antic disposition' on, because he has in actuality gone quite 'round the bend.

Mel Gibson not only gives the first convincing portrayal of Hamlet's "pretended" madness that I've seen, but he also shows us the desperation of the character in his quiet moments. Hamlet is not, as Olivier posited in his 1948 version, merely "a man who could not make up his mind." Gibson's Hamlet spends much of the film alternating between mania-induced impulsiveness and paralyzing inability to act. The Dane is not merely melancholy, he is certifiably manic-depressive. (Claudius, I believe, sees this.)

Over all, I believe that this would be a good introduction to the story of Hamlet for those who otherwise would have had no contact with it, although as I said it can then be supplemented by other adaptations (and of course there's no substitute for, ultimately, reading the text).

What a joy this adaptation is! Its main virtues are a fine performance from Mel Gibson as Hamlet; a script that makes full use of the movie medium while giving Shakespeare sufficient scope to enrich and entertain us with his people and his words; two great performances from Alan Bates as Claudius and Paul Scofield as the Ghost; two good performances from Nathaniel Parker as Laertes and Glenn Close as Gertrude; and a fine music score from Ennio Morricone that anticipates and amplifies our emotions.

First, my criticisms. In directing his actors, Franco Zefferelli makes two big mistakes, one interesting and one painful. The interesting mistake: Ian Holm changes Polonius from a doddering old man to someone evil-minded and fully possessed of his wits. When this Polonius babbles about plays that are "pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral" he is being deliberately comic. One scene demonstrates the badness of this choice. We have no idea why this sharp-witted, not-very-old man is prating to the king and queen instead of coming to the point about Hamlet's madness. (Then again, Richard Briers gives us a smart Polonius in Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet," and there it worked.) The painful mistake: Helena Bonham-Carter changes Ophelia from a meek victim to a strong-willed, independent-minded young woman. The director and actress probably thought they were being good little feminists, but the idea is psychologically and dramatically disastrous. Bonham-Carter's Ophelia could never go mad. And even if she could, her crass new self is no longer sharply contrasted with a meek former self. This Ophelia seems fully capable of being earthy and vulgar even before she loses her mind. This blunts the effect of the mad scenes which in themselves are beautifully presented and played.

Now the praise. Gibson reads Shakespeare's words skillfully and is bettered in this regard only by Bates and Scofield; his readings convey the words' music and meaning: at long last I understand the line, "What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven." He also reveals one aspect of Hamlet that I see when I read the play. Hamlet is never more dangerous, or off-putting, than when he's clowning. The melancholy Hamlet attracts me and the joking Hamlet repels me. Gibson's Hamlet does the same.

Shakespeare never suffers from the artful cutting and rearrangement of his text. This script is especially clever. Among many nice surprises was hearing Hamlet deliver his "Get thee to a nunnery" speech to Ophelia as they sit in the audience before the play. Even better are the dozens of little touches that only a movie can provide. I loved how the camera showed Hamlet and Polonius spy on scenes that in most productions take place out of their sights. But the script and direction are also a shade too restless. The camera shots and the scenery change rapidly as characters dart from one place to another. Once or twice the movie should have paused and let us luxuriate in the language. The perfect opportunity would have been the "To be or not to be" speech; but Gibson and Zefferelli make it a scene of high drama. I craved the usual Hamlet who stops and tells us what he thinks because he wants to overhear himself.

The idea of Hamlet and Gertrude lusting for each other works surprisingly well. Most post-Freudian productions present this notion, but I don't think it's in the play. The interview in the bed chamber is Polonius' idea, not Hamlet's or Gertrude's. And even Hamlet's most piquant behavior, including his condemnation of his mother's sex life, is consistent with that of a son outraged by his mother's betrayal of his father; but it's inconsistent with that of a jealous son. Surely a jealous son wouldn't dither over killing Claudius. But the script shears off those inconsistencies, and the actors make it work. I could see it in Hamlet's eyes the moment he's alone with the ghost: "Oh, God, let it not find out that I want my mother."