Hamlet

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.

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.

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.

I lived in the UK during the production of this Hamlet, but, alas, tickets were sold out. When I found it was filmed, I was ecstatic. A long time fan of Patrick Stewart and David Tennant, I had high hopes. However, I was blown away by this film. Those who have complained about Tennant's acting skills are treating him as the Doctor starring in Hamlet. Tennant's portrayal is one of my favorites. Here is the Hamlet I've read, a young man with a terrible knowledge searching for answers and guidance. His "To be or not to be" was chilling. Patrick Stewart as Claudius is soft-spoken and deadly. He gave me shivers. Here is a man who looks like your uncle (to use one reviewers words), but would kill you in a moment. If I had one complaint, the actress portraying Ophelia was an obvious let-down. I'm not a big fan of Ophelia and this actress seemed to be struggling with the character. Her "mad" scene was painful to watch. So, I had to give this 9 stars. Excellent production. Great set, acting, and atmosphere. I loved it.

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.