Hamlet

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."

I have to admit I really like this film. Zefferelli is an unappreciated master: he knows how to stage a crowd (essential to his Romeo and Juliet), and move people; how to frame and light a sequence so it flows. He has a fine sense of color and its movement. Moreover, this Hamlet has the very best set, and also to my mind the best Gertrude.

What he has done is focus on the story. He's chopped and dropped and rearranged to create a story that makes sense. It moves and moves well from beginning to end. But.

But the problem is that Shakespeare's play is not at all about the story. That's just the skeleton on which some life altering metaphoric structure is built. Now all gone. You'll need Branagh for that, but his story doesn't flow effortlessly as this does.

Result: If you want Hamlet, seek him elsewhere. If you want a similar, masterful piece of filmwork, look here. The language is fittingly conversational not stentorian, so that the players can manage it. Just as well.

Ophelia is very pretty, and in her greatly reduced role does well. Her start-double take-astonishment-puzzlement after the play within the play is a moment which will last in your mind. This is an actress to watch.

Trivia: The incidental Osric here is the wonderful Mercutio in Zefferelli's much earlier Romeo and Juliet around whom the whole play revolves. The First Player (incidental in this version) is the excellent Friar in the other (macho thug MTV) Romeo + Juliet around whom that whole version revolves. Curious.

Mel Gibson and Franco Zeffirelli's adaptation of Hamlet has filled some of the gaps left by Shakespeare. This version of the classic story is thoroughly watchable. Gibson is perfect as Hamlet the Prince of Denmark, and he is well supported by Glenn Close (Gertrude), Alan Bates (Claudius), Ian Holm (Polonius) and Helena Bonham Carter (Ophelia). However, after already seeing Kenneth Branagh's 4-hour long version, I was left a little let down. Although this version was only 2 hours 20 minutes approximately, it was more boring in parts than Branagh's was. And no one can beat Kate Winslet as Ophelia, though Bonham Carter performed the lunatic scenes extremely well.

The acting, as is aboveforementioned, is the highlight of this version. You can see the emotions boiling over on Gibson's face, and Close gives Gertrude's nature a remarkable realism as both a worried mother and a lustful lover. Bates is the best Claudius I have ever seen, and Holm displays in Polonius what makes him such a great actor.

This Hamlet has an extremely good set design that complements the mood of each scene perfectly. The castle has a great look to it, both inside and outside.

The costumes, particularly those worn by Close, are excellent. They really highlight the mood and temprament of her character perfectly. On top of this, all of the costumes worn by the players (actors in Hamlet's play) in colour and shape symbolise the message that Hamlet was trying to get across.

Technically, this film is very well put together. The shots are each able to complement the action in that shot. Sound effects, especially in the ghost apparitions, as well as the lighting and juxtapositioning, set the moody feel of the film.

Of course, one cannot escape comparing this to Branagh's masterpiece, though in its own right is is a great version of Shakespeare's play that, through its star power and easier-to-follow storyline, should attract the younger audiences that saw Baz Lurmann's 'Romeo + Juliet', '10 Things I Hate About You' and will possibly see the upcoming 'O'. ***1/2 out of *****.

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.

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