Hamlet

This is great. When one is such a passionate Shakespeare appreciator as I am - and even one who rarely has the opportunity to attend theater performances - the coming of a major new Hamlet production is a Great Event. I anticipate it with excitement, I pre-order the DVD, and I prepare to let the Royal Shakespeare Company work its dependable magic and sweep me off my feet with a stunning new production. And with Tennant's Hamlet I am not disappointed. It's fresh and it's delightful and every single moment of it held me utterly captivated.

It is in modern dress which worked well in most scenes, but less well in a few others. Taking place inside some aristocratic castle with black walls, marble columns and black shiny floors, it certainly achieved the requisite darkness that this play must have (although I found it didn't make sense pointing out clouds in an in-door environment. I also found the lack of paintings, which would comprise such an obviously effective device in a setting like this, rather strange) - which is good, because Tennant himself never quite conveyed a convincing sense of brooding menace and inner turmoil. I am a big fan of David Tennant, esp. his Doctor Who, but there's no doubt he can pull off a much wider range of roles, although I do think comedy is his main strength. And he wasn't a bad Hamlet - just not a great one either. He might have been, under different circumstances, but not in this incarnation. Tennant being Tennant, however, he was still splendidly entertaining to watch, even if Claudius, Polonius, Horatio and Gertrude all out-acted him quite a bit.

In this version, the early scene where Claudius is addressing the court, turns to Hamlet, saying, "Now...", and then arrogantly turns around to address Laertes instead of Hamlet was for me the greatest single moment. It succeeded in making me consider something I never had before, namely how odd and deliberate it is that the king in this situation addresses Laertes before Hamlet. This is quite a stunningly thought-provoking detail. Hamlet being the crown prince, etiquette should demand that he be honored with the earlier mention at such an official function. Laertes should not take precedence there. Clearly, Claudius is actively belittling Hamlet, consciously treating him with less dignity than his status demands. Well done there, Mr. Doran!

This is overall a good Hamlet, but it is not a seminal one. It is probably true that it worked better on stage than on television, and I also felt that several actors, incl. those playing Laertes and Ophelia, fell short of the necessary charisma. Even Tennant himself, in most scenes, was not quite intense enough to convince me that he really was Hamlet, and I was a bit disappointed with many of the soliloquies, which in most cases are recited almost without gesture, without animation and without the action that would have directed us towards some subtle interpretation of each speech. One marvels at a director who has this rare opportunity to produce the greatest speeches in all of literature, and then does not seize it. Maybe he had no opinion about them? A bit odd, I find. I'm probably missing something, though.

Also, having the same actor play Claudius and Old Hamlet, essentially making them twins? I dunno. One of the play's most major points is how different the two brothers are. The main difference between them, perhaps, is in character, but Hamlet also makes a point out of pitting them against each other physically, when he describes them to Gertrude. If they look the same, this scene becomes a bit dubious. Still, having secured someone like Patrick Stewart for the parts, one does rather like to see him in as many roles as possible, so I'd be something of a deadbeat if I belabored this point any further. :-)

Having mentioned these shortcomings, I must admit to being quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this Hamlet after all. One of the most successful scenes was Hamlet's final "absent thee from felicity" plea to Horatio, which I thought was quite a bit more powerful than most other scenes in this version. All in all, I think this must be said to be the best Hamlet to come out on DVD since Branagh's, which however it falls significantly short of matching. Gregory Doran is no Ken Branagh, and the Tennant Hamlet will probably not, however fresh it feels today, endure the coming decades without acquiring some air of staleness. Still, for speaking loudly and clearly to a current audience that may be justifiably fed up with the loftier kinds of Shakespeare productions, it deserves high marks indeed.

On the one hand it is difficult to do a good Hamlet, but on the other hand it is also difficult to foul up such resplendent material. The RSC being the RSC, most of this Hamlet does hold the attention and does make the mind work. Shakespeare is such a passion-filled author that most productions, in my opinion, actually fall short of fulfilling the dramatic potential of the text. It is a continual puzzle to me why producers don't seem more awed by Shakespeare's words than they do. But I guess that just gives us so much more to look forward to in future productions. What luck that Shakespeare is never too old to be dusted off and renewed for a new generation of literature lovers!

7 out of 10.

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.

One can see why 'Hamlet' is one of Shakespeare's best known and acclaimed plays with such memorable characters, some of the most deservedly famous in all literature, and text often quoted and referenced. It is long and not easy to perform at all (namely physchologically), but the characterisation, language and complex emotions and psychology have always riveted me and it has always been one of my favourites from Shakespeare. Royal Shakespeare Company's Shakespeare productions are always worth a peek, whether traditional or not.

Even if not every "live" production of theirs has completely worked. Despite preferring traditional productions myself, as there is less of a risk of distaste and unnecessary touches, that has not stopped me from appreciating things done differently as different can work. Whether this is the best filmed 'Hamlet' ever is up for debate. For me, although it isn't quite perfect, this 2009 production fares favourably and is not just the best 'Hamlet' seen in some while (since seeing the BBC Television Shakespeare production) but the best of all the viewed modern-dress productions of the play (better than both National Theatre Live performances).

Some people, well those not familiar with the play namely, may be at times perplexed by having some actors playing more than one character. This has been done more than once in Shakespeare and while it has always been interesting when it's done the execution has been variable.

Likewise with the CCTV style filming, which did confuse me at times and didn't always seem necessary. The production should have stuck with either doing it filmed play style or as a film, instead of seemingly trying to do both. There are times where it is very effectively atmospheric and clever, at others it's on the gimmicky side.

On the other hand, this was a modern dress Shakespeare production that actually looked appealing. The costumes look tasteful and aren't too much of a mishmash and the sets aren't drab or too simple with a shimmering look that is quite striking on film. The staging is always involving and the drama easy to follow, always worry in modern dress productions for anything that there would be gratuitous distaste going on or if there are things happening that don't make sense. Some of the National Theatre Live Shakespeare productions had this, such as 2018's 'Macbeth', but not so much here. The re-ordering of some of the text even makes sense, even moving the "to be or not to be" solliloquy to earlier.

The performances are on point. Some have criticised David Tennant as overacting, personally disagree respectfully. His interpretation is more manic than one usually sees from this difficult title role, but he balances inner turmoil and sarcasm movingly and intensely. Of the cast, Oliver Ford Davies is a big standout in one of the best interpretations of Polonious seen in a while, a very powerful performance that brings out every one of the character's characteristics. Patrick Stewart is a noble looking but suitably deadly Claudius, also effectively spooky as the Ghost. It was great to see Penny Downie again (it's been a while) and her Gertrude is touchingly conflicted and dignified. Mariah Gale's Orphelia, not an easy part to make interesting as it is potentially passive, is both brittle and affecting.

Concluding, very good and nearly great. 8/10

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.

For American audiences who love Shakespeare (an oxymoron at best!) and Harry Potter, the casting of David Tennant as Hamlet is an intriguing one. Tennant, who is wildly popular in the UK in the Doctor Who series, is also known to fans across the Isles as Barty Crouch Jr. from Harry Potter fantasy franchise.

Pairing David Tennant with Patrick Stewart, who is a double foil as both the slain ghost king father and Hamlet's uncle Claudius is masterful casting in this version from the Royal Shakespearean Company. As a result, Stewart was nominated for an Emmy as Best Supporting Actor.

Besides this quirky casting choice, director Gregory Doran propels this oft-told tale through the tone and inflection that each character brings to the all too familiar silted language of the Bard. One could easily close their eyes and simply bask in the joy of the rise and fall of phrases and words spun into this delightful audio experience.

Yet another pleasure is watching Sir Patrick Stewart literally play against himself - mano y mano - as Hamlet's mournful ethereal specter and the greedy, selfish brother. Pennie Downie, Mariah Gale, and Oliver Ford Davies provide an excellent counter-point to the brash and bold Tennant/Steward duo.

This is a fine minimalist production that should be added to any Hamlet FANatic's collection.