Skip to main content

Back to the Feature: Hamlet (1948)


          I’m feeling in the mood for something Shakespeare. This’ll do. 
          Often considered the definitive cinematic Shakespearean adaptation, 1948’s Hamlet, directed by and starring Sir Laurence Olivier was a huge deal even when it came out. It’s the only Shakespeare movie that ever won the Academy Award for Best Picture, and Olivier himself won a statue for his performance. Since then though there have been a bunch of other filmed versions of the classic tragedy, some good like Kenneth Branaghs’, some bad like Mel Gibsons’.
          This version is definitely closer to the great end of the spectrum. Though I don’t know if I like it as much as the Branagh film, it’s about as good as the RSC’s 2009 version with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart. This is one of the seemingly few versions of Hamlet actually set in the period it was written for. But this film used that setting as an advantage, creating pretty believable medieval sets and the ever cloudy skies gave the atmosphere a needed dread. I can see why a lot of film versions since changed the time frame so as to not only differentiate themselves, but also because this one just did it so well.
          This film adapts the play pretty closely but not to the extent of again, the Branagh version. Quite a bit of dialogue is eliminated and whole scenes are missing. But I don’t mind, seeing as the cut stuff was never all that important to the play’s plot to begin with. I was surprised however given Olivier’s dedication to the Bard, that he actually switched some scenes around. It’s impressive; he knew changes needed to be made for the transition to film and accepted that. Most notably is the iconic soliloquy which is placed after Hamlet shuns Ophelia rather than before. But it works pretty well and allows Olivier to deliver the speech in a different locale. Rather than in the royal hall, he’s up on the battlements of the castle itself. And the speech is made all the more immediate and poignant by him actually being moments from potential suicide as he contemplates throwing himself off the wall. It actually makes the speech a lot more effective and his dilemma more understandable. Oliver also made the choice to internalize a number of Hamlet’s early speeches, and then later have him speak them aloud. I like how that acts as a subtle hint to his deteriorating sanity. It’s a challenge for the actor too, because while these long monologues are being delivered in voice-over, the actor has to convey all his complicated emotions through his demeanour and physicality alone. Olivier though succeeds in spades.
          It kind of goes without saying, but Olivier is a fantastic Hamlet. He has the gravitas to carry the dramatic weight as well as the sheer skill to portray the character relatably. Never once does his dialogue sound hammy and you can see his passion for the role in every scene. The delivery of his iconic speech may be the best that speech has ever been done on film and others like the Yorrick speech and stalking of Claudius are amazing as well. And I love how his interruption at the end of The Murder of Gonzago really comes off as publicly awkward as it should. Olivier has good chemistry with his co-stars too, particularly Norman Wooland’s Horatio. Basil Sydney was pretty good as Claudius though he’s no Patrick Stewart or Derek Jacobi or even Jeremy Irons. The wonderful Jean Simmons was a stand-out as Ophelia. Her voice is just so perfectly suited for elegant, poetic dialogue like Shakespeare and Dickens. Eileen Herlie does fine as Queen Gertrude but is way too young to be playing Hamlet’s mother being quite clearly younger than Olivier. The guy playing Polonius, Felix Aylmer spouts Shakespeare as if it’s second nature to him, Terence Morgan’s Laertes is alright, and Anthony Quayle (Colonel Brighton from Lawrence of Arabia) plays Marcellus adequately. But that’s not all; it’s pretty cool to see a young Peter Cushing as Osric, Dad’s Army’s John Laurie as Francisco, and Patrick Troughton of Doctor Who as the Player King. Oh and the great Christopher Lee was an extra in this film, try and spot him!
          This is a very well shot movie. Again, the production design really services the atmosphere but it’s also a very nice looking film; the cinematography’s great making it feel unmistakably Shakespearean. The way this film uses its shadows allows the castle to remain bleak, and this is another one of those films that I think wouldn’t have the same effect in colour as in black and white. The story after all is very grey. In terms of cons, there are a few aspects of this film that haven’t aged well. Though not bad, the sword fights could have been better, I didn’t quite feel the suspense I should have. That being said, the ghost of Hamlet’s father came off pretty good for the time and isn’t quite as overblown as Brian Blessed in Branagh’s film (both versions include a flashback to give further relevance to his death). Though Olivier is a powerhouse in the latter part, he didn’t seem as far-gone mentally or emotionally as Hamlet was in the play. I got that more from the scene where he killed Polonius. That scene’s definitely one of the best, and the grave-digger scene too. And though the climax isn’t the most thrilling, it does end on a very high note.
          I can see why this film is so revered as one of the finest Shakespearean adaptations. Though I don’t think it’s quite that -there are a couple that have better and more compellingly told their stories- I do think this deserves to be hailed as one of the greats. It’s superbly directed, brilliantly acted, exquisitely shot, and all round finely executed. It’s incredibly loyal to the play but also knows where to change or alter things to better relate them in the cinematic medium. It’s possibly Olivier’s greatest performance and a hell of a good interpretation of one of Shakespeare’s greatest works.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...