I just finished watching Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet again. The settings, costumes, direction and acting from the stellar cast are simply splendid. Branagh’s direction and vision for the film is powerful, dignified and beautiful to look at, and the cast of stars–from Derek Jacobi and Julie Christie and Kate Winslet to Jack Lemmon and Charlton Heston to cameos by Judi Dench, Gielgud and even British comic Ken Dodd is fantastic.
There seem to be two weak points. First is Branagh’s insistence on performing the whole play. Almost every version of Hamlet is cut in some way or other, and to be honest, the cuts are usually a good idea. Hamlet is full of ‘words my Lord’, and my Lord what a lot of words. The modern viewer has to work hard anyway at Shakespeare, and I think the play would have been better cut.
The second weakness is Branagh’s Hamlet. He plays Hamlet with lots of outward rage and energy. Very often in the soliloquies he loses his temper, breaks things and rages furiously. It doesn’t make sense. We know that Hamlet is melancholy. In the text he seems weak–overly intellectual and hyper sensitive. This, indeed, is Hamlet’s tragic flaw: he is unable to act decisively. He is racked with self doubt and self pity and self centeredness. His ‘madness’ is the stupid ploy of a weak and ineffectual boy. Hamlet is a weak and vacillating adolescent and Branagh portrays him as a decisive and strong character, full of rage. I think he missed the target totally.
The reason I think Hamlet is a self absorbed adolescent is because I believe Shakespeare wanted to show just why there was ‘something rotten in the state of Denmark’. Things were rotten because, in fact, the King and Queen and everybody else in the play is, in their own way, just as self absorbed as Hamlet, and Hamlet’s tragic immaturity and selfishness should reveal the same flaw in the rest of the characters. If Hamlet doesn’t show this flaw, then the whole play is flawed.
I’m planning to view the Olivier Hamlet again, but in my memory the best film Hamlet is Derek Jacobi in the old BBC series, and I think Mel Gibson didn’t do that bad a job either. By the way…have I ever told you about the time I had dinner with Mel?…
THAT is most unsporting of you, Father… you were going to do a post on it, and you never did… (or maybe I missed it!)I want to know more about Mel…!
My English teacher told us that Hamlet’s big problem was that he is a ‘Renaissance prince in a Medieval setting,’ which I like. I agree with you totally re Branagh’s ‘Hamlet.’ I love his ‘Much Ado’ where he makes the lines sound new-minted. Mel is great – I seem to recall his being interviewed and being asked what the most difficult thing about playing Hamlet was. ‘Learning to ride a horse’ was the reply – just watch! He’s gripping very tightly!I’m sad at the moment as I wanted very much to take a group of pupils (I’m an English teacher!) up to London to see David Tennant do Hamlet, but an hour on the phone on the first day of booking and no group bookings and individuals booked out! I hope someone does a film of him – he’s so edgy and brilliant and neurotic.
I loved Mel’s version and agree with your critique of the ‘higher brow’ version by branagh. I would fascinated to hear about your dinner with Mel.
I don’t like Branagh. I completely disagree with you about his Hamlet. I think it’s bloated, over-extended, overwrought, pumped full of hot air, and self-conscious to the point of exasperation.Most exasperating of all, the film is “inventive”.Perhaps this is just me.I like Mel Gibson’s Hamlet. I think his reading-in of some incestuous relationship between Hamlet and his mother is not totally un-called for, and sort of interesting.I remember watching the beginning of Sir Olivier Laurence’s, and thought it was very well done, the little that I saw.Hamlet’s continuous vacillation is indeed his weakness, and this self-absorption is the reflection of the tragic rotten state of Denmark. What’s so powerful and interesting about it though is how Hamlet has this tragic adolescent flaw, yet its paired with this “deepness”, this ever-escalating storm of intelligence – and yet, showing the helplesness of our nature – all that insight doesn’t make him decisive.
Niggle, i see your point of view. There is much to be said for it. I’ll be watching Gibson’s Hamlet next week to compare.I just thought that the Danish court was splendid to look at, but I see your point about inventiveness and am reminded of Ogden Nash’s dictum, “Here is a good rule of thumb…too clever is dumb.”
I saw this movie ages ago and did not like it at all — and I love Shakespeare plays, so I am not unfamiliar or uncomfortable with them.I found Branagh’s version to be pretentious and far too dull to watch, and I was annoyed by what I remember as large numbers of people who could not actually read Shakespeare being cast in it. American actors can read Shakespeare very well!I don’t like Branagh’s “Much Ado” either — especially poor Dogberry, who is supposed to be so funny. Branagh broke the cardinal rule when it comes to a Shakespeare comedy — do not take any of the situations seriously! Benedick and Beatrice came off great, but Hero and whats-his-name… it was far too cruel to be funny. A farce like that has to be funny! And Keanu Reeves is a HUGE example of Branagh casting someone who simply can’t read Shakespeare at all.BTW, I was studying in England in 1986 and had the great pleasure of seeing Kenneth Branagh on stage as Henry V, he is amazing. It’s the same production that he recycled for the movie, which is great in many parts but again ruins all the comic characters. (I also saw Roger Rees as Hamlet, that was a good production). I remember enjoying Mel Gibson’s Hamlet, but most film versions of Shakespeare are overdone, or pretentious, or as Niggle says,”inventive.” I can’t think of many I’d recommend.
I saw this movie ages ago and did not like it at all — and I love Shakespeare plays, so I am not unfamiliar or uncomfortable with them.I found Branagh’s version to be pretentious and far too dull to watch, and I was annoyed by what I remember as large numbers of people who could not actually read Shakespeare being cast in it. American actors can read Shakespeare very well!I don’t like Branagh’s “Much Ado” either — especially poor Dogberry, who is supposed to be so funny. Branagh broke the cardinal rule when it comes to a Shakespeare comedy — do not take any of the situations seriously! Benedick and Beatrice came off great, but Hero and whats-his-name… it was far too cruel to be funny. A farce like that has to be funny! And Keanu Reeves is a HUGE example of Branagh casting someone who simply can’t read Shakespeare at all.BTW, I was studying in England in 1986 and had the great pleasure of seeing Kenneth Branagh on stage as Henry V, he is amazing. It’s the same production that he recycled for the movie, which is great in many parts but again ruins all the comic characters. (I also saw Roger Rees as Hamlet, that was a good production). I remember enjoying Mel Gibson’s Hamlet, but most film versions of Shakespeare are overdone, or pretentious, or as Niggle says,”inventive.” I can’t think of many I’d recommend.
I never saw Jacobi’s performance, but I believed Gibson’s was very fine.I saw clips of Branagh’s and did not like his interpretation.Shakespeare’s highly individualistic focus (after all, it’s a tragedy) can’t be understood out of its social context (like any other tragedy).The insanity was not *in* Hamlet but *around* him. What would happen if *everyone*–even one’s own mother–did not see the reality one sees? Insanity. Self-doubt is a mild term here. Gibson performed this superbly.
I have always liked Coleridge’s critique of Hamlet, that the key to the entire play is the opening line: “Who’s there?”