I was struck by the vivid cinematography, in glorious black and white. It is certainly a well-filmed, well-directed work. It is also a very straightforward Hamlet. It's not a filmed stage version a la Richardson, yet it does not have all of the adaptations of Zeffirelli or Gade or Almereyda. To that extent, I found it enjoyable to watch.
One oddity, which I'm sure has been mentioned by many others, was the casting. While most of the actors fit the roles, Hamlet and Gertrude were notably off. It's a function of age. Laurence Olivier was nearly nine years older than Eileen Herlie, and Olivier was 40 when Hamlet was filmed. His age does not fit his role, nor does her age fit the role of Hamlet's mother. One must suspend disbelief a fair amount to get it to work.
At just over two and one half hours, the script is edited as one might expect. The "rogue and peasant slave" and "How all occasions" soliloquies are excised completely. With the removal of Fortinbras from the cast, the latter deletion makes sense. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern also were removed from the play, and their omission coupled with that of Fortinbras allows the play to revolve around only the royal family at Elsinore. The scenes involving the players and the play within a play are much shortened, with the dumb-show serving entirely as "The Mousetrap."
The soliloquies that remain are delivered for the most part as voice-overs, showing plainly that they are intended as interior monologues in the mind of the character. I found this to be particularly effective. It removes the confusion created in staged productions when the soliloquy is delivered directly to the audience as if they are members of the cast. As shown here, these are words of the character for the character.
Other interesting alterations include some changes to Shakespeare's words. "[Recks] not his own rede" becomes "minds not his own creed." Hebanon becomes hemlock. An "enseamed" bed is now a "lascivious" one. The first change does not alter the meter of the lines, but the second and third examples change the syllabication of Shakespeare's work.
Certain changes to the order of action were also noteworthy. Hamlet is shown overhearing Polonius' plot to "loose his daughter" on him; this adds a new dimension to the action that follows. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy was moved until after the nunnery scene. This was not the first time that I have seen this done, but it still does not seem to fit. Hamlet's letters are delivered to Claudius and Gertrude while both are on stage speaking. The plotting of Claudius and Laertes occurs after the "Alas, poor Yorick" scene.
Ophelia's insanity scenes were much toned down, a directorial move I found very welcome. Although they opened with a random scream from Ophelia, she was very understated after that. There was no excessive screaming or histrionics as in other productions I have seen. For that I was thankful.
The closing of the play provided another twist on the duel scene. The action was well choreographed; this was no quick throwaway scene. As the action progressed, it seemed that Osric was in on the plot as the unbated sword did not seem to bother him. Prior to the second hit, Gertrude spent an inordinate time staring at the poisoned chalice. It appeared that she had figured out what was in store for Hamlet, and her act of drinking was one of preventing his death while hastening her own.
Olivier knew that his work would be controversial in his lifetime. In a defense of his film, he stated:
"Every Shakespeare film must, by its very nature, be a re-creation of a Shakespeare play in a quite different art-medium than that for which it was primarily intended. But does that make it impermissible?" (Hamlet: Enter Critic, pg. 196).He considered his work to be "a legitimate experiment." I agree with him. Considering all that has been done to and with Hamlet, this production is respectful to the original while leaving its own stamp. As H.D.F. Kitto summarized it,
"Since [Olivier's] film was as far as possible from being a travesty made by barbarians for illiterates, but was a distinguished piece of work..." (Hamlet: Enter Critic, p. 147).
No comments:
Post a Comment