Zombie Hamlet

There are certain things one would consider buying only when there is a gift card involved.  (Thanks, Kathy!)  That was the case with this post.  With money to kill at Amazon, I searched through the DVD section for Hamlet.  What surfaced--way down the list--was a relatively recent something called Zombie Hamlet.  With free money in hand, I figured it had to be worth a shot.  Surprisingly, it turned out to be a lot of fun!

The film is less an adaptation of Hamlet than a film about someone making a (very loose) film adaptation of Hamlet.  It follows the latest venture from director Osric Taylor.  The title:  Hamlet, Son of Richmond.  It's a version of Hamlet set during the Civil War.  Aside:  As a Civil War buff, this combination of Hamlet and the Confederacy grabbed me immediately.  Seriously, I think it actually has potential....

The film hits obstacles from the outset.  The budget is reduced significantly.  While scouting locations in Louisiana, all financial backing is pulled.  A reclusive author and owner of the plantation that becomes the film set offers to pay for the film.  There's a catch.  Osric has to add zombies.  They're hot in the current film-making climate, after all.  When Osric objects, the Louisiana District Attorney responds, "Who'd even pay to see a movie about Shakespeare?"  The zombies stay and suddenly it's Hamlet meets Ken Burns meets The Walking Dead, starring the second worst actor who could be cast in a Shakespearean role (right behind Hulk Hogan).  Then the financier dies.  What to do?  It must be seen to be believed.

What follows is a story of bodies alive, dead and undead; carnal, bloody and unnatural acts; and voodoo loan sharks.  This is no highbrow movie by any stretch.  It is an entertaining ninety-minute diversion, though.  The casual slaughter of Shakespeare's masterpiece ("To not to be or to not not to be...") is good for plenty of laughs.  In the end, even the mindlessness of social media and viral video plays a part.  As the curtain falls, Osric is off to his next several projects, including Romeo and Ghoul-iet.  (Yes, really.)  If that's not enough, the worst actor who could be cast in a Shakespearean role gets his chance as Vampire Macbeth.  To quote that Martin Sheen classic, Acapulco Now, "The horror, the horror!"

Dreyfuss Dialogues

The final interview among the Special Features included in the DVD release of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead was with Richard Dreyfuss, the Player King.  As with this post, it began quickly, with the moderator wasting no time in asking what Dreyfuss thought the play was about.  The actor was at a loss.  First, he compared it to a scene from The Honeymooners, when Ralph doesn't think that question will ever be asked.  Then Dreyfuss quoted comedian Buddy Hackett, "It all depend how you look at it."  Next he answered that the play represents the experience of Hamlet all turned around.  Ultimately, though, he admitted that the play is beyond his own intellectual capabilities to understand it.

The next question, "What drew you to the film?" was a bit safer.  Dreyfuss replied that he took the part because it was a role from Tom Stoppard.  Later, Dreyfuss called working with Tom Stoppard intimidating.  For a first-time film director, Stoppard was very certain of everything, very quietly sure.  Another reason Dreyfuss took the role was that it was a role he never believed he would be asked to play.  He went on to say that he did not really prepare for the role.  If anything, he went to Donald Wolfit.  I had to look up that reference.  Wolfit was a British actor of stage and film who played King Lear, among many roles.

The interviewer drew a parallel between Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead and Groundhog Day, the 1993 film in which Bill Murray is forced to relive February 2.  He asked Dreyfuss if the characters having to relive Hamlet is what makes the Player so world-weary.  Dreyfuss agreed in part, stating that the Player does know more than the others.  This helps to inform the sense of irony in the play.  Dreyfuss suggested a revision to the film.  He would have liked to see it end exactly where it began, in order to play up the cyclical sense of the action.  Perhaps, though, this was only because admittedly he didn't understand the play in total, but only moment by moment.

Dreyfuss commented repeatedly how much he enjoyed his role.  He loved the Player doing Priam standing on a table.  He called it thrilling and another way of acting different from what he had done.  He was not intimidated by it, though.  In fact, he regretted not doing more Shakespeare in his career.  Dreyfuss discussed later a brief two-and-a-half week stint directing Hamlet.  He discounted his effort as becoming the director that he hated, with line readings and posed action.

For an actor who repeated that he did not understand the play, Dreyfuss posed a very interesting observation about R & G and Hamlet.  He called the former a fulfillment of his own idea about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  He believes that they are not slimebags but rather pigeons or "schmoos," trapped in an accident of fate.  When they arrive at Elsinore, the first person they meet is Claudius.  It is he who tells them that Hamlet is mad.  He's the King of Denmark, so he must know what he's talking about.  This initial conversation colors their later perceptions of Hamlet.  What would have happened if they had not met Claudius first?

When asked to name his favorite role, Dreyfuss replied, "Hamlet."  (The interviewer meant one of Dreyfuss's own film roles.)  When asked what part he yearns to play, Dreyfuss's answer was the same:  "Hamlet."  He didn't know why he never took the role.  He did say that he would like to produce Hamlet for radio.  (I don't know if that ever happened.  I found that he did direct a stage version in 1994 at the Old Repertory Theatre in Birmingham.)

Dreyfuss's admiration for Hamlet is evident.  He admitted that there are probably six or eight guys who love the play more than he does.  He stated that he finds greatness, mystery, wackiness in every line.  If he were on a desert island, Hamlet would be the play he would take with him.  I agree with him on that one and on a comment toward the end of the discussion that could be my new philosophy.

"If I could just wake up and go to Barnes & Noble and go home and read my books, I would be fine."

Who wouldn't?  Indeed, who wouldn't?

Stratford Preview

Because it's never too early to begin planning for summer vacation...

Stratford has announced their 2016 season.  This season's trip to see Hamlet may have started an annual tradition!  There are several items of interest, including a Scottish headliner.  Check the link here for the full lineup.

Roth Riffs

Tim Roth's interview was the third one I viewed in the Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead DVD set.  (See 7/5/15 post.)  While it was not restricted solely to the film and wandered into Roth's career, the R&G tidbits were certainly interesting enough.

Roth opens with the story of how he got the role of Guildenstern.  He met with Tom Stoppard and Gary Oldman.  Roth and Oldman had worked together previously (which could be why they seemed to get on so well together in R&G).  Roth refused to read for the part, an example of a general practice for him.  (Apparently Oldman would not read for his part either.)  Things went well in the meeting, but Stoppard was not sold on Roth.  It was between Roth and Daniel Day-Lewis, who was playing Hamlet at the National Theatre in London.  On the night that Stoppard went to see Day-Lewis perform, the actor had a nervous breakdown during the performance.  In the first scene, when the Ghost appeared, Day-Lewis saw the ghost of his own father.  Day-Lewis had to take care of the personal issues, so he became unavailable for the role of Guildenstern.  Roth got the part.

Roth is asked why it is that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are confused by the other characters.  He attributes this as a device created by Stoppard.  He denies the assumption that this practice can be traced back to Shakespeare's time.  In R&G, perhaps it's because they have complicated names.  Maybe it is due also to the relative lack of concern accorded them by the other characters.  In this work, Roth considers them to be two sides of the same coin.

Roth relates his thoughts on the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  He thinks that the end for them is not quite the end.  They won't get to die, but they'll be trapped in reliving the play, trying to figure things out and to get it right.

Near the end of the interview, Roth tells the interviewer that he might like to do more Shakespeare.  In fact, he and Oldman inquired about recreating their roles in Franco Zeffirelli's Hamlet starring Mel Gibson, complete with the same costumes.  They were not hired.  Considering the sloppy manner in which the roles were handled in that film, perhaps it was a blessing in disguise.