Hamlet Quotables

Two of the Special Features accompanying Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet on DVD are a promotional video from the 1996 Cannes Film Festival and a featurette entitled To Be on Camera:  A History with Hamlet.  The former is a short introduction to the film.  The latter is less a history of film versions of Hamlet than it is a history of this particular film version.  It includes behind-the-scenes footage and interviews, some of which is repeated from the DVD film introduction.

Within both features are several quotes relating to Hamlet in general.  Some of them are collected below.

• "There's so many interpretations of what it could be...."  (Billy Crystal)
• "It is constantly fascinating.  It is constantly capable of rediscovery."  (Lord Richard Attenborough)
• "There is so much there."  (Kate Winslet)
• "You can play it in a million ways."  (Sir John Gielgud)
• "There will never ever be anything remotely like it."  (Richard Briers)
• The role of Hamlet is "a hoop through which every actor must sooner or later jump."  (Kenneth Branagh)

The Eternity Edition

A day of vacation coincided with a winter storm.  With no reason to venture outdoors, it became the perfect day to enjoy "The Eternity Edition" of Hamlet.  At least, that's how Kenneth Branagh described his version in the DVD introduction.  This was only the second time I had seen the full film, the first being shortly after its VHS release.  (That gives the reader an idea of how long ago that was!)

Branagh proudly relates what sets his production apart from others.  It includes the entire text of Shakespeare's work.  Never mind that the play likely was never performed that way on stage.  On film, it can (and does) work.  In a home video presentation, it's even better.  The viewer can take breaks when necessary, and the film itself is presented in two parts (to switch from one disc to another).

While the length of the film (four hours) may be intimidating, hearing the entire text is a novel treat.  For as many times as I have seen Hamlet, I found myself hearing lines that were completely unfamiliar (a hobbyhorse?).  It became apparent which lines directors typically will delete.  It's a shame, because it really does add considerable depth to hear everything.

Even with all of Shakespeare's text included, I did notice a couple of obvious alterations.  "Your" philosophy became "our" philosophy; not a major change.  There was a placement issue with several soliloquies.  Hamlet's "witching time" soliloquy was moved to preface Claudius' soliloquy directly, and then Hamlet's "Now might I do it" speech fell in its usual place.  It was a lot of speechifying in a row.  Any other changes to the text that might have been there were not blatant.

Branagh's cast was worthy of considerable name-dropping.  As he described, if he was going to do this film once, he was going to do it up on a large scale.  The set and cinematography were incredibly lavish.  It was obvious that Branagh spared no expense.  The interior set, with the black and white tile floor and hall of mirrors, was gorgeous, and shooting it in 70mm allowed for a great visual field.  Blenheim Palace made for a great exterior presentation, even if it is an English palace and not a Danish one.  Costumes, late 19th century vintage, were also very lavish, with special note for the impeccable military dress.

The action of the film did provide some contrasts to Shakespeare's original.  When Hamlet's love letter to the beautified Ophelia is presented to Claudius and Gertrude, it is read by its recipient, not her father.  The nunnery scene, particularly well done, included a noise which tipped Hamlet that Claudius and Polonius were spying on him.  An added scene in which an hysterical Ophelia sees her father's body helped to flesh out her attachment to him, often left lacking.  Ophelia's madness scene included a straitjacket and a hose bath, more indicative of an updated time period than Shakespeare's original.  She presented all of her flowers to Laertes, more illustrative of a complete break with reality than if she had moved from Laertes to Gertrude and Claudius.

"The Mousetrap" was well staged, and the dumb show made sense.  I was reminded of J. Dover Wilson's discussion of the scene.  How it is that Claudius can miss the dumb show and not object until the second portrayal of his murderous act?  The issue was addressed here very nicely.  He was too busy eating and cooing with Gertrude to notice.  Plus, the dumb show was just a brief flicker, so short that his ignoring it is entirely plausible.

For all of the positives of this film, there was one particular flop--the "How all occasions" soliloquy.  It is far too obvious that Hamlet was standing in front of a green screen with the background added later.  The entire speech is delivered in a yelling tone of voice.  The idea may be that Hamlet is trying to be heard over the Norwegian troops in the background, but it diminishes any emotion.  In addition, the speech is delivered while the camera is pulled back and the musical score picks up.  If a soliloquy is supposed to be a light into the mind of the character, how does one get that when the character is being removed from view?  By the time the scene ends, Hamlet is little more than a speck on the screen.  Then the film cuts to the intermission.  As a buildup to a bathroom break, I suppose it works.  As a vital part of the play, though, it failed.

The duel scene was a typical fencing match, set amidst an atypical violent takeover of the palace by the Norwegian army.  It would have been nice to see a full-fledged sword fight, but at least the scene had been set previously with numerous shots of fencing practice.  Osric may have been in on the plot.  The Lord definitely was.  He helped Laertes to unbate and to poison his sword.  Laertes took a spill from the upper balcony (ouch), and Claudius was run through with a sword thrown javelin-like by Hamlet.  Claudius also was hit by the chandelier as Hamlet used it to swing down from the balcony.  The film ended with Fortinbras on the throne, Hamlet in a casket, and a statue of the former King Hamlet in pieces.

"The Eternity Edition," in its monolithic glory, was over.  The DVD does include a few special features, which may merit future postings.  There is one feature, though, that may have to wait for some time.  There is a commentary to the film; four hours of Kenneth Branagh and Shakespearean scholar Russell Jackson talking over the film.  That one, which might actually feel like eternity, will have to wait for another day off and another snow storm.

Muir on Hamlet

Sauntering into Barnes & Noble with a gift card is a dangerous thing.  I knew already the book that I wanted, but it never hurts to have a look around the place, especially the used book section.  This particular trip ended with a second purchase, a 1963 study written by Kenneth Muir and entitled Shakespeare:  Hamlet.  It is the thirteenth volume of a larger series, Studies in English Literature.  For a used copy, it was in great shape.  At a mere 61 pages, I knew it would be a quick read.  At a mere $3.00, it didn't break my bank.  (The original price tag from Edward Arnold Publishers in the U.K., still attached, listed the price as 1 pound 95.  I guess it's an import!)

The purpose of the particular work and the series is to provide "aids to reflection."  The assumption is that one has already read Hamlet carefully.  This work, then, can avoid having to retell the tale and instead can move directly to discussing it.  Its brevity notwithstanding, this work does indeed pack a good, helpful discussion into its few pages.

Muir opens with an introduction recapping the historical development of the text through quartos and folio.  He also recounts several different interpretations of Hamlet.  He agrees with C.S. Lewis, who commented that critics tend to describe not Hamlet, but "themselves or their own pet theories."  Thus, Coleridge ascribes his own weaknesses to Hamlet.  Pacifists see Hamlet as a pacifist, Freudians use him to diagnose a complex.  Even Lewis is not immune, though, as he looks at Hamlet from the view of an amateur theologian.

Muir questions objective attempts to discuss Hamlet.  Uses of the imagery in the text itself can be equally problematic.  For instance, one might pick a particular theme, such as Caroline Spurgeon's discussion of sickness imagery.  Care must be taken to include all references within the play, even those that may disagree with the theory.  Simply ignoring evidence is not valid.  In addition, the imagery cannot be taken out of the context of the overall work.  Hamlet is a much more complex play than one isolated set of images would suggest.

The bulk of Muir's work is a discussion of the relationships and interactions in the play.  He takes the play out of sequence, which actually works quite nicely.  In this manner, he can address each relationship and interaction in whole rather than interrupted by other relationships.  This style allows the reader to follow the discussion clearly.  While breaking the order might be confusing to one who is unfamiliar with the play, considering the fundamental assumption upon which the book operates, it is entirely appropriate here.

Hamlet's interactions with the Ghost, Ophelia, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, and the players are described in turn.  A discussion of the "To be or not to be" soliloquy provides an interesting thought.  Usual theories of the speech relating to suicide tend to take the speech out of its context.  Muir contends that the speech really is Hamlet weighing whether or not to kill Claudius pending the outcome of "The Mousetrap."  He makes a good case for it.  Following it is a discussion of the chapel scene, when Hamlet chooses not to kill Claudius, even though he has the opportunity.

A treatment of Polonius and the chamber scene is next.  Muir asserts that "[until] this scene Gertrude seems to be unaware that she has done anything wrong."  I don't really buy that Gertrude was a naive innocent.  Later, Muir agrees with other critics who believe that the Ghost is invisible to Gertrude "because she has betrayed him."  She's betrayed him, yet she's unaware that she has done so?  That doesn't seem to follow.

The remaining sections include Hamlet's relationships with Fortinbras, Horatio, and Laertes.  Osric garners a mention, although his purpose is described as practical; he is there to allow stagehands to close the stage trap that was Ophelia's grave.

Muir concludes with general thoughts under the title, "The Heart of the Mystery."  He reminds the audience that Hamlet is "neither a novel nor a psychological case-book, but a play...."  It was intended as a script, not a book "for reading or close analysis."  Perhaps that is why Muir keeps his discussion so pithy.  People sitting at a play do not have the voluminous interpretative issues of critics, and maybe they shouldn't.  Maybe it would be more worthwhile for people to enjoy the work for what it is--a piece of drama--and quit trying to put more into it than perhaps was intended by the playwright.  Ultimately, "Hamlet is a character of extraordinary complexity, and...no simple formula will serve to pluck out the heart of his mystery."

Conversing with Plummer

A supplement to the DVD release of Hamlet at Elsinore is a conversation between the star, Christopher Plummer, and NPR critic David Edelstein.  The chat took place in 2011 as part of the Sarasota Film Festival.  Although it put me to sleep (literally) on my first attempt, I did give it a second try.  While it is not the most interesting conversation I've ever heard, some of the discussion surrounding Hamlet is worth sharing.

According to Christopher Plummer, anger and rage propel a good acting career.  As he puts it, an actor has "to know how to blaze."  He claims to have tried this consciously with his portrayal of Hamlet.  Hamlet may be a gentle, introspective, intellectual, philosophical young prince, but he also has to blaze.  Plummer adds that it was also a conscious decision on his part to be out of joint with the other actors, using different speech register and behavior.  David Edelstein calls Plummer's Hamlet the "most frightening" Hamlet that he had ever seen.  The comment is meant as a compliment, even if this author may have found the production frightening for other reasons.  Later, Edelstein calls Plummer's performance the "best at conveying thought and self consciousness."  Um, sure.  To each his own.

One of the advertised draws of the production is the use of Elsinore as the setting.  Plummer was not sold on this, though.  He found it to be too rigid and formal, and it made him uncomfortable.  In his opinion, a castle in Jutland, with waves crashing against the base of the structure, would have been more suitable.

Much of the rest of the conversation as it pertained to Hamlet included name-dropping and excessive superlatives.  Ernest Milton, a German actor named Fector, Edmund Kean, Jean Louis Barrault, and John Barrymore all garner mentions for their previous portrayals of Hamlet.  From this production, Michael Caine is the "sweetest, most loyal doting Horatio."  Plummer declared Robert Shaw to be the "best king I've ever seen," and the most competitive and most loyal actor.  Alec Clunes, who portrayed Polonius, was "one of the best Shakespearean actors there ever was."  After a while, I was beginning to wonder if there were any second-rate actors out there and if either of the gentlemen had actually watched the DVD release of this performance!

The rest of the conversation dwelt upon Plummer's life and career.  It really was not much beyond bland anecdotes and hero-worship, which is perhaps part of the reason that it put me out so quickly on the first pass.  One line from Christopher Plummer, though, does summarize very nicely why so many people, author included, continue to enjoy Hamlet.

"What an exciting part!  No other part like it in the world."