Hamlet Skewered

While perusing the DVD section at the local library, I noticed a Hamlet that I had not seen before.  This one was part of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 series.  I had seen advertisements for the episode on Amazon, but it was nothing on which I had thought to spend money.  Feeling adventuresome (and enjoying the free loan of a library), I decided to borrow the DVD and give it a view.

This version of Hamlet comes from a 1960 German TV production.  The title character is played by Maximilian Schell, in a starring turn contemporary with his Oscar-winning performance in Judgment at Nuremberg (which, ironically, I had watched the previous night).  None of the other actors were familiar to me.  The film was dubbed into English from its original German language.  Hamlet sounded very much like Schell himself, whom I knew to be bilingual (at least).  Claudius' dubbed voice was instantly recognizable as Ricardo Montalban, a fact confirmed by IMDb.

The film was advertised as dark and dreary, and it certainly fit that bill.  The set was very stark and minimal.  The costuming was very dark and traditional.  The acting was very stark and minimal.  The overall atmosphere definitely fits a Shakespearean tragedy, even if it is over-the-top depressing.

It's hard to tell how much of the original Shakespearean story is here.  According to IMDb, the film ran 152 minutes.  The MST3K version is 92 minutes, but that includes numerous interruptions.  I did note a few alterations.  The altercation between Hamlet and Ophelia occurred before the "To be or not to be" soliloquy, which was delivered in part while Hamlet lied prone on a staircase.  During the duel scene, it was made obvious that Osric is a part of the conspiracy against Hamlet.  The chalice was poisoned by addition of a tablet; the pearl itself was not poisoned.

Part of the charm of watching an MST3K film is supposed to be the running commentary.  In this case, I found the jokes to be lame and generally unfunny.  The commentators tried way too hard to poke fun at a Hamlet that probably could have drawn more laughs on its own.  There were only a couple of laugh out loud lines--"Trick or treat for nipples!" and "Hail Queen Dilbert's boss!"  Aside from those, I found the commentary to be increasingly distracting and annoying.  I ended up fast-forwarding through the extra segments in order to get back to Hamlet.

The series creators' purpose backfired here.  Instead of trashing the film for the sake of humor, it made me hope to find the film on video some day, maybe even in the original German and with subtitles.  (It seems to be unavailable, although audio versions are out there.)  I'm sure that it won't rate very near the top of film versions, but I would like to see it in its entirety, without the running commentary.  I'll keep an eye out for it.

Macbeth Mess

Following this summer's trip to Stratford, film versions of Macbeth jumped on the never ending to-view list.  I had seen Orson Welles' version on sale on the Stratford Festival gift shop.  I refrained, and when I saw a copy at the local public library, I decided to give it a shot.  I'm glad I saved my money.  I found the film to be a confused mess.

While the theatre release of the film was edited to 89 minutes, the Olive Films DVD release has restored the film to its intended running time of 107 minutes.  The presentation is lacking in any other extras, though; subtitles to help with the dialogue would have been a pleasant addition.

I don't have the film school background to discuss the technical aspects of the film.  They are treated well in the book, Studying Shakespeare on Film (see 11/9/2014 post).  In fact, there is an extended discussion of the film in the section of critical essays.

Had this film been a self-contained work, it actually might have been easier to follow.  Comparing it to the Shakespearean original is where the difficulty lies.  Spending one's time trying to ignore the juxtaposition of scenes, the creation of interactions, and the invention of characters leads the viewer astray here...or is it the film version itself that has gone awry?

For instance, Welles has created a character described as "a holy father."  The role is played by Alan Napier, better known to fans of 1960's TV as Alfred, butler at Wayne Manor, "stately home of Bruce Wayne and his youthful ward, Dick Grayson."  It was interesting to see him out of tuxedo and in braided pigtails; in fact, were it not for the instantly recognizable voice, I might not have known it was him.  The better question in this context, though, is "Who is he?"  Shakespeare's play did not have a "holy father."  Welles' character takes the place of an old man, a messenger, Ross, and maybe some other incidental roles.  One scene in which he leads the army in a religious service struck me as invented entirely by the director.

Other scenes were also Wellesian inventions.  Lady Macbeth at the home of Macduff's family prior to their slaughter?  Macbeth present at the slaughter of Macduff's family?  Macbeth discussing the health of a bedridden Lady Macbeth with her doctor at her bedside?  Husband and wife both present (in body at least) during the latter's sleepwalking scene, which was shifted to later in the action than it had appeared originally?  Lady Macbeth falling off a cliff to her death?  It was at this point, when Macbeth appeared wearing a tiara borrowed from the Statue of Liberty, that I gave up.  Having the weird sisters on screen to deliver the film's final line (from Act I of the play, no less) was a fitting close.  It was obvious that this was Orson Welles' Macbeth, not William Shakespeare's.

Welles' Macbeth pales in comparison to other versions I have seen.  This summer's live version at Stratford was far and away superior.  Its Wellesian predecessor was rather boring and not terribly believable.  Perhaps film students might be interested in its technical aspects, but this more-than-casual Shakespeare fan found it not so.  Viewing finished, I can check it off my list and move on.  As the weird holy man might say, "Amen."

"Shakespearean" Meltdown

The George Eastman Museum (GEM) has been hosting a series of Shakespearean films.  The latest offering I saw was the 1987 film King Lear, directed by Jean-Luc Godard.  The blurb promoting the work should have been the tip-off, when the word "plot" appeared in quotes.  I had to give it a shot, though.  I mean, how bad could it be?

One of the highlights of any GEM presentation is the introduction given by a member of the staff.  This one set the scene quite well.  We were told of the origination of the work, sponsored financially by Cannon Films, the cinematic powerhouse that was responsible for such "classics" (more air quotes) as Bloodsport and The Delta Force.  By the time the production on this work had concluded, even Menahem Goran, one of the producers (along with partner Yoram Globus), had distanced himself from it.  It was nice of him to give $2 million for this work.  Talk about a poor return on one's investment!

The film that followed had as much to do with Shakespeare as a fish has to do with a bicycle.  (At least the latter pair are both nouns.)  They shared perhaps one or two lines.  The "plot" centered on a post-Chernobyl descendant of William Shakespeare, William Shakespeare Junior the Fifth, trying to reconstruct his ancestor's work.  (It was amusing that this film referenced a major disaster repeatedly.)  Beyond that, though, it was indecipherable.  I could classify Godard's Lear as nothing more than a cinematic train wreck, but even a train wreck has a beginning, a middle, and an end.  This was just an awful, ninety-minute mess.  It's no wonder that the producer was not happy with the finished product.

While the acting was dreadful, with Mr. Godard's accented diction almost entirely incomprehensible (and why was he wearing A/V cables in his hair?), there were a couple of positives.  This fan of the classic Batman TV series did enjoy seeing Burgess Meredith, even if a Batman episode is considerably more plausible.  Also, what child of the 1980's could possibly complain about seeing Molly Ringwald on screen?  Certainly not this one!

"Devastatingly beautiful sketches of life and art..."  That's how this film was described, and I have to question that.  Readers, beware when you read something like that, or when the words "artistic" or "visionary" rear their ugly heads.  Those may be synonyms for "incoherent tripe," as they are with this film.  Stay away.  Stay far, far away.

Stratford SparkNotes (Parts I and II)

One of the other Shakespearean offerings in this year's Stratford Festival was actually not one of Shakespeare's plays, per se.  It was four of them condensed into two.  Breath of Kings, conceived and adapted by company member Graham Abbey, combined Richard II, Henry IV (Part I), Henry IV (Part II), and Henry V into two separate plays, each roughly two hours and forty-five minutes in length.  I was able to see the two plays on consecutive days, a perfect time frame for them.

The first part of Breath of Kings, subtitled Rebellion, encompassed Richard II and I Henry IV.  The play, performed at the Tom Patterson Theatre, was done in the round with minimal set.  In fact, there was no permanent set, only a stage covered with ground-up car tires to simulate wood chips.  Props were brought in and out as necessary, but much of the design was left to the imagination of the audience.  It was a stark contrast from the lavish Macbeth set at the Festival Theatre.  All told, though, I thought it worked quite well.  The cast did marvelously with very little, and the lack of a set did not detract from the play.  In fact, it helped considerably, as the cast members moved into the seating areas for the action.  I was seated on an aisle that was much traveled with actors moving in and out.

The second part of Breath of Kings, subtitled Redemption, continued the saga with II Henry IV and Henry V.  The set for this was even more minimal, with the rubber shavings removed.  The stage itself was designed with numerous removable panels, suitable for graves, battlements, and to display a battle field torn apart by war.  Actors again used the entire theatre, including seating areas.  At the end of the II Henry IV portion, Falstaff and his friends used one of the balcony areas to watch the newly-crowned Henry V parade past.  The four of them moved into the front row.  Falstaff commented, "These are our seats," and the four sat on the laps of the patrons.  That did not last long as the group headed to the stage to see Henry.  An intimate setting indeed!

The story is not for the casual observer.  Prior to seeing the play, I brushed up on plot synopses of the four source plays.  I am glad that I did!  On more than one occasion, I heard audience members complain of confusion.  (One member complained that the playbill did not provide her a synopsis.  I don't think I have ever seen a playbill that had one!)  Admittedly, it was tough to keep things straight, even with some familiarity of the plays.  There were many characters in the story.  The playbill provided a family tree, but many regal titles were similar.  Also, characters are called by multiple names--Hal, Harry, and Henry, for instance.  To add to the confusion, most of the cast were engaged in multiple roles, changing costumes many times over.  It's impressive that actors can do this so seemingly easily, a tribute to their talent.  Audience members certainly need to pay attention, however.

The acting was excellent!  The leads--Tom Rooney as Richard II, Graham Abbey as Henry IV, Araya Mengesha as Hal/Henry V, and Geraint Wyn Davies as Falstaff--were tremendous in their roles.  Being able to see the transitions of the Henrys from Prince to King helped to understand their characters.  The other members of the cast were equally good.  I was impressed with Sebastien Heins (Aumerle, Prince John, Mouldy, and Le Fer) and Johnathan Sousa (Hotspur and Prince Thomas), both making their Stratford debuts in multiple roles.  They have bright futures indeed.  These shows were successful, I believe, because of the efforts of cast members.

The story started off slowly in Rebellion.  I found the Richard II portion to drag a bit.  There is not much comedy to the story, and it was the one source play with which I was least familiar.  The I Henry IV portion was enjoyable and closed off the first production suitably, while enticing viewers to return for the second production.  Redemption started off enjoyably with II Henry IV and progressed to a rousing finish with Henry V.  The Henry V portion was interesting.  Shakespeare's narrator was kept in the play, providing a contrast to the previous three parts of the epic which were not narrated.  The Dauphin and Katherine were played by the same actress.  In fact, at one point she transitioned from one part to another by letting down her ponytail and removing her jacket to reveal a full-length gown.  Voila, she's her own sister!  (I can understand why audience members might be confused!)  This transition occurred before Act III, Scene iv, which followed entirely in untranslated French.  I picked up an occasional word, but I wonder how many audience members were bilingual.  The climax of the play was adrenaline-raising, and the denouement, introducing a young Henry VI playing with tin soldiers, set the scene for a future production (or a future DVD viewing).

Condensing these four Shakespearean plays into what amounts to one work is an interesting proposition.  While it may strike one as something akin to SparkNotes (which it is, to an extent), I believe that it does have validity in its own right.  It allows the audience members to see a complete story, to watch characters grow and mature, to see rulers and countries rise and fall.  It also has interested me to see the four plays, each on its own.  I gave The Hollow Crown a try once but never finished it.  Thanks to Breath of Kings, it's back on my to-do list.