Mel Gibson's Hamlet
Jul. 24th, 2009 11:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elabySo we finally (re)watched the Franco Zeffirelli Hamlet with Mel Gibson.
The first thing you ought to know when reading this review-thingy is that I kind of worship Kenneth Branagh's version. I don't think it's possible, on the whole, to do Hamlet better than they did in that movie. I try to stay away from negativity in my fandomy things as much as I can, because I far more enjoy squee than "grr arg that sucked". However, while this had it's good parts (read: Ophelia), it either left out or misinterpreted just about everything I think Hamlet should be about.
This movie was just not acted or directed the way I like it. The way I like it is subtle, and that's why I like Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet so much. An example for contrast is this:
In the Zeffirelli Hamlet, reacting to the play-within-a-play scene, Claudius jumps up and laughs hysterically and stumbles about in shock and screams for lights and eventually lurches off.
In the Branagh version, Claudius stands up ramrod-straight in a seated crowd and says, quietly, "Give me some light."
That's what I mean about the Zeffirelli version - everything was very loud, exaggerated, over the top. And this sort of fit with the setting, since they went with medieval Denmark (which I thought was awesome, by the way - that was probably my favorite part of this, but I'll come back to that) but it wasn't the kind of acting or directing that's my personal cup of tea. That's one of the problems I run into with productions of Hamlet - the things I'm interested in aren't necessarily what directors are going to focus on. That's because the things I'm into = mostly Horatio and Laertes and how Hamlet acts around both of them. Anyway, this will be easier if I go by character:
Hamlet: Mel Gibson was not bad as Hamlet. His Hamlet was a little too goggle-eyed and out of control for me, and that whole galavanting-around-the-fencing-floor at the end really made me think "WTF are you doing?!" But he had the right amount of conflictedness and, I felt, reacted appropriately to the shambles his life had become after his father's death. He also did a good job of portraying what he meant by the dialogue, even if someone watching might not understand the words. There's not a lot more I can say about his performance, except that he did the faux-madness parts well, and when the script called for humor, he pulled that off too. However, I think he also tried to be funny at parts I wouldn't have wanted him to be.
Claudius: Eh. Like the rest of this movie, Claudius was too overdone for me. He didn't particularly annoy me with his performance most of the time, but I was never impressed, and I kept missing Derek Jacobi.
Gertrude: Okay, now, this Gertrude was interesting. Putting aside the Hamlet-and-his-mom-secretly-want-to-snog-each-other-silly thing (which I really, really can't get behind, but that's for another post that I'm not writing at 11:00 at night), Glen Close's performance was very good. In contrast to Julie Christie's Gertrude, Glen Close's was emotional, girlish, frightened. She spun around excitedly with her ladies-in-waiting when she was preparing for her marriage to Claudius. She seemed genuinely afraid of just about everybody, Ophelia included, after the pay-no-attention-to-the-Polonius-behind-the-curtain incident. I'm interested in Gertrude and in all the ways she can be played, so I liked watching Glen Close's take on the character.
Polonius: Ian Holm generally rocks, and he did a pretty good job, but when I watched him I kept thinking "This is like watching somebody read the lines when they don't know what they're actually saying." Which isn't to say that I don't think he knew; I'm sure he did, seasoned actor that he is. It just didn't come across, unfortunately.
Ophelia: I really liked Helena Bonham-Carter's interpretation of Ophelia. GOD, she was so young. According to Wikipedia she would have been 24 at the time of filming, but she seriously looked like she was 14. She did it with her face, and her hands, and the way she walked and moved and everything, and it was brilliant. It made the character much sadder, being that young and having all that crap happen to her. She just didn't know what hit her. Her craziness was also very convincing, although her death was terribly rushed. She also did this fantastic thing with the "and here's rue for you" scene - she had little bones and bundles of straw. She didn't put emphasis on the double-meanings of her songs and ramblings like Kate Winslet does, but she was still very good. I think Ophelia would be hard to play, too.
Horatio: *sigh* Horatio was just kind of there, really. He and Hamlet showed absolutely no affinity (I would use the term "chemistry" were I in a slashy mood) and there was nothing to show that they were more than acquaintances. This upsets me because I really think Horatio is the only one Hamlet trusts, the only one he has, in the whole world. This Horatio didn't even come over to him when he was staggering around dying at the end - only when he fell did Horatio do anything, and there was no attempt to drink the poison too. There was no worry or loyalty or support. I only really felt for him when he had to chase Ophelia around because nobody else was willing to deal with her.
Laertes: *sigh the second* Laertes's actor reminded me of a young Keanu Reeves, in all the bad ways. He spent most of the movie looking perpetually surprised. They cut a lot of his lines, so the actor didn't have much to work with, but what he did was not spectacular. And as I loves Laertes, this made me sad. Lord, the graveside scene was AWFUL. Laertes just kind of puts his hands on Hamlet's neck when he was supposed to be strangling him - there's no force behind it whatsoever. He doesn't even push him backwards.
Uhhh, who else is there? Oh, yeah, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The guy who played Rosencrantz plays Laertes in the Branagh version, funnily enough, so I just kept hearing his voice and going "!!!" They were good, as Roseys and Guildeys go, but again they were nothing spectacular. I don't think they get to be spectacular unless they're in their own play :3
Am I forgetting anyone? The gravedigger was fine, but he got all of three lines. He did stand out a little, though, which was good. The thing that I liked the most, I think, besides Ophelia, was the scenery. The whole thing was shot in a castle, a huge, rambling, stony, crenelated castle that seemed very cold and drafty and authentic. I could imagine an entire small community living there and sustaining itself pretty much within it. The costumes (and the women's hair especially) were really cool, very 1300's Scandinavia, with the long long braids and the trailing sleeves and the furs and head-wrappings and such. The outside scenery was also gorgeous - there were massive rolling hills that reminded me of The Princess Bride, and the coast was dotted with islands. The outside shots were apparently filmed mostly in Scotland, which shouldn't be surprising, beautiful as they were.
I desperately need the DVD of Branagh's Hamlet, because I so wanted to go watch the scenes I most missed when watching this version and it would take forever to do so with my VHS tapes.
And with that, I think it's time for bed!
The first thing you ought to know when reading this review-thingy is that I kind of worship Kenneth Branagh's version. I don't think it's possible, on the whole, to do Hamlet better than they did in that movie. I try to stay away from negativity in my fandomy things as much as I can, because I far more enjoy squee than "grr arg that sucked". However, while this had it's good parts (read: Ophelia), it either left out or misinterpreted just about everything I think Hamlet should be about.
This movie was just not acted or directed the way I like it. The way I like it is subtle, and that's why I like Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet so much. An example for contrast is this:
In the Zeffirelli Hamlet, reacting to the play-within-a-play scene, Claudius jumps up and laughs hysterically and stumbles about in shock and screams for lights and eventually lurches off.
In the Branagh version, Claudius stands up ramrod-straight in a seated crowd and says, quietly, "Give me some light."
That's what I mean about the Zeffirelli version - everything was very loud, exaggerated, over the top. And this sort of fit with the setting, since they went with medieval Denmark (which I thought was awesome, by the way - that was probably my favorite part of this, but I'll come back to that) but it wasn't the kind of acting or directing that's my personal cup of tea. That's one of the problems I run into with productions of Hamlet - the things I'm interested in aren't necessarily what directors are going to focus on. That's because the things I'm into = mostly Horatio and Laertes and how Hamlet acts around both of them. Anyway, this will be easier if I go by character:
Hamlet: Mel Gibson was not bad as Hamlet. His Hamlet was a little too goggle-eyed and out of control for me, and that whole galavanting-around-the-fencing-floor at the end really made me think "WTF are you doing?!" But he had the right amount of conflictedness and, I felt, reacted appropriately to the shambles his life had become after his father's death. He also did a good job of portraying what he meant by the dialogue, even if someone watching might not understand the words. There's not a lot more I can say about his performance, except that he did the faux-madness parts well, and when the script called for humor, he pulled that off too. However, I think he also tried to be funny at parts I wouldn't have wanted him to be.
Claudius: Eh. Like the rest of this movie, Claudius was too overdone for me. He didn't particularly annoy me with his performance most of the time, but I was never impressed, and I kept missing Derek Jacobi.
Gertrude: Okay, now, this Gertrude was interesting. Putting aside the Hamlet-and-his-mom-secretly-want-to-snog-each-other-silly thing (which I really, really can't get behind, but that's for another post that I'm not writing at 11:00 at night), Glen Close's performance was very good. In contrast to Julie Christie's Gertrude, Glen Close's was emotional, girlish, frightened. She spun around excitedly with her ladies-in-waiting when she was preparing for her marriage to Claudius. She seemed genuinely afraid of just about everybody, Ophelia included, after the pay-no-attention-to-the-Polonius-behind-the-curtain incident. I'm interested in Gertrude and in all the ways she can be played, so I liked watching Glen Close's take on the character.
Polonius: Ian Holm generally rocks, and he did a pretty good job, but when I watched him I kept thinking "This is like watching somebody read the lines when they don't know what they're actually saying." Which isn't to say that I don't think he knew; I'm sure he did, seasoned actor that he is. It just didn't come across, unfortunately.
Ophelia: I really liked Helena Bonham-Carter's interpretation of Ophelia. GOD, she was so young. According to Wikipedia she would have been 24 at the time of filming, but she seriously looked like she was 14. She did it with her face, and her hands, and the way she walked and moved and everything, and it was brilliant. It made the character much sadder, being that young and having all that crap happen to her. She just didn't know what hit her. Her craziness was also very convincing, although her death was terribly rushed. She also did this fantastic thing with the "and here's rue for you" scene - she had little bones and bundles of straw. She didn't put emphasis on the double-meanings of her songs and ramblings like Kate Winslet does, but she was still very good. I think Ophelia would be hard to play, too.
Horatio: *sigh* Horatio was just kind of there, really. He and Hamlet showed absolutely no affinity (I would use the term "chemistry" were I in a slashy mood) and there was nothing to show that they were more than acquaintances. This upsets me because I really think Horatio is the only one Hamlet trusts, the only one he has, in the whole world. This Horatio didn't even come over to him when he was staggering around dying at the end - only when he fell did Horatio do anything, and there was no attempt to drink the poison too. There was no worry or loyalty or support. I only really felt for him when he had to chase Ophelia around because nobody else was willing to deal with her.
Laertes: *sigh the second* Laertes's actor reminded me of a young Keanu Reeves, in all the bad ways. He spent most of the movie looking perpetually surprised. They cut a lot of his lines, so the actor didn't have much to work with, but what he did was not spectacular. And as I loves Laertes, this made me sad. Lord, the graveside scene was AWFUL. Laertes just kind of puts his hands on Hamlet's neck when he was supposed to be strangling him - there's no force behind it whatsoever. He doesn't even push him backwards.
Uhhh, who else is there? Oh, yeah, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The guy who played Rosencrantz plays Laertes in the Branagh version, funnily enough, so I just kept hearing his voice and going "!!!" They were good, as Roseys and Guildeys go, but again they were nothing spectacular. I don't think they get to be spectacular unless they're in their own play :3
Am I forgetting anyone? The gravedigger was fine, but he got all of three lines. He did stand out a little, though, which was good. The thing that I liked the most, I think, besides Ophelia, was the scenery. The whole thing was shot in a castle, a huge, rambling, stony, crenelated castle that seemed very cold and drafty and authentic. I could imagine an entire small community living there and sustaining itself pretty much within it. The costumes (and the women's hair especially) were really cool, very 1300's Scandinavia, with the long long braids and the trailing sleeves and the furs and head-wrappings and such. The outside scenery was also gorgeous - there were massive rolling hills that reminded me of The Princess Bride, and the coast was dotted with islands. The outside shots were apparently filmed mostly in Scotland, which shouldn't be surprising, beautiful as they were.
I desperately need the DVD of Branagh's Hamlet, because I so wanted to go watch the scenes I most missed when watching this version and it would take forever to do so with my VHS tapes.
And with that, I think it's time for bed!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 03:24 pm (UTC)Having seen Derek Jacobi's Claudius, I think none other will ever compare. But then, I'm an utter sucker for Derek Jacobi. In fact, I'm overdue for my yearly re-watch of "I, Claudius"! *scrabbles off to watch her some convoluted that-era-when-the-BBC-had-no-budget Ancient Roman goodness*
This was thought-provoking and tons of fun, as your reviews always are!
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 09:01 pm (UTC)scrabbles off to watch her some convoluted that-era-when-the-BBC-had-no-budget Ancient Roman goodness
Am I a giant dork that I know exactly what era you mean? XD I need to see "I, Claudius". I actually haven't seen Derek Jacobi in much... he was in an episode of Doctor Who I saw recently, and he was amazing. But I did see a BBC version of Titus Andronicus from that era.
Horatio love! Yay!
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 09:13 pm (UTC)Is was their Titus Andronicus good? That's one of the not-that-many Shakespeare plays I've neither read nor seen, and I'd love to see it, though the whole raping and loping off of body parts and baking people in pies thing makes me perhaps less running-off-to-watch than I would otherwise be...
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 09:22 pm (UTC)I love characters like that too. I really should see this :) Roman television shows FTW!
Their Titus Andronicus almost put me to sleep. But then again I'm a fan of Julie Taymor's Titus, which has Anthony Hopkins as the title character and is probably the craziest, most psychedelic Shakespeare-derivative there ever was. It's like ancient Rome collided with a goth night club in Mussolini's Italy. It is very violent, and disturbing in all kinds of ways, but the music is incredible and the acting is brilliant and Alan Cumming as Saturninus kind of wins at life, so I'd definitely recommend it. It's harsh, but it has a hopeful ending where the original play kind of doesn't. The rape scene is done with symbolism instead of any actual images of rape, and there are a lot of really really weird parts, but I do love it. Titus Andronicus is my favorite unpopular Shakespeare play XD
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 02:15 pm (UTC)Now if only the rest of the internetz understood that ...
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 10:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 07:23 pm (UTC)I've never seen it to be honest, but I can't say I'm in much of a hurry to see it. Mel Gibson is on my 'DO NOT WANT' list so I tend to avoid everything with him in.
I'm interested in Gertrude and in all the ways she can be played
So am I! So many interpretations to be had there. Does she genuinely care for Claudius? Does she marry him for security after the untimely death of her husband, or is she more scheming than that and was in on the whole thing? I've had so many nerdy debates about Gertrude lol.
I also don't subscribe to the whole Oedipus complex thing, but then I don't really agree with Freud about much on the whole anyway.
The guy who played Rosencrantz plays Laertes in the Branagh version
Michael Maloney! I kinda love him.
Laertes's actor reminded me of a young Keanu Reeves, in all the bad ways
Was that Nathanial Parker? If it was then I understand what you mean. He's one of those actors that lots of people rave about but I can never quite see the big deal. *shrugs* You can't please everyone.
*sigh* I love Hamlet, I wish I'd managed to get tickets to the RSC production that David Tennant was in.
I also love your icon
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 09:14 pm (UTC)I love the fact that you call that bitching.
Hehe :3 I would hate to make someone feel bad who liked it, but I just really didn't think it did a good job with the material.
Mel Gibson is on my 'DO NOT WANT' list so I tend to avoid everything with him in.
I knoooww, he's scary o_o I liked Braveheart, but I never particularly liked him or disliked him as an actor. As a person I think he's kind of terrifying.
Does she genuinely care for Claudius? Does she marry him for security after the untimely death of her husband, or is she more scheming than that and was in on the whole thing?
Yes! It's so hard to tell! And she's portrayed so many different ways. Julie Christie's Gertrude is very in-control and cold, even though she doesn't really affect much in the story. She tells Laertes that Ophelia is dead in the most noncommittal way O_o
I also don't subscribe to the whole Oedipus complex thing, but then I don't really agree with Freud about much on the whole anyway.
The only paper I wrote in grad school that pleased my Lit Theory professor was about Freud's Hamlet theories, and I can't remember exactly what they were, but I do remember that his theory didn't actually mean Hamlet literally wanted to have sex with Gertrude... I just can't remember what the theory DID mean. And I remember thinking that he'd misinterpreted whatever detail of the text he based his whole theory on, eh heh.
Michael Maloney! I kinda love him.
Yes! Me too. I've only seen him play Laertes, but he's half of the reason I'm such a huge Laertes fangirl.
That was Nathanial Parker! I haven't seen him in anything else either. And oh my gosh, the David Tennant version must have been blindingly awesome. I've also heard that Jude Law did it recently and it was very good too.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 10:52 pm (UTC)And your icon in this post is something else! Did you make it yourself?
Cheers,
Cat
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:22 pm (UTC)I'm glad you liked the review. I would recommend Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet to anybody in a heartbeat :) It's my favorite filmed version of a Shakespeare play. I <3 Hamlet so very much!
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 11:26 pm (UTC)Cheers,
Cat