Hamlet (1948)

Any film based on Shakespeare is worth seeing because the scaffolding is so rich that even a failure is interesting. And in the case of Hamlets, we have several to compare. Here we have the celebrated Olivier Hamlet, much celebrated.

I see a few very strong elements with some blots, and I suppose these have both become amplified with the passage of 50 years.

First, the blots:

-- Every actor but Olivier is of lesser caliber. I suspect that some of this is what he had to work with, and some apparent clumsiness results from the then standard rendering of the Bard's works as speechifying.

-- The women, especially Ophelia are dreadful, absolutely dreadful -- Ophelia's only present because she screwed the boss.

-- The score was so heavy, so dated and so hard to ignore it almost made me turn away, regardless of the balancing strengths.

-- Hamlet's text presents problems. The best choice in my opinion is to keep it all as Branagh has. But the standard wisdom is that audiences won't sit through 4 hours, no matter how engaging. Then, the question is what to cut. One often keeps the well-known speeches and cuts into the plot about ideas. So here we lose Fortinbras, Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern, together with some rather lovely related language and notions. Too bad because there is a development in the logic of metaphor in the later, longer version of the play, and this is totally lost here.

-- Olivier insists on including the notion of Oedipus and Gertrude, absolutely not supported by the text, and only inferred if you don't understand that Hamlet's initial distress is because his succession has been interrupted (not that his access to his Mother has been interrupted).

-- Worse, Olivier not only believes Hamlet is a 'man that couldn't make up his mind' but tells us so at the beginning! Does he not get it? Does he not understand the complexities of reason? This is not a play about doubt, but about reasoning.

Now the gems:

-- Even though Olivier gets the character wrong, and has cut some good lines, he has a natural talent for living well in the language. Even though he's coming from the wrong place, and overly postures, his rendering of the lines comes from a rare genius. Worth experiencing, despite the surrounding distractions.

-- The costumes are too lush for my tastes, but they fit the set. And my, what a set it is. Except for the cheesy painted sky, this castle is pretty wonderful: lots of colonnaded corridors, mezzanines, stairs, aligned archways. Olivier may be trying to top archrival Orson Wells, but I think he has done very well in using the building to frame the action in a way that is fully cinematic, transcending the stage. The only effect that jarred was the thrice-done long pullback when Claudius conspires with Laertes.

--The film is in Black and White. Olivier had no choice of course, but it is a happy accident. Allows the photography to be more artistic, better lit, more abstract, just as the mood of the play would have it.

Bottom line: This is worth seeing to discuss, but the Branagh version is more true and has many fewer distracting blots.

Fmovies: I had expected something extraordinary from an actor I had thought was one of the greatest Shakespearean performers, but I just could not see it. I did not think it was bad but I remained unmoved. Also, there were substantial cuts to the text.

Maybe sensibilities change. Maybe I am too jaded by modern lavish production values to appreciate this primitive-looking one. The pace seemed jerky, some of the acting mannered, including Olivier's, and the mannerisms seemed dated and not all of a consistent style. The miracle I hope for is that the play in its fullness could be intelligibly pitched to a modern sensibility - or else that the production style could elucidate an earlier sensibility. In this version, the flowery Renaissance sensibility that pervades the lovely poignant scene of the death of Ophelia seems replaced by half-hearted Freudianism and a dated concept of medieval style where austerity and floridness jarringly conflict.

I would be grateful if one production could make clear to me why Hamlet feigns madness. I guess I am still looking for the definitive Hamlet.

Olivier is absolutely mesmerizing as the dane of Denmark. I have seen Gibson's and Branagh's versions, and Olivier is still far and away the most impressive performance. Whenever I think of Hamlet, I always think of Olivier's Hamlet. The picture as a whole is very well done, although in parts it can seem a bit chinsy. Olivier (as director) firmly establishes the mood for the picture, and the ensemble acting is terrific. Watch for a very pompous Polonius!

Hamlet fmovies. For better or worse, this remains the definitive film version of hamlet.

I confess I'm not happy with that. Olivier re-edits the script considerably. What appear to be continuity innovations simply fall flat for me. The worst instance of this is the famed "to be or not to be" speech (most of it delivered in voice-over), which jumps out of nowhere in this version, apropos nothing. Olivier gets away with this butchery on the basis of his roaring egotism (which finally leads to a roaring Hamlet to the end) and the fact that his is one of the most careful directions of the play-as-film to be found on film.

Which of course leads me to the positive aspects of the film. Simply as a film, it is brilliantly designed and executed. I've rarely felt a film so successfully blend claustrophobia and depth - this is accomplished through careful juxtapositions of scenes of high-contrast black & white with scenes filled with grey fog; only Hitchcock could have done better (but of course Hitchcock would never have made Hamlet).

And although Olivier's performance is really over the top, he wisely makes sure that all the other actors get to come close to that level, especially the actor playing Hamlet's nasty step-dad. So the film vibrates with energy almost from the get-go and all the way to the end.

I keep trying to see every film version of Hamlet i can find, to see if the final, absolutely really and truly definitive version of Shakespeare's play (and not Olivier's version of it) might yet be viewed; but until then, this will have to do.

Hamlet (Laurence Olivier), son of the murdered king of Denmark, contemplates whether or not to take vengeance on the murderer and now king, Claudius (Basil Sydney), Hamlet's uncle. Hamlet must also decide what to do about his mother, Gertrude (Eileen Herlie), who is now married (quite happily, it seems) to Claudius, and Claudius' chief adviser, Polonius (Felix Aymer). In the middle of all this is Hamlet's love Ophelia (Jean Simmons), who is completely confused --- and hurt --- by Hamlet's increasingly bizarre behavior.

Like the Zeffrilli/Gibson and Branaugh versions of Shakespeare's classic that followed, Olivier's adaptation is a mostly excellent film with several annoying flaws keeping it just out of reach of greatness.

Olivier is superb as Hamlet --- especially when delivering the soliloquies, several of which are genuinely powerful. The rest of the cast, however, is a mixed bag. Herlie is very good, managing to completely overcome that fact that she is really 13 years younger than Olivier. Sydney has his moments and does a decent job, but never really gets across who Claudius really is. Aymer is amusing but nothing more. Simmons makes a good Ophelia, albeit not a great one. Norman Wooland is excellent as Horatio (which is a tough role to actually be memorable in). Stanley Holloway is good as the Gravedigger, but somehow he doesn't nail the part the way Billy Crystal did in the 1996 version. Finally, Peter Cushing isÂ… odd as Osric. The rest of the cast is either stiff or completely uninteresting.

However, other than some weak performances, Olivier does a superb job directing everything. The atmosphere during the ghost scenes is absolutely suffocating and starts the film off well. And right from that scene, it's obvious that the camera work is going to be awesome. The camera moves and sweeps everywhere --- but not just for the sake of moving and sweeping like many movies (coughMichaelBaycoughcough). It creates extraordinary images and energy that make many scenes unforgettable --- without calling too much attention to itself.

William Walton's creepy music adds a lot.

Finally, the climactic fencing scenes are genuinely great – easily the best fencing scenes in a version of Hamlet and possibly among the best in film history.

However, despite many great scenes, the movie never creates the emotions it needs to really make the blows come. Yes, some scenes are truly compelling, but on the whole, it misses the mark in that department.

However, the scenes that work are brilliant, and despite the lack of emotional power, it is an entertaining and superbly made film that's just as worthwhile as its 90's successors (although it is marginally inferior to them, which is odd --- the 40's version inferior to the 90's remakes!).

The titled melancholy Danish prince (Oscar-winner Laurence Olivier) seeks to avenge those involved with his father's death. It seems that Olivier's father (voiced by John Gielgud) still roams the Earth as a spirit that walks around aimlessly, unable to find Heaven or Hell (Purgatory for the most part). Gielgud makes it clear that his brother (Basil Sydney) was the culprit in his death and Olivier becomes enraged. The fact that Sydney has become king by marrying the titled character's mother (Eileen Herlie) just makes the tension build. Herlie and Olivier's relationship pushes the envelope hard on a typical mother-son bond (there are incestuous tones abound here). Oscar-nominee Jean Simmons appears to be Olivier's one true love, but after a terrible tragedy she falls down a path of mental anguish. It appears that the only logical conclusion for Shakespeare's famed character is to have that famous sword fight dual with Simmons' brother (Terence Morgan). Of course you know that not everything is the way it seems, right? "Hamlet" was a surprising success in 1948. Produced in Britain (and strictly a British project for all intensive purposes), the film became a runaway hit with most all audiences and critics (becoming the year's Best Picture Oscar winner). Shakespeare's plays have never really warranted excellence on the silver screen, but this adaptation (also by Olivier) is about as close as we have seen thus far. The movie runs nearly three hours and I was about to fall asleep after the first 60 minutes (the film is almost dragging to a crawl by that point), but after the set-up the movie soars very high. Lots of data that is somewhat confusing hogs up a little too much time when the pacing could have been much crisper. Olivier's spin on the timeless classic is truly uncanny nonetheless. His direction (he was Oscar-nominated in the category) and vision are something to behold. The production values are strong and I ended up enjoying the movie for what it is and what it ultimately wanted to be. Olivier became the first of only two people presently to direct himself to an Oscar victory (Roberto Benigni duplicated the feat with 1998's "Life Is Beautiful"). 4.5 out of 5 stars.