Hamlet (2009)

another Hamlet. decent, interesting. but far to seduce. the acting is OK and the new elements are not bad but scene by scene something seems missing. the pressure of role for David Tennant, the filming angles, Patrick Steward who is not more than a Cladius as too many others are causes for to define it only as a good job. the great problem remains the expectations. and the hard effort to be on screen the same from the scene. the pillar of entire building - Oliver Ford Davies who transforms in wise manner the old image of Polonius. and an inspired Ophelia. short, a film who must see it. for the acting. for rediscover Hamlet in new light. for a good work. and for the status of new exercise to define the fundamental values using the same questions .

The first thing I have to say is that the actors were very clear; not a line was lost. I didn't have any difficulty following the story and understanding the characters. That said I have quite a few critical issues with this particular production:David Tennant's Hamlet was a distraction and a nuisance. In a way, it felt like I was watching Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura. He was incredibly goofy and silly throughout, painting a portrait of Hamlet that more or less resembled a cartoon than a human being. He was very literal in his interpretation of madness… to the extent of going cross-eyed and twirling his finger in circles by his temple with a whistle. In a way, it felt as though all the other actors did plenty of work in developing their characters, and while I have no way of proving such a claim, I felt Tennant simply waltzed into the theatre memorized and disconnected.This particular production was not in front of an audience. It was specially constructed for the camera and the actors did not need to project as they would in a theatre space. However consistency was lacking. At times the actors adjusted appropriately for the intimacy of the camera, while at others they were too extravagant to fit the parameters of the screen (namely, Tennant, along with the actors playing Horatio and Marcellus). The actors playing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were far too coarse with their comedy (I blame the director for this), accompanied by silly music to tell the audience this is supposed to be funny; their scenes came off boring more than anything, and foreign to the play's established style. In a positive critical assessment, I must applaud Patrick Stuart who marvelously brought to life both Claudius and the dead King Hamlet. His presence always filled the room. He wore the crown of royalty as one should… as a regal as a god with the unwelcome humility of a man. His scenes were a breath of fresh air, and served as a healthy balance to counter Hamlet's loopy madness. Additionally, John Woodvine's Player/King, with his deep resonant voice, captivated me along with the characters as he told the tale of Pyrrhus. That too helped bring the play back to earth in an emotionally grounding way. I held my breath for the Woodvine's every word. No tricks or cuts were needed; he was enough to fill every viewer's living room.RSC's Hamlet was really driven and ultimately succeeded because of the powerhouse performances of its two female leads. Penny Downie's Gertrude was spectacular. She was brimming with an unbridled carnal lust intermixed with the nervous guilt that climaxes full force in the bedroom scene with Hamlet. Where one expects Gertrude to weep, she laughs and does so with so much anguish your stomach churns for her. But if anyone's performance could be called truly haunting, it is Mariah Gale's Ophelia. At the top she seems sweet enough; virginal, hopeful and poetic in absorbing the banter of those closest to her. Even as the players play she was complete and commendable for being so after Hamlet's "get thee to a nunnery" nonsense. This is a stark contrast from the Ophelia we encounter after Polonius's death. Her singing and garbled gibberish, intercepted by outbursts of a petrifying scream, was frightening. The messy hair, dark eye shadow, and bloody scratches on her arms helped drive the point, but her performance was enough. Her madness in this production may have been an intentional tool to contrast Hamlet's "appearance of madness" and a mind truly shattered. Her two scenes after Polonius's death, prior to her suicide, were enough to enrich the entire play and atone for it's less than praiseworthy elements.Set in present-day, I would have appreciated more consistency as the atmosphere seemed to jump back and forth from archaic to contemporary. I had expected a polished diamond of a play, being produced by RSC, and what I experienced was a pretty stone caked in crud. Tennant was my biggest problem and to enjoy the play I had to ignore the title character. With that accomplished, the production was top notch and the ensemble was spectacular. It's a shame they didn't showcase a versatile undiscovered talent for the main character instead of casting a commercially recognized name. The play would have been richer for it.

The majority of reviews of this wonderful production of Hamlet by the Royal Shakespeare Company are positive, and offer many reasons to watch this filming of the play. However I noticed that there are a few horribly low reviews, ones and twos, that bring down the rating of this film. I read them to see why, and would like to offer counter-arguments to some of the statements. The setting: some reviewers, and I respect their opinions, found the sets,costumes, etc., unworthy of this play. It is a modernized version, though at times it seems like it is taking place long ago. However, I feel that the touches of modernism and the touches of the past go a long way towards demonstrating that this is a work that transcends time periods, it doesn't really matter when it happens. Also, for example, Tennant, as Hamlet, wears an orange, skeleton t-shirt. Many found this out of style and bad. But it depends on how you look at it, I, an English major who is familiar with dissecting Shakespeare's works, found it a sneaky foreshadowing of future events, as well as demonstrating Hamlet's attribute of wearing his heart on his sleeve.David Tennant: though most found his portrayal unique and intriguing, some say it is horrible and over the top. They also make the complaint that he is rude and makes the audience side with the villain, who never seems evil. This, however, was done on purpose. Patrick Stewart plays the counterpart, the exact opposite, of Hamlet. As well as this, there is debate over whether Hamlet was genuinely insane, or acting insane to hide his true doings and intentions. The RSC definitely chooses the second option, and David Tennant fills this role exactly, being so mad that the audience just knows its all an act to fool the King. That is not to say he isn't deeply affected by his father's death. I had never heard the lines of Hamlet spoken in this type of tone, but after finishing the play, I couldn't believe there was any other way of saying them- from Tennant the words are natural and don't sound recited at all. All in all, the acting from all of the actors is fantastic, and it is a thoroughly entertaining and riveting version of Hamlet. Even my friends, who deplore Shakespeare, were captivated until the last frame.

I'm all for new approaches to Hamlet - I truly LOVED Branagh's portrayal of Hamlet as "everyman". And I'd love to see a modern-day version that really works! (Sorry - not Ethan Hawke's). Mel Gibson's Hamlet was nicely filmed and might have gotten at least a B+ if not for his annoying habit of wagging his head from side to side on every line. Sadly, in the Royal Shakespeare Company's version, almost everything that can be done to ruin the play has been incorporated. Hamlet speaks the lines intended to be spoken introspectively to himself - to the camera! And likewise with the Sililoquoy - during which he keeps glancing just off-camera - as if looking at a cue card! And just whose idea was it to play Hamlet as a cross between Pee Wee Herman and Monty Python's "Upper Class Twit Of The Year" anyway? Hamlet comes off as an absolute jerk throughout - first as a goofy 12 year-old figuratively giving the finger to all the adults - later, as a vicious monster out for blood. Although it is clearly part of Mr. Shakespeare's intention that Hamlet be seen by the other characters in the play as very likely addled, I think it unwise to present him as definitely so to the audience. There's a little thing called "audience identification" at stake. The only people I can think of who might possibly identify with this asinine character would be Generation "Z"! Why not just play him as a good kid gone "Goth"? That would be fun! And why not write your own modern day script if you are going to ignore the poetry? This is truly a Hamlet for post-MTV generations - everyone runs or hustles almost ALL the time. Most of the actors rush through the dialogue, apparently to get to the action, with abject disregard for The Bard's poetic genius. Notable exceptions are Oliver Ford Davies (Polonius), Patrick Stewart (Claudius), and Mariah Gales (Ophelia), whose innate sensibilities for great language apparently immunize them from this all-pervasive plague. Every moment and every line of Davies' Polonius is superb - masterful. Stewart's Claudius is excellent, though oddly played as remarkably sympathetic, with measured civility and visceral remorse. In fact, though probably unintentional, it's far more likely that the audience identifies with him as protagonist as opposed to the obnoxious and self-absorbed Hamlet! Inexplicably, this rendition of Hamlet starts off pretty much as a filmed play, with mostly wide-angle master shots - then, somewhere around the midpoint, suddenly and joltingly discovers cinematography - with closeups, high angles, and stark lighting. The sets and wardrobe are a mish-mash of past, present, and future - oddly enough, more like a Doctor Who environment than anything else! The orange t-shirt with the musculature on the front is particularly witless. Sure, slash a few lines out of that damn Sililoquoy and play it squirrel-eyed and flatter than a dental hygiene film. Or is that actually "tongue-in-cheek"??? Hey, I know - let's give Gertrude a cigarette - why not! And, what do you know, Hamlet is recording a performance with a 1940s home movie camera. Yuk, yuk! Ugh. Not witty; not funny; not cute - just ... WHY? Even the blocking is distracting and forced. Your average television commercial is far more fluidly and intelligently blocked. "Critically acclaimed", huh? If he were still around, William Shakespeare would be suing to get his name off this monstrosity. Sorry, but for the benefit of posterity, all copies of this production should be destroyed.