The forced spring isolation of the pandemic year 2020 prompted the idea to swing at the most unstoppable – Williamov, you know, our Prince of Denmark: to make a detailed analysis of his most significant film productions. The problem, frankly, in complexity is akin to the work itself. Therefore, having noted the general comparative analysis for the time being, I decided to go through individual samples for now.
Franco Zeffirelli is a man with a big name and experience of large-scale films based on the world literary and opera classics. His productions of Traviata, Romeo and Juliet, as well as the author’s reading of the main Christian plot have long become classics not only of cinema, but of the entire world culture of the twentieth century. The director repeatedly returned to the works of Shakespeare (including the Taming of the Shrew and Othello). It is clear that this series could not but end with Shakespeare’s main work – Hamlet. This time with Mel Gibson in the lead role.
For 30 years, critics have been arguing about the justification for choosing a director who took on one of the most difficult roles in the history of handsome Gibson, for whom the cliché of playboy and daredevil was firmly entrenched. As far as Gibson managed to cope with the super task, the question is debatable. But the fact that he and his Hamlet were able to get out of the short pants of Mad Max is undoubtedly.
Yes, Gibson is too handsome and blue-eyed for Shakespearean tragedy, too ironic, too modern, even pops, on the verge of kitsch with his deliberate coated haircut and fashionable bristles, with the head of a person of the 90s of the twentieth century. Togo, look, is now drawn in a second voice behind George Michael: "Last Christmas, I gave y mai hut." ..."
Especially this strange temporal contrast is felt from our plague, virtual messy time, the time of tiktokers and YouTube bloggers, kobes and delibericlabs: when one frame combines a bloody story from the early Middle Ages, told by the playwright of the Elizabethan era and, in fact, told for his contemporaries and about them. But, at the same time, played by a pop idol from cinema in the late twentieth century.
With all this, to say that the actor did not master or, even worse, failed the role, the hand will not rise. Yes, Gibson’s Hamlet was not as sophisticated as Kozintsev’s and Smoktunovsky’s, not as epic and pathetic as Bran’s, and too clip-emtivish and emotional against the background of the detached Laurence Olivier. But Gibson also had Hamlet. Your Hamlet. A 1990 Hamlet. Not without questions.
But all the other characters of the second tier in Zeffirelli are above all praise. We can say that Hamlet made an entourage here. Especially stands out from the rest of Glenn Close in the role of Gertrude, which the director allocated much more space in the frame compared to other roles and scenes, while stinging the work itself almost twice. For example, in the production of the 90th year, the political subtext in the play and the associated line of Prince Fortinbras are completely omitted.
Gertrude at Close came out, perhaps, the most personal, deeply psychological and the most open of all the productions seen. It is a pity that there was not without the curse of Laurence Olivier, who imposed on all subsequent productions the plume of the Oedipus complex, which this time took, and at all, a clear physiological manifestation.
And Laert, and Horace, and other characters of the second and third lines from the maid of honor to the guard exactly localized the space of the play, not dragging the blanket, but creating a beautiful background of the unfolding drama. And the brother-murderer king fits in: accurate without overplay and buffoonery. Claudius here, by no means, is not a nominal costume character, as it was all the same Olivier.
And the characteristic actor Ian Holm in the role of Polonius, despite the limits set by Shakespeare himself by the old "spinning troublemaker", does not bring to farce the satirical role assigned to him, deducing the image of a nobleman in service to a truly tragic: his Polonius is forced to be a jester in the proposed scenery, where fratricide, betrayal and adultery coexist with false vehement words, and deliberately pretended madness - with madness, inevitable and real madness.
But most of all, the young Helena Bonham Carter was impressed. Despite the almost tightened role before the episode, this is the best of Ophelia played in cinema! Her modesty, purity and madness are not feigned. Ophelia makes her shudder and swallow a lump in her throat. One of the most powerful roles of the actress. It is a pity that her career has gone down the path of buffoonery, scenery and tons of makeup. Where she has long argued with mired in such a loud kitsch Johnny Depp.
Zeffirelli, and in this he is a master, built a full-fledged, rich, three-dimensional picture that went far beyond the sham theater stage and mothball costumes of the county drama theater. The scenery created by him with a real medieval Scottish castle and costumes corresponding to the era (for which the film received two Oscars) is the most atmospheric, realistic and grandiose, the closest immersing into the reality of what is happening, creating a tangible atmosphere of the gloomy Middle Ages. At the same time, the director does not fall into expensive costumed peplum, but also gives the joy of close-ups. The film has many close-ups that are designed to convey the emotional background even in minor characters. Barely perceptible eye movements, facial expressions and gestures convey the subtlest emotions, making you believe, believe and believe in what is happening.
Shakespearean mannerism and theatricality in Zeffirelli gave way to the truthfulness of images and the humanity of characters. Where theater finally became life itself. And only for this reason it is one of the best Hamlet productions: where the scenery, scope, delicate balance between literal reading, drama and psychological background of living people are inextricably linked and stable balance.
If not for the constant expectation of the sweet-voiced “last Christmas”... After all, all other things being equal, and undoubtedly good for his game, Gibson was the most controversial and weak link. And this time the retinue outplayed its prince.
Zeffirelli's Shakespearean plot became - alive. No ' pretentious poses and broken roses', people in the uncomfortable realities of the Middle Ages live as best they can, escape as best they can, and still beast, jealous and revenge. And I always want to eat, and in joy and sorrow, why would that be? Whichever actor you take is the perfect cast.
Here's Ophelia Helena Bonham-Carter. Ordinary (for us) ' smart girl' (an old man and a knuckle would be in school), locked in the environment of a complete ban on the manifestation of will, leaving if not in the astral of the imagination (cruel medieval fairy tales did not have this), then at least in ' the astral of his personal opinion' It's not that she likes Hamlet that much - it's just that all the other suitors are even worse. And yes, insanity remains the only place where the psyche can escape to at least partially save itself - ' there is no other way to this territory and prohibitions on it do not apply
Gibson's Hamlet also impressed. By itself, the character is infantile - ' I suffer here! and quietly angry at those who do not suffer too' (for a reminder that everyone loses their fathers and no one dilutes such water, is ready to nail), but after all, the child not only imposes his emotions on everyone, but also does not know how to stop them: whoever he breaks down, this does not bring relief. And when such a child begins to play adult uncles, the result is usually regrettable (the closest to the whirlpool of emotions, imho, passed Cumberbatch - neurosis in half with hysteria - and critics immediately burst into screams that this is not Shakespearean, little & #39; noble pose'). Medieval Hamlet is deprived of modern indulgence to fall into hysteria, however, Gibson conveys the whole storm of emotions (from the beast hunted to the beast furious), so tightly driven under the skin that the roof tears. This Hamlet doesn’t really pretend to play a madman, he, like Ophelia, needs to let off steam (and nowhere – Wittenberg was not released!) You believe him, completely and completely.
The one who is especially sorry is Laerta. There is no original reason to be hostile to Hamlet. Amazingly sunny young man, nice to see. He goes back to his father’s house, and there it is. There's a lot to go through. Lost his sister, lost his father. Old Polonius, peace to his ashes, all the time allotted to him from his underpants climbs in order to strengthen the situation and protect the family by any means. You also believe in his fussiness - try not to please anyone! When kings are annoyed, servants have heads. To the prince of hahanka, the daughter claps her eyes, and if anything, the whole family will suffer from opal: Claudius is no different in mercy, even the Queen understands this.
Gertrude kisses Claudius with such passion that it begs ' since they are still raped - relax and have fun' What can she do? The beloved husband is dead, the son is distant, and you can not argue with the new husband (try this to refer to a headache, he will arrange it for you). And then the son gives the heat - give him respect as an adult, and the mother's feelings spit like a child: so-and-so you dared. As if she had a choice! (well, it was - either to Claudius in bed, or perhaps to the monastery)
Both the director and the actors gave everything to the last. Cardboard heroes have become people.
The film is very sincere. The castle, from which even from the screen pulls drenched dampness, women who have no one else to love, and distrust in the eyes of Hamlet - embroiled in the scandalous household of great Denmark.
This film adaptation of the great and eternal tragedy of William Shakespeare ' Hamlet & #39; made a vague impression on me.
In the book, Hamlet appeared to me as a real thinker, a philosopher, rather than in the film. As we know, when you make a movie based on a book, many actions are cut, lines are generalized or completely thrown out of the script. Perhaps that’s why in the film Hamlet seemed more brutal, quick-tempered than in the book. Because almost all of his monologues, which are written in the book, were brazenly ignored by the director.
I really liked the cast. Mel Gibson played the role of Hamlet. And how not to mention Hillen Bonham Carter, I really enjoyed the way she played Ophelia, before and after losing her mind. The other actors also showed themselves in the best light, but this two made the most impression on me. The acting was mostly good.
Anyway, it's not a bad movie. For cultural development, the choice of this film is perfect. I think it’s better to read the book first and then the movie.
Facts first. There is no decent volume from the text, but this is unfortunately inevitable. As a result, we have to guess something, and some things are simplified, but these losses are insignificant and do not interfere with understanding. Some scenes have been reversed. I cannot yet figure out for what purpose this was done and how justified it is. For example, the monologue “to be or not to be” Hamlet speaks not before, but after meeting Ophelia. In principle, this is not important, or perhaps even more logical. But William our Shakespeare decided otherwise!
And if you look at it more broadly, you get the feeling that he was bored reading Hamlet, and he decided to add... not even action. Just-- emotions? Paint, I would say. But at the same time it remained a “tragedy of thought”, not becoming a banal story about revenge.
Actors and their roles.
Mel Gibson left me in mute admiration. Of course, I understand that his Hamlet was not created by him. He's the way I see Hamlet. He is both a melancholic — such that you want to cry with him — and a madman — such that you involuntarily smile — and a desperate heartbroken son — such that goosebumps. He plays with his eyes! I would never believe he could be a dramatic actor. I was wrong and I’m glad you did.
Gertrude has always been a mystery to me. I don't understand this character. Glenn Close showed me one of the many proposed versions. In this interpretation, she is an emotional prostitute. She sincerely kills herself over the coffin of her husband, after N days she sincerely kisses her new husband, she sincerely rejoices and fears for her son, sincerely weeps for Ophelia, sincerely obeys the king, sincerely knocks on the king’s son, sincerely believes that she is doing everything right. And behind that sincerity. Nothing. Gertrude is a fool here. Well, that was interesting to see.
In contrast to her with Claudius, everything is always clear. He's cunning, calculating and cruel. I have never seen anything new in him.
Ophelia knocks me out. What the hell was that? Either Zefirelli doesn’t like her, or Helena Bonham Carter didn’t have enough experience for a dramatic role, or I don’t know. Probably all together. Ophelia rolling her eyes is basically nonsense. In fact, she THINKs. There's a thought in her eyes. And she shouldn't be. So is my opinion. That is, purely externally, according to the text everything is observed, but in fact she turned out to be some completely different character - more from Shakespearean comedy than from tragedy. The scene of insanity itself is good but taken out of context. Her Ophelia had no reason to go crazy. She could easily direct the brains of Hamlet, persuade her brother to kill Claudius and successfully control the whole of Denmark. In general, the topic of Ophelia is not disclosed.
So did Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. But they don't really matter. And it wasn't even a phrase.
The overall picture.
So far, this is the best Hamlet I've ever seen. It is made carefully, conscientiously, with respect to the original source.
I would recommend this film.
“Hamlet” in the interpretation of F. Zefferelli has a tangible operatic beginning, which is associated with the peculiarities of the career of the director himself, who worked a lot for the musical theater. The predominance of close-ups that enhance the expressiveness of the acting game, coupled with the use of dynamic editing, allows you to give the film some sharpness, making the psychological throwing of characters really fascinating.
Zefferelli, due to small abbreviations of the text, manages to free Shakespeare’s rather high-flown and figurative syllable from his inherent literature, to make it more natural in the mouths of actors whose play is closer to the behavior of ordinary people than in the films of Olivier and Kozintsev. However, the text loses its volume and tragic depth due to the overly affective, mimically overloaded performance of M. Gibson, which makes Hamlet an emotionally unstable psychopath, without even a hint of the intelligence and fragility inherent in Smoktunovsky, or the majestic aristocracy of Olivier.
The merits of the picture include the masterful use of the decorations of the castle and the interior of its interiors, successfully conveying the atmosphere of Shakespeare’s play. A successful choice for the role of Claudius P. Scofield, confidently building the image of a swaggering, egotistical king, who, however, does not cause disgust and is not devoid of humanity.
On the contrary, G. Close makes Gertrude somewhat one-dimensional, excessively mimic and plastically emphasizing her love of love. In the bedroom scene, Close and Gibson are so sloppy in their rough, negating emotionality that one recalls a phrase from Othello about “turning their eyes in a rage.”
Directorial confidence in building a dramatic structure, composition of the frame, distribution of dramatic tension during the tape can not compensate for glaring miscalculations in acting. Morricone's music and camera work act as a background, unobtrusively accompanying the action, bearing the shortcomings of the average European cinema, the canon of which was formed including Zefferelli himself: dry academicism in the production of classical subjects, the triumph of traditional morality, an integral part of pathetics and didactics, a penchant for sentimentalism.
When filming the tragedy of Shakespeare, the director, due to the stylistic features of the text, could not observe all the signs of this type of cinema, but made efforts to at least partially correspond to it. As a result, we have work rising above the average level of Shakespeare's adaptations for the screen, illustrative in moderation, moderately sophisticated stylistically, but generally offering nothing decisively new in the handling of dramatic material.
- To be or not to be, that is the question.
The plays of the British playwright and bard William Shakespeare are not just classics, but an integral part of world culture. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that they were put on stage and transferred to the screen countless times. Sometimes the productions were experimental - the action of the plays was transferred from the time of the author to the present day. Thus, the directors wanted to show the universality of the once invented plots. But mostly the classics were put in a traditional, “suited” way, because it was more familiar to the viewer and respectful of the literary heritage of the writer. Despite the abundance of identical film adaptations, they were still visually different. Costume designers, decorators and stage designers have always seen the world of Shakespearean heroes in their own way. But mostly, as a rule, these productions differed in the performance of the main roles, and sometimes the creative concept of the directors who put them. Many tried when staging the classics to reflect modern problems. Or look at them from a different angle, finding their new reading. The same “Hamlet” was transferred to film a great many times, but only a few of these film adaptations entered the history of cinema. In particular, the film considered in this review by the recognized “Shakespeare” screenwriter, Italian director Franco Zeffirelli, who had previously successfully staged “Romeo and Juliet”, “Taming the Shrew” and “Othello” in the cinema. Probably for a long time "Hamlet" remained a cherished dream for the director, since he began his film adaptation when he was already in old age.
It will not be superfluous to note that for the Western audience this version is most likely contrasted with the classic, black-white production of Laurence Olivier, at one time recognized as the best adaptation of Shakespeare’s work, favorably received worldwide by critics and awarded several Oscars (including Laurence Olivier himself – for the best performance of a male role). To be fair, this old film noticeably wins if you watch it in the original - the sound of English speech in a somewhat outdated manner makes an unforgettable impression on the admirer of classics. But in general, this is an extremely theatrical, somewhat pompous production, more like a recording of a performance than a genuine movie. That’s probably why Zeffirelli tried as much as possible to avoid theatricality in his film. He even let himself enter a few scenes that Shakespeare did not have, as well as shortened some too long monologues of the Danish prince. This went to the benefit of the picture, the plot became more dynamic, and thanks to the realistic acting - the film was more like some historical drama than a production based on Shakespeare's play. At the same time, it is impossible to accuse the director of deviating from the text - the credits that precede the film honestly admit the fact that this is not a direct adaptation - but a film based on the tragedy of William Shakespeare.
A wonderful selection of performers, which formed into a single acting ensemble, the beautiful play of Mel Gibson, engaged in the title role, the magnificent camera work of David Watkin, the cool soundtrack written by the legendary Ennio Morricone and the first-class adaptation of classical material carried out by screenwriter Christopher De Vore - all together make this film an unforgettable sight! It is worth noting the actors who play a familiar story from school. The role of Queen Gertrude brilliantly embodied as always dramatically incomparable Glenn Close, Alan Bates played the royal incest Claudius (for which he was even nominated for a BAFTA award), Ian Holm played the tragic courtier Polonius, young Helena Bonham - Carter played the role of the unfortunate lover of Prince Ophelia, Nathaniel Parker played the lost loved ones Laerte. Paul Scofield is also remembered as the Shadow of Father Hamlet, and Stephen Dillane as the Prince’s devoted friend Horatio. Under the sensitive direction of the Italian maestro, they all embody the classic Shakespearean plot on the screen in the most (as far as possible) realistic manner. Such a look at the classical play, the excellent performance of busy performers (especially the eccentric as once Gibson), the amazing work of costume artists and other aspects of the picture (musical accompaniment, cinematography and majestic scenery) contributed to the success of the picture, managing to impress both journalists and film critics. As a result, the film was awarded the prestigious David Di Donatello Award for Best Foreign Language Film, as well as two Academy Award nominations (in the categories of “artist-director” and “suit artist”). True, the award of the American Film Academy tape never received. But at the box office “Hamlet” Zeffirelli went well – only in the States the picture managed to collect more than $ 20 million! For the film adaptation of the beaten classics it was a solid result. Even if you consider that most of the audience probably went not to Shakespeare’s interpretation of Franco Zeffirelli, and Mel Gibson. Moreover, that is why the Italian classic of world cinema and took the main role of the popular star of the action genre. This was done to draw attention to the classics of teenagers who prefer to skip literature lessons, and the black-white film of Laurence Olivier is perceived as an outdated anachronism.
Since it makes no sense to paint here the construction of a well-known plot, I will limit myself to the role performed by Mel Gibson. In his interpretation, the Danish prince appears to be a resolute man, but at the same time postponing what is planned in view of the circumstances. There is also the betrayal of her mother, who married her father’s murderer, and the tragic death of Ophelia, who went mad, whom he could not save. The central place is occupied by his opposition to the noble Laertes, whom the scoundrel - the king uses as an instrument of revenge for his own selfish purposes. The death of those around him, sometimes at the hands of the prince, or with his tacit non-interference (as in the case of school friends Guildenstern and Rosenkranz), makes him withdrawn and detached from what is happening. His whole being is now devoted to the plan of vengeance, and has no other meaning. And Mel Gibson was able to show it by playing the role of a classic, tragic hero cherished for many artists. There may be those who prefer the realism of Gibson’s performance to Olivier’s theatrical mannerism, but I personally favor the former. The film of the 1990s is a reference, still popular adaptation of Shakespeare’s tragedy, in contrast to the beautiful, but unprofitable due to the “age” of the cinema – the version of Laurence Olivier. Although this is not the best role of the Hollywood handsome Mel Gibson, but definitely to have in your acting resume participation in the picture of Franco Zeffirelli is a noticeable achievement for any artist. In conclusion, I note that in one favorite film since childhood, there was a joke in which Arnold Schwarzenegger in the imagination of a boy - an action lover, appeared as Hamlet - brutally and ruthlessly dealing with his enemies. This film makes it possible to really see in the classic image of the Danish prince another popular hero of militants. That alone is worth a lot in itself!
"Put the lie on the bait and hook the truth to the bait." (c)
For a long time chose which Hamlet to watch after reading the book, as a result, having read to each of the most different reviews, decided that the taste and color of the markers are different and chose the least long. I don’t know if I was wrong or not, I don’t know.
Maybe if the book itself would have caused only delight, then there would have been more claims to the film, but since I have complaints about Shakespeare himself, then in principle, the film will have to be scolded.
To begin with, although in general, of course, the book is good, poetry is harmoniously combined with prose, but did not press Shakespeare’s final, oh did not press. It felt like everyone had to be killed immediately, so let's forget that I promised you Hamlet's revenge for your father's death, but let's just have a ridiculous contest and let everyone get poisoned. I don't care if anyone can be stabbed for decency with rapier, no! “I want to poison everyone, so let it be so,” says Shakespeare and everyone falls down, struck by poison, before, as usual, someone repents for what he did, but not the main villain, no, he does not punch. And in fact, let the hyena roast him with a light.
But despite this, there are a lot of things in the play that we call capital truths, but they would be like this if they hadn't been told by the great master - that's the question: But not franti - rich, but not pretentious. A person is known by a dress.
As for the film, I am in doubt. I respect Mel Gibson, although in this role watching him was at least unusual. I'm not saying he played badly. No, I'm sure that the task set for him by the director, he fulfilled, bringing into the image of the Prince of Denmark and something of his own. But the whole film did not leave me the feeling that he is sometimes imbued with the spoken words of the great Shakespeare, and sometimes just mocking the embodied image of a mad prince. Although the famous monologue “To be or not to be” he performed with dignity.
Personally, I feel that Hamlet is not crazy enough to run, jump, laugh and kiss Ophelia out of nowhere. Yes, one can speak of madness against the background of everything that is happening in the ruling family, but his madness, as Polonius said, was very consistent. You can’t compare it to the madness of Ophelia, who is really crazy and you can see it right away. Hamlet’s madness is conveyed by periodic outbursts of rage, although in the play itself Shakespeare only had cleverly constructed phrases to make the reader understand that Hamlet is dark. Here they decided to strengthen his absurdity of speech with a mad look and behavior bordering on idiotic, although he was not a fool and a bastard.
This is my second Shakespeare-based film with Helena Bonham-Carter, and I am disappointed again, alas. Not only that, at the beginning of the film Ophelia there is some downtrodden, shaggy and all by herself in some inconspicuous dresses, it is difficult to believe about her belonging to the nobility, and then only if there is an honorable father in one frame with her. But if after the death of Polonius this can still be explained by madness, then at first how could the Danish prince fall in love with her? I didn't see anything angelic in her. In general, as for me, she is very well given the roles of all sorts of crazy people, such as Bellatrice Lestrange, where the image was created specifically for her, or Tenardier’s mother, where there is little left of Hugo’s canon, but the character turned out to be more vivid and memorable than the original book. But she is already an adult actress. Here she is still young and, as is commonly believed, beautiful and clean, although I did not see this in her, no matter how hard I tried. That's strange, played her madness, although in the film and slightly vulgar, unlike the book, still good. You certainly believe her. The bigger question for Shakespeare is, how many daughters have you seen that go so crazy because of their father’s death? But if we assume that she is a gentle and delicate nature, then this fact can be reconciled, because the beloved killed his father. Father killed, beloved exiled, brother away - how not to go mad?
Gertrude performed by Glen Close at the beginning of the film irritated ala young deer with her jumps. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Why did she make a fool in love here, and towards the end, see, because of her son’s accusations and separation from him, she at least remembered that the lady was already in years: Not a word about love. In summer, like yours, they live not by storms, but by their head.
Other omissions of dialogue and explanation were surprising. For example, it is not clear how Rosenkranz and Guildenstern ended up in England without a prince. Did he escape on foot or by boat? The book at least explains that the ship was attacked by pirates, although Shakespeare does not bother to explain how Hamlet himself escaped from the pirates, but that is fine. Here he was on a ship on the way to England and replacing letters, but already with Horatio jumps through the cemetery. Just like the wings grew.
The explanation scene with the mother is disgusting. It's kind of sloppy and overly playful. What all these kisses and hints of incest were about is not at all clear. Shakespeare didn’t think so, that’s for sure!
Polonium performed by Jen Holm is cute, fussy, but too quick. Although I liked him the most, I would have calmed him down a little, because he was always running around. Alan Bates in the role of king is not bad, however, both for me and the image is not particularly difficult.
Sweet Horatio is lovely. Laert turned out to be somehow too pathetic, but in the book he almost raised an uprising there! University friends Hamlets were remembered for the fact that the prince constantly insulted and even beat them, and they looked at him with confused glances.
I liked the scenery, landscapes and costumes. Atmospheric, tasteful (except for the dress of Ophelia). True, the feeling that the castle can get any counter-cross, but it is already nitpicking.
In general, read the book, admire Shakespeare, personally I also enjoyed the translation of Pasternak, but in the film the translation is different.
Franco Zeffirelli, the Italian director who once masterfully filmed another Shakespeare tragedy Romeo and Juliet, 22 years later turned to the immortal Hamlet. After the triumph of 1968, no one expected anything from him except a future classic. But Hamlet wasn’t as classic as Romeo and Juliet. Maybe it's just a matter of time.
The film is shot quite close to the text of the work, although about half of the play remained, and the director and screenwriter allowed themselves some liberties: there are scenes in the film that are not in the play, for example, how Hamlet wakes up his father.
Critics focused on the controversial interpretation of Hamlet's role by Mel Gibson. An actor who is easier to deal with modern material, with a touch of sarcasm peculiar to him, is free to deal with Shakespearean texts. Gibson found it difficult to convey the shades of such a multifaceted character as Hamlet. Choosing the main role of the performer from American blockbusters, action films and romantic comedies, the director probably once again wanted to draw the attention of the public to the classics.
In my opinion, this choice for the main role Zeffirelli ruined the whole picture. Gibson makes a good attempt to get into the meaning of what he plays. But his character and character are at odds with the role that everyone dreams of playing. He's just inorganic; he lacks the power for serious dramatic scenes, and even at times he's comedic where he shouldn't. Although his treatment of Hamlet as an expressive, unhappy choleric is close to me, for me Gibson is not Hamlet.
Other actors do not cause complaints. Glenn Close is probably the brightest Gertrude I've ever seen. You sympathize with her because Zeffirelli himself is on her side: she is a woman in love who has fallen into captivity of her own feelings.
Helena Bonham Carter, in my opinion, played Ophelia better than anyone I have seen. Images from other adaptations with female images were somehow not finalized: they were faded, not individualized and madness looked contrived and artificial. And with Bonham Carter, it was real. It was in her that one could see a very young girl who was driven to madness by her love for the two most important men in her life - Polonia and Hamlet. She was a virgin angel. The whole transformation was perfectly played by the beautiful British actress Helena Bonham Carter, now known for her eccentric roles (among which there are many “mad” images that began, I’m sure, after Ophelia). The death of Ophelia is filmed as tragically and mystically as that of Kozintsev. It goes to the bone.
By the way, Feddirreli, like no other, unfolded the love line between Ophelia and Hamlet. There is even a kiss between these two. What tells us about the needs of today’s viewer, as well as the stylistic sensuality of the director (he shoots beautifully, no matter how twisted, all the same “Romeo and Juliet” for us as an example).
I like the location where everything happens. Here you have landscapes and real castles. Everything seems as real as possible, and as in many productions, is not limited to theatrical convention. There is also a dynamic, which is achieved by alternating battle and love scenes. Many important monologues Hamlet does not sound that robs the philosophical content of the work, but the film does not look oversaturated. In general, this interpretation has the right to exist.
At the time of seeing this picture, I was familiar with the story. Moreover, I can say that the great playwright is one of my favorite writers.
What surprised me the most was the cast. Recognising Mel Gibson, I was shocked, and then Helena Bonham Carter and Glen Close.
All right, everyone else, but here's Gibson in this role that all actors want to play. I did like it, though. He played with his eyes, which is what I appreciate most about actors. It is our eyes that make us believe what is happening. The look of the actor struck me. As if he was crazy, he was going crazy. The whole film is saturated with tragedy, the sadness of the main character.
I think the analysis of the work will be superfluous. And especially, perhaps, to tell the story. This is still a classic and at least the main points, I think, are known to most.
So, Gibson, I think, was able to show us the inner world of his character, which we all know is complex and rarely succeeds.
The rest of the images are also shown well. Ophelia Helena Bonham Carter is young and naive. This is a bright image, a poor girl was faced with a difficult choice.
Queen Gertrude was also played at a good level, this woman, too, in my opinion, was deceived, or maybe someone will accuse her of betrayal, yet the actress gave us her vision and vision of the director.
The king, Polonius and everyone else are also good, they all liked it.
I also found the perfect setting of the time, which was perfectly able to recreate on the screen, it is always interesting to watch such films, because we can plunge into history.
This picture reflected the director’s views, his vision of this tragedy of the great playwright. And she has a place to be.