From my perspective - This 1948 production of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" was certainly not for the entertainment of the average moviegoer. No, it wasn't.
Yes. This version of "Hamlet" did contain some interesting moments. I found that a number of the night scenes in the story had quite an alluring "surrealistic" aspect to them.
But, on the other hand - This ancient tale of murder and revenge tended to be too moody, too dark, and too bleak. And, with that - I was left feeling too bummed-out by the whole production, in the long run.
But, hey! - Perhaps you will feel otherwise.
Yeah-Yeah. OK-OK. So, back at the Academy Awards Presentation for 1948 - "Hamlet" won a grand total of 4 Oscars in all. Yep. It really did.
Well - Let me tell ya - After viewing this 157-minute film adaptation of Shakespeare's play (70 years after that fact) - I just can't imagine anyone feeling that strongly about this production as to actually want to award it so highly with 4 Oscars. I really can't.
Yeah. OK. There were (Indeed) some impressive moments that took place throughout Hamlet's over-long running time - But, when it came to actor, Laurence Olivier's direction of this film, far too often the word "heavy-handed" came to my mind. It really did.
While the Freudian approach might be a little dated, I still enjoy this version of Hamlet. The black and white cinematography gives this adaptation the look of a horror picture, as does the eerie, gliding camerawork.
A very good movie, but I watched it mainly to get some context on the play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" and these characters were sadly cut out of the film. Still worth the watch.
The 'Golden Age of Cinema' from the 1930s to 1960s produced a number of movies that managed to achieve initial success but wound up quickly forgotten, looking to later audiences like minor historical pieces without any particular great quality to them. This is not one of those films. Laurence Olivier's Hamlet still holds up today and looks quite fascinating through modern eyes.
What stands out the most is likely the intimate setting. Hamlet and his associates wander around a medieval netherworld in which darkness pervades every other corner. Stairs jut up into nothingness. Cavernous entryways and imposing windows give a sense of constant connection without the barest sense of real privacy. The performances themselves appear just as inspired by the tropes of film noir. Actors and actresses alike play on this balance of barely restrained dramatic poise, both whispered threats and bare screaming come naturally given the foreboding circumstances.
Olivier's take on the titular character is a heroic one. His Hamlet is full of righteous anger while still operating under a melancholy fog that restrains his every move. It's a bit of a contrast from the more cynical interpretations that came later, but it seems to work fairly well. The only real lagging elements of the film, where it gets less interesting to modern audiences, appear when things focus on certain side characters. Several moments fall flat by seeming rather 'stage-y' and lacking in emotion. Jean Simmons as Ophelia appears particularly miscast. Still, the movie holds up astonishingly well overall given the decades that have passed, and the actor/director deserves huge credit for that.
Shakespeare must have been weird: Why didn’t he write about happy things? If Hamlet was the hero, how come he died at the end? To ponder the play is to grapple these difficult questions, and more. Olivier has an unrivaled facility for understanding Mr. Bard and making him intelligible. Has there been a more superb example of film-making? But what’s this about Yorick? If he’s dead, why talk about him?
Question the omissions of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Fortinbras if you must. But Jean Simmons' Ophelia? That I cannot bear.
Lawrence Oliver's greatest performance earned him an Oscar which many actors today don't understand.
THIS IS THE HAMLET TO SEE! True, he had to cut alot out (4 1/2 hours down to 2 1/2), but as a cohesive reworking it is well acted and thought out! It relates the essence of the story and is set in its original setting (i.e. a Danish castle in 1600, WHERE IT SHOULD BE SET!) Breathtaking!
Davidf05 thinks this title is suitable for 12 years and over
There are no summaries for this title yet.
There are no notices for this title yet.
There are no quotes for this title yet.