There is still time to join us as a paid subscriber or give a gift subscription at our current “forever” discount rate.
Yesterday's post on the king in Hamlet, and his terrible doubts as he tries and fails to pray, has determined for me what our Film of the Week would be — Hamlet itself. I’d mentioned the vocal introduction that Laurence Olivier appended to the film, which he both starred in and directed: “This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind.” Olivier said he wanted to zero in on the tortured emotions of the Prince of Denmark, especially what he saw as Hamlet’s ambiguous love for his mother, and that’s why he cut about an hour and a half from what would otherwise have been a four-hour production. He cut everything political: there’s no Fortinbras, prince of Norway, no Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to act as the king’s suborned agents against their college friend Hamlet, no view of Claudius in action as the ruler, no vexed question of the succession to the Danish crown. That last one is a real issue in the play, as it certainly was for Englishmen in Shakespeare’s time, since Queen Elizabeth was old and in poor health, and she had no children. The Danish crown was elective, which makes us ask, “Why did the people throw their weight toward Claudius, the king’s brother, rather than to Hamlet, the king’s grown son?” For the play does set it up as a legitimate question, as Hamlet accuses the King of having “come between the election and my hopes.” So it’s not just a lot of lines that Olivier cut, but a large and important side of the play.
Still, Olivier produced a terrific film. I wouldn’t have chosen it for the Oscar it won for best film of 1948; my vote would have gone to The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or to the harrowing Johnny Belinda. And there have been several big productions of Hamlet since then, one with Nicol Williamson, one with Kenneth Branagh, even one with Mel Gibson. But here I’m going once more to take a cue from the Prince of Denmark himself, and “by indirections find directions out.” How about, for psychological power and for situating the Prince in the entire complex of political and personal demands that Shakespeare gives us? I’m thinking of a production with a severely restricted set, but with few lines removed, and with the rest of the dramatis personae restored to their importance, as they all serve as points of contact or contrast with Hamlet, to deepen the ambiguity of the man’s choices, and render them harder to accept, and thus more terribly tragic if we conclude that they are wrong?
The BBC, from 1978 to 1985, produced all 37 of Shakespeare’s plays, with a pretty wide range in quality. You’d think that the comedies would be the easiest to do, but there the success was pretty spotty: the two I found to be excellent were Twelfth Night (with a wonderful performance by Robert Hardy as Sir Toby Belch; you may remember Hardy as the mischievous old veterinarian Siegfried in All Things Bright and Beautiful) and Measure for Measure (see Kate Nelligan as Isabella). They were best with the histories: see for example Ron Cook as the restless hunchback in Richard III, and Anthony Quayle as Falstaff in Henry IV, parts 1 and 2; the dream sequence in Richard III is performed with breathtaking subtlety and quietly mounting terror.
The tragedies were hit or miss — the best were Othello, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet. When you consider the cast, you ask, “How could it be otherwise?” Derek Jacobi is the Prince, intelligent, introverted, self-doubting, a shrewd judge of character, and, once roused, a formidable opponent. Claire Bloom is the Queen, and Patrick Stewart, yes, that Patrick Stewart, with hair still on the top of his head, is Claudius. So I recommend both productions, but if I had to choose one or the other, I’d go for this one. “Make it so,” he said.
Click above image to view today’s film.
Word & Song bthony Esolen is an online magazine devoted to reclaiming the good, the beautiful, and the true. We publish six essays each week, on words, classic hymns, poems, films, and popular songs, as well as a Friday podcast, alternately Poetry Aloud or Anthony Esolen Speaks. To support this project, please join us as a subscriber, and please do share our posts.
Your post yesterday and today have made me realize that I have not fully appreciated how much of Shakespeare's Hamlet depends upon half-hearing, overhearing, eavesdropping, and spying. I recently watched the 1990s film of Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (with Oldman, Roth, Dreyfuss). I am struck now by how Stoppard takes this strategy to the extreme, to the point of babble, confusion, doubt, chaos--to the level of absurdity with no way out for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Is this Stoppard's statement about the human condition? Shakespeare has Horatio conclude that this is a tale of "accidental judgments." How can we know truth and judge rightly? If we doubt ourselves, I'm grateful that we can trust in the whole of Scripture and the Magisterium.
You mentioned Nelligan's performance in Measure for Measure. Her performance is amazing, and so is Tim Pigott-Smith's, especially in their first argument in Act II: Scene 2. You can see him falling for her, admiring her and envying her goodness, and then the various emotions wash over his face and his eyes well up as he wants to possess her goodness and her--and yet the darkness builds within him. Layers and layers in that play. Is the ending a good marriage between church and state or a compromise of morals? Lots of doubt there.
Patrick Stewart as Claudius? Ok. As Macbeth (2010)? Fantastic! As Shylock? There's a clip of Stewart and David Suchet taking turns with the "Hath not a Jew" speech. I think Suchet has him beat. But what gifts these actors have given us! There's no doubt about that.
Julius Caesar, with James Mason as Brutus, Sir John Gielgud as Cassius and Marlon Brando as Mark Antony was brilliant, so meaningful I just had to mention it.