Retro Film Review: Hamlet (1996)

Retro Film Review: Hamlet (1996) | Ecency

(source:tmdb.org)

Hamlet is the best known of all Shakespeare's plays. Needless to say, this guaranteed that the many film-makers in various countries would use it as source of inspiration. Many film adaptations of Hamlet were made, but they all had one major flaw. The unabridged text of Shakespeare's play usually resulted in four hours of performance on the stage. Those four hours were too much for the film-makers, studios or theatre owners. The only man with enough fame, charisma, energy and love to challenge conventional wisdom was Kenneth Branagh. In 1996 he made first full adaptation of Hamlet. The movie was 238 minutes long and represented the most faithful adaptation of Shakespeare's text.

Although faithful to the text, Hamlet continued with 1990s trends of putting the plot of Shakespeare's plays into more modern times. The film, just like the original play, takes place in Denmark, but the setting is changed to middle of 19th Century. Danish prince Hamlet (played by Kenneth Branagh) returns to Elsinore Castle from the studies in Germany. He is not pleased with his mother Gertrude (played by Julie Christie) marrying his uncle Claudius (played by Derek Jacobi) shortly after the death of Hamlet's father (played by Brian Blessed). Castle becomes haunted by a ghost that would approach Hamlet and tell him that Cladius poisoned his father in order to gain throne and Gertrude. Hamlet becomes torn between the desire for revenge and scepticism towards such harsh accusation. He creates clever plan to provoke Claudius into admitting his guilt. In the meantime, Hamlet's relationship with beautiful Ophelia (played by Kate Winslet) is in crisis. Claudius gradually begins to fear his nephew and decides to get rid of him. All those intrigues happen as Norwegian troops led by Prince Fortinbras (played by Rufus Sewel) begin to approach Elsinore.

Four hours of running time suggest a movie of epic dimensions. So, it isn't surprising that Branagh tried very hard to turn Hamlet into real epic. Exteriors of Blenheim Palace and lavish sets designs Tim Harvey are put to good use and make this film very impressive. Visual splendour provides sharp contrast with general bleakness of the story.

However, the most important thing about this version of Hamlet is that many characters and subplots ignored by other film-makers got covered by Branagh. Because of that many subplots and events in the play, unlike in abridged versions, can make some sort of sense. Having time to tell those stories, Branagh extensively used flashbacks to accompany characters' depictions of past events with action. This also makes film grand, but after some time this technique becomes too repetitive, self-serving and pretentious. Thankfully, film ends with the action scene worthy of Errol Flynn's classics.

Branagh, of course, followed his tradition and decided to play the title character. This wasn't such a hard task because he had played Hamlet on stage hundreds of times. His role is good, but not very impressive. Equal amounts of energy and talent brought much better results in Henry V. More interesting and more effective performance was given by Derek Jacobi, whose Cladius is more complex character than in most other versions of Hamlet. Michael Malone, who always played neurotic characters in Branagh's films, is also very good as Laertes. The most pleasant surprise is Julie Christie in the role that represented triumphant return from decades of retirement. Many supporting players are also good, but few could match Charlton Heston in small but powerful role of Player King. Some actors weren't that impressive and their star presence in small roles was too distracting.

Hamlet is great film, but not that great after the inevitable comparisons with Branagh's other adaptations of Shakespeare's plays. Music by Patrick Doyle, which had served Branagh's films so well in the past, isn't that effective here. However, despite those flaws Branagh's effort should be commended. Viewers patient enough to sit through four hours of his film are going to be rewarded with memorable experience. This is something that most 1990s Hollywood films failed to do.

RATING: 7/10 (+++)

(Note: The text in its original form was posted in Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.films.reviews on June 1st 2004)