Hamlet (1969)

Am I Missing Something?

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

While for my liking there were too many close-ups where it could have been much more expansive and the final scene being too underplayed with need of more tension- some of the small roles also don't really distinguish themselves and feel like window dressing- this is still a very good Hamlet. For me it's not definitive, the excellent Kenneth Branagh film is more ideal in terms of completeness. But personal favourite is Laurence Olivier's, also abridged but it's brilliantly written, astonishingly well made and Olivier in one of his finest performances. Wasn't completely crazy about Mel Gibson's version. Coming back to this Hamlet, while very minimalist and fairly sparsely set it is lit in a way that has shades of expressionism which did make the production somewhat striking. While cut down a lot, the story is still atmospheric- almost claustrophobic- and coherent though it would have made much more sense with the confessional scene being left in. The script is remarkably literate and what is left of the prose does have a Shakespearean vibe and the impact that the lines have isn't lost either. The soliloquies like in the Olivier version is both thoughtfully written and delivered and the comic banter between Hamlet and Polonius is inventively done. Tony Richardson's stage direction is very meticulous from the smallest detail to the largest with little hint of stodginess while keeping the pace deliberate. He manages to solve the potential issue with the ghost(something that people may not agree with), which when not done well could be hokey, using a bright light. Nicol Williamson's Hamlet might not be for all tastes, it is a booming and forthright performance that may cry out for more subtlety for some. That wasn't a problem for me, because Williamson was incredibly commanding in the role with Hamlet's madness genuinely intense and he also brings nuance and thoughtfulness, which couldn't be more apparent in the soliloquies(if there was anything that wasn't quite right personally it was that he does have a tendency to speak too quickly). Anthony Hopkins is too young for Claudius but is regal and genuinely gluttonous and his scheming is genuinely evil. Judy Parfitt is an elegant Gertrude and Marianne Faithful is beautiful and affecting as Orphelia. Roger Livesey is a real bright spot here in dual roles, and Rosencratz and Guildenstern have rarely been more chilling than in this version. All in all, a very good Hamlet and perhaps the most underrated one but personally not definitive. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

After revisiting Richardson's Charge of the Light Brigade a couple of days ago I put this on again. I found myself far more impressed than when I'd first watched it, two or three years ago. This was even though I'd always admired Nicol Williamson in whatever else I'd seen him in, such as The Bofors Gun, and Laughter in the Dark. Everything about this version now struck me as really excellent, especially the manner in which it had been shot, with the multiple facial close-ups. Shakespeare is words, not scenery. The backdrops only have to be suggested in a minimal manner. This allows the script to take over, as it should, and as Shakespeare wrote it. Words, words, words; the finest ever produced.The ghost was imaginatively conceived. I formed the impression that its lines were actually spoken by Williamson himself, indicating that this apparition was largely a figment of his own thoughts and suspicions --- in spite of first being seen by the sentries. I may be mistaken in this casting.Of course there are many anomalies in the play. It's never clear quite how long a time elapses between Old Hamlet's death and Gertrude's marriage to Claudius: Two months ? Ten days? Soon enough for the funeral food to be served up at the wedding? Similarly, Shakespeare never makes it clear exactly how old Hamlet really is. Complaints about the comparative ages of the actors playing Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude always seem to me quite irrelevant. The parts are being ACTED for heaven's sake. Shakespeare's stage had boys and men playing female parts; as well as white men playing black men. No actor is "really" a king, a prince, or a hero. It's a matter of the quality of the verse delivery, not the pursuit of some phony "realism". All art is fake, and total illusion anyway.This production reveals much of the play's subtleties, especially the psychology of Hamlet's state of mind, in ways unlike Olivier's Hamlet, which I also admire. I've seen another production, set in modern New York, which I thought was a complete failure. Having compared Branagh's Henry V with Olivier's, I don't think I'll be bothering with the full-length Branagh Hamlet. Branagh did nothing for me as Henry, and performing the entire script end-to-end strikes me as quite pointless; I sincerely doubt that it was ever performed like that on the contemporary stage. The varied interpretations delivered by different directors means that the work is always fresh and renewable.Watching this production by Richardson is a highly rewarding experience, and every part is played supremely well

As the front cover says "The hamlet of our time, for our time".I had to study this filmed version of Hamlet directly after watching Keneth Branagh's version and it was truly a disappointing experience.This version takes a different approach to several aspects of the play including sexuality; one very VERY homosexual Osric and an interesting interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. I think for the time (60's) this was a very well done version of Hamlet but cannot compare to Branagh's complete version.just a note... I found the video at my local video store (in Australia) and I'm actually looking for a Keneth Branagh DVD to buy if such a thing even exists. If anyone knows of one please tell me.

I was switching channels one Saturday evening when my dial stopped--Nicol was on the screen, and there was no mistaking him. I didn't recognize the role at first, until he spoke a few words; then the play came to me like a flash. Hamlet. I stayed, and finished out the play as much as I could (I was suffering insomia and just channel-surfing to fall asleep by) before cursed sleep took over. (Sleep that knits the raveled sleep of care, oh, wait. That's another of his movies!)In all seriousness, I was intrigued by his portray of the mad-Prince. The mood changes were all down perfectly--you could see the insanity truly right below the eyes. Now, either Nicol's a brillant actor (natch!) or he's a bit touched himself! Every little thing he did onscreen, ever muscle twitch in his facial expressions--you really believed that he was insane, and it was perfect. I had never seen any of the other Hamlet plays, just local-type ones by amateurs, and he blew my socks off.I HIGHLY recommend this movie. Now, if you get a copy, you'd better tell me where--I've been looking for footage since that night! I even opened the TV-Guide, tore out the little paragraph that was in there about it, and stashed it so I could have all the particulars.Never found a copy yet (video stores and libraries), but I haven't given up home.Do check out this movie if you see it's coming on cable again--it's very worth the few hours!:)Dee