Blogorium Reviews Assemble!: Thor

I'm of two minds when it comes to reviewing Thor, because as much as I want to convey to readers that the movie is not only watchable, but eminently better than the garbage passing itself off as "summer entertainment" year after year, I also feel a responsibility to point out that half of the film is much better than the other. I feel this is directly attributable to Thor's director, Kenneth Branagh.

Branagh, whose output varies from the likes of Dead Again to a remake of Sleuth, is best known for his Shakespearean films - Henry V, Hamlet, Love's Labours Lost, Much Ado About Nothing, and As You Like It (as well as appearing in Othello) - and the influence of the Bard on his adaptation of the Nordic-God-Turned-Marvel-Comic-Hero is apparent throughout the film.At least, part of the film.
 
  In the realm of Asgard (one of the nine cosmic realms), Odin (Anthony Hopkins), King of the Gods, is preparing to step down and enter Odinsleep - his period of hibernation - but first must decide which of his sons to hand the throne of Asgard to. His oldest son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is brave, if stubborn, whose rule may be undermined by a sense of entitlement. His youngest son, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) spent his life living in the shadow of Thor, and while his mischievous nature is recognized, his desire to win Odin's approval is evident. When the Frost Giants invade Asgard and try to steal back the Casket of Ancient Winters (their power supply), Thor disregards Odin's wishes and travels to Jotunheim with Loki, Sif (Jaimie Alexander) and The Warriors Three - Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), Fandral (Joshua Dallas), Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) - in tow to destroy the King of the Frost Giants (Colm Feore). Furious, Odin strips Thor of his powers and orders Heimdall (Idris Elba) to banish his son to Earth.

 And that's the first half hour or so of Thor. That doesn't take into account astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), her advisor Dr.Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and assistant Darcy (Kat Dennings), who discover Thor while searching the deserts in New Mexico for wormholes (or, as the film insists on calling them, "Einstein-Rosen bridges*"). No sooner have they found the brash, unruly son of Odin than Mjolnir, Thor's hammer, also falls to Earth and is discovered by S.H.I.E.L.D., headed up by Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg), who continues to appear in all Avengers-related Marvel films.

 The New Mexico part of the story, including a well-staged action sequence involving Thor, the S.H.I.E.L.D. team (including an extended cameo by Jeremy Renner, who will play Hawkeye in The Avengers**), is unfortunately the half of the film that doesn't really work. It's clear that Branagh is more interested in the Shakespearean power play at hand in Asgard, where Loki assumes power as Odin collapses after banishing Thor and proceeds to manipulate events in order to keep his older brother from ever returning. What happens on Earth, the place where Thor learns humility and earns his "God of Thunder" powers - which should be the most important part of the film - takes a back seat to Asgardian politics.

 Portman and Skarsgård are wasted in roles that serve no purpose: Jane Foster's developing romance with Thor never really makes sense because there's no story arc to support it. Selvig seems to exist in order to bridge Norse mythology to the story at hand (as is evidenced by the many times Skarsgård is forced to mention or read tales of the Viking Gods during the film), and for one good scene where he (badly) lies about Thor's identity to free him from S.H.I.E.L.D. captivity. There's also the after credits tease, but I'll get to that in a minute. I have no idea why Kat Dennings is in the film at all, as Darcy contributes nothing to the story unless the three screenwriters (plus two credited "story" writers) felt the pressing need to have three people discover Thor.

 Gregg is, as usual, fine as the "been there, seen that" second hand man of S.H.I.E.L.D. This time, he's on his own (Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury doesn't show up until later), and makes a credible Earth-bound foil for Thor, I guess. Since Thor pretty much gives up on beating goons after failing to raise Mjolnir, it's hard to really say. Again, the Earth-bound business feels perfunctory, second to the far more interesting Asgard story.

 Branagh seems to be more comfortable with Hopkins, Hiddleston, Hemsworth, Elba, and Renee Russo (who I didn't even recognize as Odin's wife Frigg) and the power struggle between father and sons. It's as though he's reveling in a pulp fiction twist on King Lear, and the film comes to life during throne room conversations. That's not to say that the Asgard half of the film isn't without its problems, though - another Branagh idiosyncrasy pops up that further confuses the narrative.

 Audiences have some idea when they are introduced to Loki that he's supposed to be the villain: his posture is slightly stooped, his hair is slicked back and his sullen, sunken eyes just scream "bad guy waiting in the wings!" But when the time comes for Hiddleston to shift from younger brother with an inferiority complex to full on baddie, Branagh doesn't convey that. This shouldn't be surprising: Branagh also devoted as much of his Hamlet as possible to give nuance to Claudius, typically portrayed as the moustache twirling villain. And there's something to be said for nuance, for giving a villain dimensions, or even to make him sympathetic, but Loki is such a muddled antagonist that he's never a genuine threat for Thor.

 In fact, Loki doesn't actually behave in a villainous manner until the after-credits sequence (directed by Joss Whedon, it turns out), where Selvig is summoned by Nick Fury to examine the Cosmic Cube. This brings me to another problem that isn't Branagh's fault, per se, but more attributable to Marvel Executive Producer Kevin Feige: the "set-up" effect.

 To be fair, Thor integrates Marvel characters (specifically Avenger-related) in a less intrusive way than say, Iron Man 2: there are small asides that indirectly mention Tony Stark and Bruce Banner; there's the aforementioned "Hawkeye" scene, and The Cosmic Cube is their way of anticipating the Captain America film to come. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect is that Thor on Earth isn't really about Thor among humans, but as laying the groundwork for The Avengers, right down to the last thing he says to Agent Coulson before leaving for Asgard.

 Okay, so I've nitpicked Thor as a way of addressing why there's a small (but vocal) backlash against the film online, so why do I think it's better than most summer entertainment? Well, the Asgard sections of the film are very good, as is the battle with the Frost Giants. Hemsworth and Elba are both great; Hopkins hasn't been this watchable in a while, and while they don't make much of an impact in the story, Sif and The Warriors Three have a natural chemistry with Thor that hints at a stronger relationship than we see in the film.

 The film is also funnier than this recap might suggest, and the laughs are much needed considering how much "fish out of water" plot is glossed over. The effects are impressive, particularly the Bifröst and bridge of Asgard. More to the point I feel the need to stress that there actually IS a story in Thor, which is more than I can say for a lot of "summer movies." It may not be the perfect comic book movie, but if you don't mind the imbalance of interest on Branagh's part, there's a lot to enjoy in Thor.



* I mention this because Ain't It Cool News, of all places, has an actual astrophysicist that breaks down the science of Thor here, and it seems like while the name is appropriate, it's really just a fancy way of saying "wormhole."
** I mention this because Coulson never actually uses his Avengers moniker, so either you know about the casting or are enough of a Marvel fan to know why he chooses a compound bow over sniper rifle. Or both, I suppose. Otherwise, it's just "hey, why is Jeremy Renner in this movie?"

Cap'n Howdy Presents Handy Answers to Your Questions

Today I thought I'd throw a bone to visitors that happen across the Blogorium via Google, Bing, or one of those other search engines that I've forgotten about (seriously, Ask.com is still out there?). This is also a way to address the many strange queries, subjects, and searches that bring folks here, in the hopes that this entry will be a handy portal to other essays, where I may not directly address your questions.

In case regular readers weren't aware, the Cap'n gets a bunch of one-time visitors, often coming in based on the oddest of criteria, so I'll share that with you as well.

Are the Coen brothers auteurs? - this question pops up more often than any other, in various forms, because I posted an essay from my final in a Theories of Authorship: The Coen Brothers to the Blogorium (found here). For people looking for more information on Joel and Ethan Coen, I also posted a series of other essays on The Ladykillers, Forever Young Film Preservation, A Serious Man, Barton Fink, Doppelgangers, Incongruities, Social Commentary, The Man Who Wasn't There, The Hudsucker Proxy, Music in their films, Influences of Film Noir, No Country for Old Men, Uncertainty, Re-adaptations, True Grit and the "other" Coen brothers.
What is the source of Hamlet's melancholy? - Apparently, high school students have trouble with Hamlet, and go to the internet to find answers. Sometimes, they end up at one of the Hamlet Week posts. In Hamlet's own words (from Act II, scene 2):

HAMLET
I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation
prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the king
and queen moult no feather. I have of late--but
wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, forgone all
custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily
with my disposition that this goodly frame, the
earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most
excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave
o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted
with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to
me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.
What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,
what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not
me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling
you seem to say so.

Now, astute readers will note that Hamlet is toying with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, upon realizing they were sent for by Claudius and Gertrude, and that his "wherefore I know not" is a ruse. He is principally irritated because of this:

HAMLET
O, that this too too solid flesh would melt
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! God!
How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. That it should come to this!
But two months dead: nay, not so much, not two:
So excellent a king; that was, to this,
Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother
That he might not beteem the winds of heaven
Visit her face too roughly. Heaven and earth!
Must I remember? why, she would hang on him,
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on: and yet, within a month--
Let me not think on't--Frailty, thy name is woman!--
A little month, or ere those shoes were old
With which she follow'd my poor father's body,
Like Niobe, all tears:--why she, even she--
O, God! a beast, that wants discourse of reason,
Would have mourn'd longer--married with my uncle,
My father's brother, but no more like my father
Than I to Hercules: within a month:
Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
She married. O, most wicked speed, to post
With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!
It is not nor it cannot come to good:
But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue.

I will not explain what it means, high school students, but if you have the slightest idea what's going on in Hamlet, this should sufficiently answer your question.


What is different in The Other Guys unrated? - One visitor was referred to my review of The Other Guys, which clearly didn't help out, as it was a review of the theatrical version. The answer to your question is "not much": there are about 9 extra minutes worth of footage, including a car chase fist fight, another Hoitz argument with an ex, a more specific monologue about corporate greed, and a new stinger at the end of the credits. The big difference is that the dialogue is considerably filthier, with most of the "tame" versions of cursing replaced with their vulgar counterparts.

Did Anton really shit on Joaquin Phoenix? - No. According to IMDB: "the 'feces' was [sic] actually a combination of humus and coffee grounds. The mixture was inserted into a tube that was taped onto Antony Langdon's (Anton) back that went down to his butt." As the review and supplemental materials on the disc assert, nearly everything in I'm Still Here was manufactured through camera trickery.

No Country for Old Men hotel scene. - I see that I was not the only person who was skeptical with the assertion that Anton Chigurh was, and then magically was not, in the hotel room before Sheriff Ed Tom Bell walked in. The sequence analysis, which goes (nearly) shot by shot can be found here.

Now, some of the really weird ones.

Expendables Stallone cap. - It took me forever to realize that "cap" was in reference to "screencap" and accordingly I had no idea why so many people were looking for "____ cap" and being sent to the Blogorium. There's not a lot I can do about this, as it's simply an unfortunate side effect of using the slang term "Cap'n." Sorry.

"cop knows how to use his dark side for good" - Another reference to The Other Guys, from Ice-T's narration, one that I suspect is a reference to the Showtime series Dexter - the narrator suggests that the cop in question should move to Miami, where Dexter is set and that is a rough approximation of the show's concept.

Alicia Marek - Alicia Marek plays Jeff Fahey's wife and Lindsay Lohan's mother in Machete, and spends the second half of the film naked. Because I mentioned her by name in the review - along with the rest of the cast - anyone looking for naked photos is invariably cock-blocked by an actual review of the film. I'm not sorry for that.

Slutty renaissance - My absolute favorite way that someone found the review of Satan's Little Helper. I'm almost positive it wasn't what they were looking for - unless you weren't looking for an actual "slutty renaissance" - but it does match my description of Katheryn Winnick's costume for most of the film.

Tron XXX Parody - An unfortunate combination of recent reviews for Tron Legacy and a Video Daily Double post about The Simpsons: A XXX Parody led some poor guy to the Blogorium. Alas, such a thing is real, is being made, and is titled "Pron."

Grandfather Granddaughter Porn - No. Just, No. I don't know why this sent anyone to Blogorium (thanks, Turkish Google search engine!), but you won't find that here. I don't know where you would find it, I'm not going to help you find it, so yeah... good luck with that, pal.

Hamlet Week: Day Six (Bonus Film!)

For our final day of Hamlet Week, I present the most perplexing of all adaptations of William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

Cap'n Howdy's Handy Hamlet Handbook:

Date of Release: 1990

Directed By: Tom Stoppard

Dramatis Personae: Hamlet (Iain Glen), Claudius (Donald Sumpter), Gertrude (Joanna Miles), Horatio (Vili Matula), Polonius (Ian Richardson), Laertes (Sven Medvesek), Ophelia (Joanna Roth)

Other Notable Cast Members: Tim Roth (The Hit, Vincent & Theo) - Guildenstern, Gary Oldman (Sid and Nancy, Immortal Beloved) - Rosencrantz, Richard Dreyfuss (American Graffiti, Leaves of Grass) - The Player

Setting: Denmark, around and outside of Castle Elsinore. Roughly the same period as Olivier's Hamlet.

Run time: 117 minutes

What's Missing: Where to start... there's all sorts of things missing from the play. Nothing prior to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern arriving is anywhere to be found, and for the most part, scenes they're in are offered up in abbreviated or truncated forms. The end of the play is told in silent flashes, and periodically a snippet of dialogue is heard through a window or wall, but for the most part there's a lot of business involving Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and the Player King which occasionally intersects with Hamlet (typically between Act 3 and the end of The Mouse-Trap).

Things you won't see: Marcellus, Bernardo, almost all of Horatio's scenes, Fortinbras, the Ghost, Osric, Reynaldo, Cornelius, Voltimand, and pretty much all of Laertes' scenes. You do, however, see the English Ambassador, so that has to count for something...

Other Deviations: I suppose this qualifies as a deviation - the Players enact the remainder of Hamlet (from Polonius' death onward) in pantomime to the servants in Elsinore (and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern). The bulk of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead's narrative occurs between their arrival in the castle and the actual performance of The Mouse-Trap (of which we see snippets, broken up by editing and time distortion).

Also, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead posits a deviation that the duo are, in fact, responsible for Polonius crying out and subsequently meeting his end at Hamlet's hand. It's an interesting take on the play that really only seems to be played for a joke.

Like the Zeffirelli version of Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead sees it fit to show Hamlet aboard the boat, switching the letter out, followed shortly after by the deaths of R&G (this time by hanging).

What Works: Well, I suppose if you're all right with the abandonment of most of Hamlet in this, strangest of all adaptations, then there's plenty to enjoy. There's a lot of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern mulling over the meaning of life, death, fate, and free will, while the Player King seems to know all too well the answers they seek.

Rosencrantz has a habit of finding or making things that demonstrate various scientific principles or are anachronistic, like paper planes, water displacement, weights and pulleys, cheeseburgers, a proto-xylophone, and pinwheels. Invariably, when he tries to show them to Guildenstern, they fail or are destroyed in the process.

What Doesn't Work: It should seem fairly obvious that if you're coming to this play steeped in Hamlet (as the Cap'n is at the end of this week), then this is even more of a radical departure than the Almereyda version. Certainly, fans of Shakespeare are going to be rather at a loss with the departures this Tom Stoppard makes with his play (apparently based on some version that Stoppard wrote for the stage) and might take umbrage to the liberties he makes with Hamlet.

Then again, perhaps in the interest of avoiding two versions of Hamlet in the same year, such a radical change was necessary. Nevertheless, I'd imagine that many would be shocked at the flagrant anachronisms and existential quandaries on display in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

Final Thoughts: I shouldn't have to explain this, but to avoid embarrassing someone in the comments, yes, I know that this isn't supposed to be an interpretation of Hamlet. I was having a bit of fun with you after a long week of watching variations on the same theme, and I hope you took it in the spirit intended. If you're familiar with Hamlet, there's certainly plenty to enjoy about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, even if Stoppard was ultimately unhappy with his film version*.


* For this, I couldn't find the interview online, but I refer you to disc two of the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead DVD.

Hamlet Week: Day Five

Welcome, once again, good readers to Hamlet Week. We're winding down the five film stretch with the most recent adaptation of Shakespeare's play, this time done with the BBC in conjunction with the Royal Shakespeare Company, featuring two rather well known actors in starring roles. How will it hold up against yesterday's Hamlet? Let's turn to...


Cap'n Howdy's Handy Hamlet Handbook:

Date of Release: 2009

Directed By: Gregory Doran (MacBeth)

Dramatis Personae: Hamlet (David Tennant), Claudius (Patrick Stewart), Gertrude (Penny Downie), Horatio (Peter De Jersey), Polonius (Oliver Ford Davies), Laertes (Edward Bennett), Ophelia (Mariah Gale)

Other Notable Cast Members: Patrick Stewart (Dune, Jeffrey) - Ghost.

Setting: Denmark, thereabouts present day.

Run time: 182 minutes

What's Missing: Much of the play is left intact for the first half. There are tiny lifts here and there, mostly a line or two missing from a soliloquy or a speech, and the only things I really caught were pieces regarding Old Norway and Fortinbras that were gone.

The big removals come after Hamlet kills Polonius and is sent back to England; it's as though Doran realized that this version was only three hours long and so he began desperately cutting material. To wit, everything after Hamlet leaves takes place in the last 40 minutes or so (including Ophelia's madness, drowning, the return of Laertes, Hamlet meeting Fortinbras' soldier, his return, the burial scene, the introduction of Osric, and the duel). Comparatively speaking, in Branagh's version, all of this happens in the last 87 minutes, so there are deletions a-plenty.

Half of Claudius' conversation regarding Hamlet and revenge is gone; the scene now begins with him asking Laertes "was your father dear to you" followed quickly by "Hamlet comes back" and then the hatching of the plan. There is no mention of how Hamlet returned, what the letter addressed to Claudius says, or how he found Horatio. Only a cursory mention is given to "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead," which is given to Horatio to deliver rather than Hamlet recounting their treachery.

The gravedigger scene is much shorter, as is the duel (which begins with ten minutes left in the run time), and despite the fact that much ado had been made of Fortinbras (very little concerning Fortinbras has been cut, even compared to Branagh's complete version), his invasion of Elsinore is wholly deleted from the 2009 version.

Other Deviations: I suppose the biggest change has to be the fact that Patrick Stewart plays both Claudius and the Ghost of Hamlet. For reasons I'll get to below, there are some interesting ramifications that come from the implication that they were twin brothers (which are at times addressed and at times maddeningly ignored), and what it means to the mental state of Hamlet.

The setting doesn't upset this Hamlet as much as it did the 2000 version; while there are similarities (the use of Close Circuit TVs, Hamlet's fascination with filming things, the abbreviated use of guns, and the method by which Hamlet kills Polonius - almost identical), the production does not feel locked into 2009 (it may be unfair to call this a "film" version, since though it was shot on film, it was broadcast on the BBC and released on DVD and Blu-Ray in the U.S.). The Royal Court of Denmark is very reminiscent of the public way royal families are portrayed: signing treaties, making appearances at formal occasions, and publicly devoted to the interests of state. If anything, the 2009 version of Hamlet feels more "updated" to reflect the way heads of state behave than to "modernize" it for Generation Y.

There are other things, mostly character beats, that I'll split up between here and the ensuing sections. For example, rather than run away during The Mouse-trap (as every other Claudius does), Patrick Stewart picks up a lantern and walks directly to where Hamlet is sitting (and filming - ostensibly the play, but it's clear from the cutaways to 16mm footage that he's filming Claudius and Gertrude) and looks at him directly, almost to say "you are responsible for this." Their relationship is considerably different from other interpretations of Hamlet.

Ophelia is also treated differently early in the play. Her conversation with Laertes, which is often played as the wiser brother lecturing his sister, is instead a back and forth between siblings that know each other all too well (for example, when she says "Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven; Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads, And recks not his own rede," she draws attention to the condoms in Laertes' luggage). It was also interesting to note that in this take on Hamlet, only Polonius seems to spend much time with the Royals, as Gertrude clearly doesn't know who Ophelia is when she enters the throne room.

What Works: There's quite a bit to like about Doran's 2009 adaptation of Hamlet, and as mentioned above, much of it comes from character choices by the actors. David Tennant, for example, brings a manic energy to Hamlet that is reminiscent (but never copying) of his time on Doctor Who. What he does to make it different is that he channels it in such a way that viewers are never certain just how together Hamlet is. Yes, he claims there's method in his madness, but Tennant's Hamlet is just slightly unhinged and it's entirely fair to suggest that he may not be thinking clearly from the earliest moments. (This is incidental, perhaps, but for much of the first half of the play, Hamlet is barefoot - even while wearing a tuxedo.)

Hamlet seems genuinely terrified of Ophelia during the "nunnery" scene, as though his love for her and his obsession with revenge were two feelings that could not be reconciled. Rather than gently try to warn her to leave (as is the case in the Olivier, Zeffirelli, and - arguably - Branagh versions), Hamlet lashes out and runs away in a panic. Later, during The Mousetrap, Tennant gives a reading of "did you think I meant country manners" that emphasizes the first half of the word country; a reading I've yet to hear in any version of Hamlet to this point. (I had to rewind the disc to make sure I heard what I thought I heard.)

Tennant also emphasizes the word "Madam" in "I shall in all my best obey you, madam," which is also the first time I've heard a take on Hamlet that made it abundantly clear he was staying only because of Gertrude, and that Claudius' "Why, 'tis a loving and a fair reply" was a hollow victory for the new King.

Speaking of Claudius, Patrick Stewart does some very interesting work with the unjustly crowned King of Denmark. In other versions, it's never exactly clear how Claudius feels about Hamlet; in some, he appears to behave kindly towards him for Gertrude's sake; in others, like Branagh's, Claudius appears to genuinely want things to work out between the three of them, until Hamlet's behavior pushes him beyond a reasonable point. Stewart's Claudius loves Gertrude, but it's clear from their first scene together that he does not like Hamlet as a person. Claudius is aloof towards Hamlet, unsure whether he really wants to indulge the Prince's mood swings, and when Stewart begins to speak to Hamlet, only to turn away and direct his attention to Laertes, the snub is deliberate.

Even when praying, it seems as though Claudius feels some guilt but can't bring himself to actually atone for it. When, realizing that prayer will have no effect, Claudius rises, he indifferently walks away, neither frustrated nor disappointed that his efforts are in vain. As the Ghost of Hamlet, Stewart strips away the reserve of Claudius and is a bellowing, angry spirit. He shouts in a way that is neither frightening nor pathetic (as other versions do), but of a King commanding vengeance from his unstable son - who may well be imagining this.

There's a nice touch involving the CCTV's switching from the "regular" camera which indicates that while Horatio, Bernardo, and Marcellus can see the Ghost, the surveillance camera cannot. Just as Hamlet bends his "eye on vacancy" in Gertrude's chamber, so too do the guards in the opening scene. The CCTV camera is also the bane of Hamlet's existence in the throne room, as it clues him in that Polonius and Claudius are spying on Ophelia (even though they stand behind a two way mirror, reminiscent of the Branagh version).

Finally, I was quite fond of Oliver Ford Davies Polonius, because he finds a kind of balance between the doddering old fool from Olivier's version and the crafty, if over-clever Ian Holm Polonius in Zeffirelli's. Polonius in Doran's version is wise counsel to Claudius (and to the throne), but he has a nasty habit of letting his mind wander, which Davies portrays less comically and more frustrating to those around him. At first, it's not clear where he's taking the audience, until Doran allows Polonius to address the camera directly during the "fishmonger" scene, at which point every aside from Polonius is delivered to the audience exclusively. It's a clever touch, and makes for a logical bridge when Hamlet does so during the "play's the thing" speech shortly after.

What Doesn't Work: There are a few things that keep this from being my favorite version of Hamlet, and I doubt that repeated viewings will soften them much. One is the seemingly pointless inclusion of Fortinbras, particularly if his story is building in the background to no end. The reason that Fortinbras is so frequently excised from film versions of Hamlet is that the ending of the play does not suffer radically with his absence. To those more caught up in the main story, the appearance of Fortinbras (and, to some extent, the English Ambassador) comes as a needless introduction of a new character at the very end of the story.

However, as I mentioned on the very first day of Hamlet Week, he serves a great purpose as counterpoint to Hamlet's story, so if you're going to include the Fortinbras subplot all the way through the play, there's no reason to leave out his arrival, especially if you go about the effort to reinstate Laertes leading a mob into Castle Elsinore under the guise of revolution. Thematically, you've set the audience up for a story counterpoint they'll never get.

As I mentioned above, the Claudius / King Hamlet juxtaposition is never adequately explored. Yes, there's plenty of opportunity to surmise and space for conjecture on the audiences' part about Hamlet's sanity, but in a critical scene like the one in Gertrude's bedroom, Doran holds back. There would be some irony to Hamlet's speech about how different the two photos of Kings were - if we had a better look at them. But we don't, only brief glimpses of two Danish newspapers played without insert shots of Claudius and King Hamlet. Imagine if the scene had played out as it does, but with Hamlet's insistence that the two were not alike as we, the audience, could see Patrick Stewart in both pictures?

There are also a handful of similarities to Almereyda's Hamlet that perhaps could be overlooked outside of the proximity of viewing. Polonius hides behind a glass mirror while spying on Hamlet and Gertrude, and when he calls out, Hamlet pulls a gun out of Gertrude's drawer and shoots the mirror, in a manner far too much like the 2000 adaptation. It doesn't help that this is the first time a handgun appears in this Hamlet, thus reminding me of the disastrous effect it had in Almereyda's film. The subsequent motif of broken mirrors in Doran's Hamlet makes some headway into erasing that connection, but the damage was done already, raising sour memories for the Cap'n.

Oh, and this is spoiler-ish, but the death of Claudius has a laughable quality to it, partly because of the decisions that Stewart brings to the character. When Hamlet, at swordpoint, hands Claudius the poisoned cup (instead of forcing him to drink it like almost every other version), the villain takes the cup, looks at it, and does this:


It's harder to convey in a photo than seeing it move, but Stewart just shrugs and drinks the poisoned wine. He shrugs, as to say "Oh, fuck it, I'll off myself," and then does! I had a hard time not laughing as he pounded the goblet and fell over dead, which is absolutely not what I thought would happen with Patrick Stewart's Claudius.

My last quibble is a minor one, which is why I saved it for last. Perhaps because of budget, or perhaps because it resembled the actual set used for the stage production, the first two-thirds of 2009's Hamlet takes place on two sets: the hallway outside Elsinore and - primarily - inside the throne room. It's redressed to look like Gertrude's room, or a greeting room, or a place to stage The Mouse-Trap, but is too clearly the same great hallway used over and over again. When the characters finally move out of that hallway (and into, say, a stairwell, basement, or outdoors for the grave scene), it's clear that perhaps it could have varied a bit more, and thus renders Doran's version to something like a filmed version of a stage production. Again, since the camerawork is well executed most of the time, it's largely forgivable, but I couldn't shake the feeling this was less "cinematic" than it could have been.

Well, okay. There's one more. The Osric was a little hard to take any heed to, in part because of how much he looked like a British Jack McBrayer:


Final Thoughts: I doth protest too much, methinks. Most of my problems with this Hamlet come from comparing to longer (and shorter) interpretations to the material, and many of the choices made as characters were concerned were fresh and interesting. It's easily my second favorite version of Hamlet, and were the second half as riveting as the first, it would be a harder decision to make. As it is, I heartily recommend you check it out, as you aren't likely to have the excessive frame of reference I do, considering the week that's passed.


Stay tuned tomorrow for a special bonus review!

Hamlet Week: Day Four (So You Won't Have To)

Greetings, readers! Welcome to the fourth day over Cap'n Howdy's investigation into Hamlet on the big screen. Today we come to a very different take on Hamlet, and I'm going to be perfectly honest with you upfront: I must be cruel, but it is not to be kind. As I'll detail below, this particular adaptation of William Shakespeare's play really got under my skin, and I nearly turned it off.

I'm also going to be doing something a little bit different with today's in depth review, because sometimes it's not enough to just tell you about stupid things that happen in a film; sometimes I need to show you.

Cap'n Howdy's Handy Hamlet Handbook:

Date of Release: 2000

Directed By: Michael Almereyda (Deadwood, New Orleans, Mon Amour)

Dramatis Personae: Hamlet (Ethan Hawke), Claudius (Kyle MacLachlan), Gertrude (Diane Venora), Horatio (Karl Geary), Polonius (Bill Murray), Laertes (Liev Schreiber), Ophelia (Julia Stiles)

Other Notable Cast Members: Sam Shepard (Days of Heaven, The Right Stuff) - Ghost, Steve Zahn (Reality Bites, Shattered Glass) - Rosencrantz, Jeffrey Wright (Basquiat, Syriana) - Gravedigger, Casey Affleck (Gone Baby Gone, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) - Fortinbras, Larry Fessenden (Broken Flowers, Bringing Out the Dead) - Kissing Man, Tim Blake Nelson (O Brother, Where Art Thou, Leaves of Grass) - Flight Captain

Setting: New York City, home of the Denmark Corporation, the year 2000 (as a title card makes clear).

Run time: 111 min

What's Missing: Take your pick. 90% of the speeches have been pared down to change the meaning, either on the part of the person saying it or to insinuate something on the part of the listener. Laertes no longer accepts Hamlet's apology on principle, only to insist his honor is tainted; he just walks away like a jerk.

Yorick is gone, not merely in flashback form (as was the case in Branagh's expanded Hamlet), but in skull form too, unless you count two instances I'll detail below, neither of which improve the film in any fashion. The Players are removed entirely, replaced instead with a student film project of "The Mousetrap", a "film by Hamlet Prince of Denmark" (which is what the title cards say). Osric doesn't really exist in this version of Hamlet either. His lines are either given to Horatio, an unnamed fencing officiant, or are, like all other servants of the Denmark Corporation, handed over to a fax machine.

Don't let the frequency of his name appearing fool you: Fortinbras is nothing more than a glorified cameo, usually Casey Affleck's face appearing on a newspaper or on a TV screen. For example:



Fortinbras is a glorified red herring in the 2000 Hamlet, designed to give you the facade of something going on beyond the main story, because Almereyda desperately needs to justify why this interpretation has to take place in the world of big business.


Other Deviations: It's hard to decide where the deletions end and where the deviations begin, since everything cut out is generally replaced by something that is rarely justified. Changes to Hamlet are made seemingly without rhyme or reason, but happen because a) it would look cool if it happened, or b) it makes the material "edgier" or more contemporary.

To wit: one of Hamlet's many videotaped soliloquies involves him putting a gun to his temple, in his mouth, and under his chin, followed by the line "to be or not to be," which Hamlet, in watching this, feels the need to rewind three times so that we "get it." This is following extended TV footage of Peace Is Every Step: Meditation in Action: The Life and Work of Thich Nhat Hanh, which hammers the term "to be" into the ground, just so we understand why Hamlet is thinking about being and not being when he gets to the video store (where the soliloquy takes place).

The clearest deviation beyond this is moving Hamlet from Denmark to New York, for reasons which are unclear at best. Since the text is only conveniently deleted or moved around, all of the characters still refer to "Denmark" and royalty as though they were synonymous with the operations of corporate structures. Which they might be, but this version of Hamlet does a terrible job of making those connections.

See?

Of course, this Hamlet is pretty bad at making connections too: for some reason, Almereyda decided to remove the Prince of Denmark's ability to quickly surmise why Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have arrived to visit him. Instead, Hamlet finds out that they've been sent for by overhearing a phone call between Claudius and R&G. Why? I really don't know. Maybe because he assumed the audience might not be familiar with Hamlet, so it's better to keep us all in the dark?

Ophelia still sort-of goes crazy, but not in any way that's radically different from where she is earlier in the film, when the angsty, twenty-something daughter of Polonius imagines herself jumping into Claudius' pool while they discuss Hamlet's letter. Considering that each version I've watched to this point deviates as to whether Ophelia actually has the flowers she's giving to Laertes, Gertrude, and Claudius, I don't actually take umbrage with photos of rosemary, daisies, or rue being handed out. Her drowning (in the lobby's fountain) kind-of makes sense, depending on whether you think she jumped off of the balcony or not.

There are other, little things, like Marcellus becoming Marcella, Horatio's girlfriend, that are functionally harmless. It means that she appears pretty much every time he does but doesn't say much of anything after the opening scene of the play (which is restructured as a flashback while they recount the tale to Hamlet). I'm not certain you ever hear Bernardo's name, which I felt was a bit rude; instead he's just some security guard.

Going back to the issue of guns, I need to get into two BIG deviations; one involves Claudius' "my offense is rank" scene and the other the final duel. Hamlet carries a gun around for most of the movie, and after the "Excellent well, sir. You are a fishmonger." scene with Polonius, he marches into Claudius' office, weapon drawn, ready to shoot. He draws his firearm again on Claudius, only instead of being in a Chapel, it's in the King's limousine, with a drastically altered speech designed to remove any sense of guilt on Kyle MacLachlan's part.

Of course, Hamlet doesn't shoot, which brings us to the really stupid part. Recall that yesterday I gave credit to Kenneth Branagh for visually anticipating the duel by demonstrating that Hamlet was, in fact, practicing constantly. Well, in the 2000 Hamlet, there's no hint at any point that either Hamlet or Laertes has ever fenced in their lives (and considering the choices made about the kind of person Hamlet is, I doubt highly he ever would), and yet here we are, at the end, for a rooftop duel of fencing foils.

Not a poisoned foil, mind you, just fencing foils, because when the time comes for Laertes to "cut" Hamlet, he shoots him. Then Hamlet grabs the gun and shoots Laertes, so that we can have this scene:

To set up this:

Where Hamlet guns down Claudius. The other deviation, and it's a massive one, is that Gertrude somehow figures out that the wine goblet is poisoned by looking at it out of the corner of her eye, and willingly poisons herself, even though Hamlet would still not take a drink. I suppose it's meant to enhance the "tragedy," but all it really does is make the downfall of Claudius that much more pointless, up to and including being shot in the back by Hamlet.

What Works: This is really going out on a limb, because I barely finished watching Almereyda's version of Hamlet, but the use of security camera footage does, in some way, lay the groundwork for the 2009 Royal Shakespeare Company's adaptation (which is also a contemporary take on the play). Julia Stiles is okay, and so are Kyle MacLachlan, Ethan Hawke, and Liev Schreiber, or as okay as they can be with the changes imposed on their characters. They do the best they can with reconstructed and depthless versions of Ophelia, Claudius, Hamlet, and Laertes. Diane Venora isn't bad as Gertrude, per se; she just doesn't register for most of the film.

If you liked Baz Luhrmann's William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, I guess there's an off-chance you'd enjoy this, although it lacks the kinetic energy (some would say ADHD editing style) of that film.

What Doesn't Work: Where do I begin? The "Generation Y" Hamlet isn't merely a bad take on the play, an adaptation full of needless and lazy alterations, but it's barely a watchable movie.

Since the title card plants us firmly in the year 2000, one might hope that it's just because that was the year the film was released in (possibly made in) and not indicative of the music, fashion, tech fads, and attitudes. Right? We don't really want a Hamlet where the Prince of Denmark is wearing a snow cap and eyeliner, do we?

Oh.

A picture's worth a thousand words, so strap on your "I Love the New Millenium" oversized-Jamiroquai hats and have a gander at this artifact of a bygone era:


This film is so shamelessly linked to the turn of the millennium that Hamlet becomes a time capsule in all the wrong ways. It's hopelessly dated; Hamlet wanders around with a Super-8 camera (how American Beauty of him!) and portable dvd player, alternately filming everything he sees or watching video of himself delivering speeches cut out from the narrative proper:


But not only is Hamlet the worst kind of navel-gazing narcissist, but then Almereyda thinks he'll get clever with it by including clips from Rebel without a Cause, something I'm pretty sure is Days of Heaven (it looks like the locusts scene, timed to coincide with Sam Shepard's arrival of the Ghost. How clever!), and... wait for it... Hamlet. Yes, Hamlet is watching Hamlet! Intertextuality, you guys!

But wait, there's more! I'm going to give Michael Almereyda way more credit than he probably deserves here, but there's some accidental intertextuality in the "to be or not to be" scene that a halfway clever film scholar can extrapolate. The timing of dialogue and background image lends itself to a nice joining of William Shakespeare and Graham Greene:



Well, yes, I suppose that is true. That is exactly what happens to Harry Lime in The Third Man (visible behind Hamlet's right shoulder). Am I giving Almereyda more kudos than he deserves? Probably. After all, he does juxtapose "or take up arms against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" with Hamlet walking down the "Action" aisle. You know what, I'm going to just hang on to that Third Man thing, just so people don't start handing out intertextual kudos to this Hamlet.

Onto the most egregious error in casting: Bill Murray is woefully miscast as Polonius. I'm on the record as being about as big of a Bill Murray fan as a normal person can possibly be (and as I'm far from normal, just work out the implication yourself), and I know for a fact he can be serious. I've seen Broken Flowers and Lost in Translation. Hey, he's even okay in the unwatchable Limits of Control, but not here. Every line reading lands like horse dung on hot pavement. It's embarrassing.

Not that Steve Zahn or Dechen Thurman fare much better as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; they're reduced to leather jacket wearing, grunge hair and facial messes, yelling, beer drinking buffoonery. Because Hamlet (and by proxy, the audience) is too stupid to figure out that they're spying for Claudius and Gertrude, we're repeatedly exposed to scenes where Claudius is talking to a phone with R&G's disembodied voices on the other side. Kind of like when Ophelia dials MovieFone for no apparent reason and we listen to the recorded intro.

This brings me to the Product Placement. See, it's not enough for Hamlet to deliver his "to be or not to be" soliloquy in a video store (or after it's so painfully and obviously teased out in two different places earlier in the film); no, it has to be in a Blockbuster. How do I know? Because of this:


and this, which is somehow even more dull than the still suggests, possibly because it holds for fifteen seconds:

By the way, if you're wondering, The Crow: City of Angels is playing in the background.

And yet, that's somehow tame compared to this:


That's Sam Shepard, as The Ghost of Hamlet, standing in front of a Pepsi One drink machine. He materializes in front of it, then dematerializes walking into it, so that we get two good looks at what we should be drinking when our dead father returns to task us with vengeance for murder most foul.

I save my favorite "why bother?" for the last one. When I saw Jeffrey Wright's name attached to Gravedigger, I was excited. That's a great pairing of actor and role, so imagine my disappointment when Wright is in the film for thereabouts five seconds. The Gravedigger is singing "All Along the Watchtower" for a quick cutaway shot prior to Hamlet and Horatio inexplicably pulling up to a graveyard (there's no reason they'd just wander by since they're on a motorcycle riding from the airport into town) and finding Ophelia's funeral almost done with. Why even hire Jeffrey Wright if that's what you're going to use him for? A cheap music cue that doesn't actually serve the film in any way or add depth (and don't give me the "joker to the thief" line being some arcane reference to Yorick.)

Final Thoughts: It wouldn't matter if the Cap'n hadn't watched three other versions of Hamlet prior to this adaptation; it's a bad movie, no matter how you take it in. Decisions are made that have no logic to them, characters are badly sketched out stereotypes, and Michael Almereyda continually hits us over the head with references that are (at best) tangentially connected to the narrative. This isn't just something I recommend you skip, but it's best you just forget that I ever mentioned it and move along. It's not even worth your time as a "trainwreck" movie. In fact, I'm going to slap a SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO tag on this bad boy...

Hamlet Week: Day Three

Welcome to day three of Hamlet Week, where the Cap'n is discussing varying permutations of William Shakespeare's Hamlet. Today we come to the most complete of the five film adaptations, Kenneth Branagh's epic, 65mm interpretation.

Cap'n Howdy's Handy Hamlet Handbook:

Date of Release: 1996

Directed By: Kenneth Branagh (Henry V, Dead Again, Much Ado About Nothing)

Dramatis Personae: Hamlet (Branagh), Claudius (Derek Jacobi), Gertrude (Julie Christie), Horatio (Nicholas Farrell), Polonius (Richard Briers), Laertes (Michael Maloney), Ophelia (Kate Winslet)

Other Notable Cast Members: Brian Blessed (Much Ado About Nothing, Flash Gordon) - The Ghost, Richard Attenborough (The Great Escape, Jurassic Park) - Ambassador from England, Charlton Heston (The Omega Man, Ben-Hur) - Player King, Rosemary Harris (Spider-Man, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead) - Player Queen, Jack Lemmon (The Apartment, Glengarry Glen Ross) - Marcellus, Billy Crystal (The Princess Bride, Monsters Inc.) - First Gravedigger, Simon Russell Beale (Orlando, Persuasion) - Second Gravedigger, Robin Williams (One Hour Photo, The Fisher King) - Osric, Rufus Sewell (Dark City, The Illusionist) - Fortinbras, Gerard Depardieu (Cyrano de Bergerac, Maitresse) - Reynaldo, John Gielgud (Becket, Murder on the Orient Express) - Priam, Judi Dench (A Room with a View, Shakespeare in Love) - Hecuba, Timothy Spall (Topsy Turvy, Appaloosa) - Rosencrantz, John Mills (Great Expectations, Gandhi) - Old Norway.

Setting: Denmark (although shot in London, including Blenheim Palace which doubles for Elsinore), roughly late 19th century.

Run time: 242 minutes

What's Missing: Nothing. In fact, Branagh's version of Hamlet is so complete that it combines sections from the Second Quarto and First Folio versions of the play to create a sort of "Ultimate" Hamlet.

Other Deviations: What Branagh's Hamlet lacks in deletions, it does make up for changes: in addition to changing the period to a Victorian-esque time frame (it is unclear exactly when, but there are steam engine trains, newspapers, and the dress reflects somewhere between 1860-1890), the 1996 adaptation also inserts a number of "flashbacks", indicating points in the story which are only mentioned in the text. For example, the suggested sexual background between Hamlet and Ophelia is made semi-explicit in love scenes (although the nudity is tastefully modest), and the murder of King Hamlet is considerably more graphic than in the Olivier version.

Many would consider Branagh's decision to make Castle Elsinore brightly lit (and packed with mirrors) to be a huge deviation, which I suppose is fair. It is a very different take on Hamlet, one that removes much of the shadows and puts every character on display. That said, I think this does justice to including the play in its entirety - with all of the minor bits restored, all of the characters are more clearly understood, and the lack of darkness gives them nowhere to hide their motives.

The biggest change may be that of Claudius who, in the capable hands of Derek Jacobi, becomes a nearly sympathetic villain. Despite his ambition and lust for Gertrude, there is a hint of genuine regret for what he did to gain both crown and wife. The look of horror on Claudius' face as King Hamlet is dying adds nuance to an otherwise strictly horrendous act; his own terror at the deed done lends a credibility to the way he tries to maintain the royal family of Denmark. Early in the film, before Hamlet's seemingly erratic behavior sends him over the edge, Claudius seems to genuinely care for his nephew / step-son. Unlike Alan Bates' Claudius, there is less of a sense of trying to save face and more of a feeling of regret and panic when Gertrude drinks the poisoned cup and Laertes doubts his own ability to kill Hamlet.

There are other, smaller changes: Ophelia, upon going mad, is treated as a mental patient and placed inside a padded room constructed in Elsinore. When the audience first sees her, she is straight-jacketed, and rather than let her escape the grounds, Ophelia escapes captivity and drowns (off-screen). Rather than showing the drowning, or immediately before (as is the case in the 1948 and 1990 adaptations), the audience sees only Gertrude's face as she describes what happens, followed by a brief shot of Kate Winslet submerged in the water.

The inter-cutting of Horatio and Hamlet's duel with the invasion of Elsinore by Fortinbras' army might be considered something of a deviation, as the battle is more of an "action sequence" than the fight itself. I'll get to the extended cast in a moment, but sufficed to say that it may be considered a larger deviation to have so many American actors speaking in their native dialect (even Mel Gibson and Glenn Close attempted British accents).

What Works: I'll make it clear from the get-go that I remain a tremendous fan of this version of Hamlet. This viewing makes the fifth time I've seen it from beginning to end, and every time I find something new to enjoy. However, what I found most interesting in viewing it in the context of other Hamlets were the minute details missing from other adaptations, which I'll detail here.

Tiny things, like the inclusion of Reynaldo (a character so often dropped that I forgot to mention he'd been left out of the other films) or the English Ambassador (who seemed to be removed in the interest of showing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern die in the Zeffirelli film), actually enhance the experience. Yes, the inclusion of the complete text is also nice, and in watching them as I have, it's easier to spot lines missed in other versions.

I also like the way that Branagh sets up visually Hamlet's involvement with fencing early in the film and peppers it throughout, so that when he utters the line "I do not think so: since he went into France, I have been in continual practise," it seems perfectly believable. The restoration of conversations to their normal place in the play is also nice (Claudius and Laertes now scheme about the duel before meeting Hamlet in the graveyard), and every character has more time to breathe. It may seem like an insignificant part of the play to include Reynaldo and Polonius, or Voltimand and Cornelius delivering the news from Norway, or even the second Gravedigger, who has virtually no bearing on Hamlet and Horatio, but it allows Denmark to open up. The import of Fortinbras' arrival in Denmark, when he lied about waging war with Poland, has more gravity in the full version.

Here's where I may bump into contention with some: I like much of the "stunt casting," particularly Charlton Heston and Robin Williams. It's true that Gerard Depardieu is interesting to watch, but Reynaldo doesn't really have much to do in the film. Heston, on the other hand, overcomes the fact that he's speaking with a standard American accent (or perhaps a Californian) and really does justice to the Player King's speeches. Robin Williams, in a very different way, does justice to Osric, who previously registered as a fop in the hand of Peter Cushing and not at all with John McEnery.

Williams channels his manic energy into making Osric a nervous pretender to royal life, desperate to impress Hamlet and Horatio with his manners. His jittery delivery underscores his own take on the "fop-ish" element of Osric, making him a little too impressed with Laertes and imprecise with his speech to Hamlet. That, and the way he say "carriage" (something like "care-eee-ahge") in an attempt to appear cultured, is quite funny.

With that being said, continuing this discussion leads me to the next section -

What Doesn't Work: While I do like some of the American actors (and most of the British cast), I have always taken some umbrage with the aftertaste left by Jack Lemmon and Billy Crystal. It's not that either of them are bad, per se; Lemmon is, in fact, very good in quiet moments. The problem is that their voices are so distinctive (and Crystal's New Yawk accent so pronounced) that it tends to distract from their delivery. I would very much enjoy the scene with the gravediggers were it not for the fact that Billy Crystal seems like he walked out of a Yankees game and into Denmark to dig graves. Again, it's nothing personal against the performances, but something about their distinctive voices seems out of place in this Hamlet.

One might also say, as a form of minor complaint, that this "eternity" Hamlet (as Branagh calls it in the introduction) is quite an endurance test. Not that the film is boring or ever drags, but at four hours it is something you must prepare yourself to sit through beginning to end. The completeness of the text does mean that you need set aside time to devote to the film and nothing else, even if you broke it up as I had to (into the first two and a half hours last night, followed by the last hour and a half this morning). Be forewarned that this is the adaptation of Hamlet to watch if you want absolutely everything, but you'd best be free for at least four hours.

Beyond that, I have two other minor quibbles. The first is that Branagh uses two dissolves during Ophelia, Laertes, and Polonius' conversation prior to his leaving France. The first makes almost no sense at all, unless the layout of Blenheim Palace is less evident than it appears and he needed to move them from outside the front to near the side quickly. The second, which moves the three into what looks like the Chapel, seems useful for Polonius' advice, but undermines the urgency with which he speeds Laertes off (they were, after all, outside to begin with!).

The second has to do with the Ghost of Hamlet. I don't actually mind moving the chase into the woods outside of Elsinore (although the geography is a little tricky considering the wide shots facing away from the castle), and the reveal of the Ghost is fine (I actually quite like the way that Branagh plays with the iconography of King Hamlet with the statue of his likeness outside the castle), but I could have done without the tremors. In order to underscore how unnatural the Ghost's presence is, Branagh frequently cuts to inserts of the earth cracking open (with smoke billowing) and trees shaking, even as Marcellus and Horatio arrive to swear on Hamlet's sword. If anything, it's a tad over the top.

Final Thoughts: Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of the play manages to include fidelity to the text and still be cinematic (in a way that's very different from Zeffirelli's but nonetheless effective in its own right). If you have the time to invest in the film, I highly recommend it. For as long as I can remember discussing the film, there's been an undercurrent of hostility for this version, one I'd be quite happy to hear someone expand upon. I've never had the problems with it that some friends have, and I highly recommend the experience.

Hamlet Week: Day Two

Welcome to day two of my exploration of the varying permutations of William Shakespeare's Hamlet on the big screen. As the Cap'n moves further into this (and as I endeavor to watch more than one of them in a single day), I've noticed that the term "remake" is not the misnomer some would have you think in this case; the five major adaptations of Hamlet all draw from each other in different ways, although it's clear that the Laurence Olivier version casts the biggest shadow (particularly on the Zeffirelli and Branagh takes). Please refer to yesterday's introductory notes if it helps understand my project for the week.

Cap'n Howdy's Handy Hamlet Handbook:

Date of Release: 1990

Directed By: Franco Zeffirelli (Romeo and Juliet, The Taming of the Shrew)

Dramatis Personae: Hamlet (Mel Gibson), Claudius (Alan Bates), Gertrude (Glenn Close), Horatio (Stephen Dillane), Polonius (Ian Holm), Laertes (Nathaniel Parker), Ophelia (Helena Bonham-Carter)

Other Notable Cast Members: Michael Maloney (Babel, Othello, Laertes in Branagh's Hamlet) - Rosencrantz, Paul Scofield (Henry V, The Crucible, Quiz Show) - The Ghost, Pete Postlethwaite (The Usual Suspects, The Duellists, Romeo + Juliet) - Player King.

Setting: Medieval Denmark (well, actually an unusually sunny Scotland doubling for Denmark).

Running Time: 135 minutes

What's Missing: Fortinbras is again completely missing from this version (without mention this time, and without lines assigned to Horatio). The second shortest of the five versions of Hamlet, Zeffirelli's version retains much of the basic story but cuts down almost every aspect of the film. Nearly every speech, soliloquy, or scene is cut in half, if not pared down to the bare minimum needed to advance the plot. Notably, the opening scene of Bernardo, Marcellus, and Horatio facing The Ghost is removed completely in favor of a funeral scene for the King Hamlet, played mostly without dialogue, followed by a dissolve to Claudius' post-wedding speech.

Other Deviations: There are so many deviations that it's hard to decided where to start, but let's begin with some major shifts in the leafs. Almost every major character in Hamlet plays their character differently than any other version I've seen; Hamlet is perpetually unable to carry out his plan, and the question of whether he's mad or not seems to vary from scene to scene. When he is "on plan," so to speak, Hamlet is like an overeager child desperate to show everyone what he knows (as in The Mousetrap scene).

In the extras, Glenn Close describes Gertrude as "marrying young to a much older man, so that she and Hamlet grow together, and the film is a story of the three men she loves." Gertrude moves from mourning to sexually virile and childlike between the funeral and the wedding announcement, and the film is tinged with incestuous overtones between mother and son. Ian Holm's Polonius is less foolish and more calculating; a sinister manipulator of Claudius, Gertrude, and particularly Ophelia. This would make sense, save that Bonham-Carter's Ophelia is so stand-offish that her transition to madness feels less organic. Her hyper-sexuality while mad is also a bit curious, since much of the discussion about Hamlet's "country" relations with Ophelia are excised from the script.

Claudius and Horatio are mostly the same, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are perhaps more dispensable in Zeffirelli's version than they were being cut out in Olivier's. Speaking of R&G, the 1990 take on Hamlet sees it fit to show Hamlet switching the letters aboard the boat (shown in real time and not as part of the pirate flashback), followed by their beheading in England (yet, for some reason, the line "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" is not in the film).

This is one of many ways that Zeffirelli's version shifts; in an attempt to be more cinematic, scenes are moved around to suit his approach. For example, the discussion between Claudius and Laertes about the method of poisoning Hamlet during the duel is intercut with Osric's conversation with Hamlet about said duel, as though audiences might not be aware of the nature of this trap before the King reveals his treachery. The duel is also interrupted frequently by Gibson's Hamlet clowning around between blows, something consistent with the actor's public persona. That being said, Zeffirelli fails to use these distractions to raise Laertes' frustration with Hamlet, and when he finally cheats it feels more like an afterthought than an exercise in desperation.

For my money, the biggest change is the way that the beginning of Act III plays out almost in reverse. Zeffirelli's Hamlet, like Olivier's, opts to move "To be, or not to be" until after the confrontation with Ophelia - even as it moves the "Get thee to a nunnery" to the Mousetrap sequence - for reasons I can't quite explain. Rather than go to the tower, Gibson's Hamlet heads to the catacombs to ruminate on death with the dead, but the placement of the speech strikes me more as an homage to Olivier than any practical shift in tone. Furthermore, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern arrive after this, followed by the Players. The order of the first scene is reversed entirely.

What Works: For all the changes, it is fair to say that this very different take on Hamlet does play to the language of cinema well. Zeffirelli finds better ways of transitioning from scene to scene (and of condensing some scenes into others) than Olivier did with his dizzying camera moves. At no point do you feel that this is a filmed version of a play; the 1990 Hamlet is constructed as a film, one that dissected the play and reconstructed it as need be.

The Medieval setting actually works well for the play, and perhaps better than the Medieval castle punctuated with Elizabethan garb present in the Olivier adaptation. The physical locations and castles in Scotland lend a verisimilitude to the film that the 1948 version lacks, and Zeffirelli finds little touches that enhance the mood. A particular favorite of mine involved draining the color from Getrude's doorway when the Ghost is visible to Hamlet, but when shown from her subjective view it remains a bright orange with candlelight.

On a small note, it was nice to hear some of my favorite lines reinstated in this version. It's strange not to hear Hamlet say "a little more than kin and less than kind" or, "not so, I am too much in the sun," but both are missing from Olivier's adaptation.

Generally speaking, I felt the cast was good. As I'll get to below, it's less their performances and more decisions made about the way their characters behaved that was a problem for me. I was particularly fond of Alan Bates' Claudius, in part because he's somewhere in between the overt villainy of Basil Sydney and the nearly sympathetic Derek Jacobi. Bates is a thinking Claudius, one deeply concerned with saving face at any cost, and more importantly appearing justified in his actions, but not at the point of moustache-twirling evil. Robbing him of most of Claudius' "my offense is rank" speech does Bates no favors though, and yet he finds a way to portray depth.

What Doesn't Work: I'm just going to say this up front - the "incest" subtext doesn't work. From the very first time that Gertrude kisses Hamlet for just a little too long while talking him out of returning to Wittenberg to the dry humping in her bedroom, this particular deviation felt forced.

It may be that - despite the fact that Close is only 9 years older than Gibson - in this version Gertrude looked like she could be Hamlet's mother (not the case in the 1948 film). Gibson also looks younger in the 1990 version of Hamlet than even in the first Lethal Weapon film, appearing only slightly older than he was in The Road Warrior, which inexplicably increases the age gap. The sudden virility of Gertrude was less jarring than the suggestion that she and Hamlet were considerably closer than previously portrayed.

Motivations become a big issue in this version of Hamlet, and not always for the best. Olivier's Hamlet spies on Claudius and Polonius plotting to spy on him with Ophelia, but Gibson's Hamlet instead spies on Polonius warning Ophelia to stay away from Hamlet, a shift that has no bearing on his behavior towards her after meeting his ghostly father.

It's actually for the best that Polonius' line "though this be madness, yet there is method in't", because I can't honestly say there's any method to the way Gibson plays Hamlet. While he isn't bad, it is apparent in the extras that Gibson latched onto the "tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind" from the Olivier prologue and plays Hamlet as eternally unsure of his purpose. Hamlet is less sidetracked by his anger with his mother than unable to proceed with his revenge.

While this Hamlet is more cinematic, purists are going to be driven crazy by the moving of key passages to scenes where they lack any context. The build towards Ophelia's madness lacks any escalation in part because of the way Bonham-Carter plays her, but also by the fact that Hamlet's behavior towards her has no method to it. He simply treats her like anyone else (and particularly like he treats Polonius), as an excuse to vent his frustrations. At no point did it ever seem clear that the almost silent scene between Ophelia and Hamlet (after he swears to the Ghost) was indicative of their relationship, because he not only pretends to no longer care about her, but it felt like he never cared at all.

Final Thoughts: If you've never seen or read Hamlet before, and you want a nice looking introduction to the play - albeit one that takes any number of liberties - then the 1990 Zeffirelli / Gibson version is worth looking into. Despite a number of strange character choices, the cast is quite good and Gibson admirably steps up and does his best with the adapted play. It's certainly not a version I'll be in a hurry to revisit, but it tries a few interesting twists - some more successful than others - and is more successful in approximating a cinematic take on the material that Olivier.