So take one part Doctor Who, one part Captain Picard, one part Shakespeare. Throw them in a pot, stir well, and what do you get? Quite possibly the one production of Hamlet most geared toward the nerdy audience rather than trying to pull in people who wouldn't ordinarily watch Shakespeare. The funny thing is, in doing so they actually got some decent actors for once. I'm not saying that other actors who've done Shakespeare have done badly; Kenneth Brennaugh is one of my favorite for adaptations (such as his musical version of Love's Labors Lost or his hysterical Much Ado About Nothing), and I find Julia Stile is particularly well-suited. However, it's not often that you get an entire cast, down to the extras, in a Shakespeare play and especially a production of Hamlet...who actually know what they're saying!
When people think "Shakespearian tragedy" or, more accurately, "Hamlet" or "Romeo and Juliet," they think sad. It's the default position for any of the characters in either of those plays. When they're not sad, they're angry or contemplative. For the two former, the louder they shout their lines, the better the actor. For the latter, the more we have to turn up the volume, the deeper and the more the actor "gets" the character. Not so. My problem with people who try to film Shakespeare is that while they do great on the comedies, tragedies for some reason seem to make people play his characters as more wooden and solemn. They're people too! They've got dimensions like anyone else!
Let's take the great "To be or not to be" speech. Let's look at Ethan Hawke's Hamlet, for instance. Go ahead and watch, I'll wait. Now...did you know what was going on? Forget what was going on, did you even pay attention?? Me neither. I've got four tabs open; while I was listening to Hamlet mumble his way through Blockbuster I checked facebook and searched youtube in another tab for our next clip. He's disengaged from the audience and he just sort of runs through his lines as if he doesn't know what to say, he just knows he's supposed to be sad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not prejudiced; I love Ethan Hawke. His character in Dead Poets Society is particularly dear to my heart. However, I don't think he did the speech justice. David Tennant's version of the speech, however, engages the audience. In this soliloquy and most of the others throughout the film, he spends at least 50% of his lines looking straight at the camera. This is what Shakespeare wrote the soliloquy's for; to break the fourth wall in a way and engage the audience in the action.
The "To be or not to be" speech, however, is still a little difficult to follow no matter who's delivering the lines unless you're an English teacher or just better than you ought to be at Shakespearean English. I'm neither and I'm sure most of the viewers aren't, either. How about Brannagh!Hamlet's buddy Yorick? Okay, so Ken Branagh is brilliant and who doesn't love Billy Crystal? I mean seriously. But even our dear Mr. Branagh seems to favor the moody angle, which doesn't sit well with me. For one, who holds an outdoor funeral at night, especially in Denmark in what we assume to be the winter or fall as the cold weather is mentioned several times. It's simply there for ambiance. Also, Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is the brooding kind. True, Hamlet does plenty of brooding throughout the play but I don't think this was one of those times. I think it was more the thought-provoking sort of one-sided conversation about life and death one often hears among Bohemian college students in coffee houses (which isn't to slander said students; many of them are my friends and I enjoy such conversations). Check out David Tennant's musings. They're less "I'm being moody and thoughtful because I'm being taught in an English class" and more "I knew this guy! Seriously, I used to play with him when I was a kid. Good times...poor guy."
According to most, including Branagh, Hamlet's thoughts are "death, death, death, Ophelia, death, death, revenge, death, Dad, death, death, death, revenge, etc." They forget that Hamlet's a person too and while yes, he's looking to avenge his father, he's also trying to keep his relationship with his girlfriend working, deal with his disgust with his mother, gain the throne, avoid letting anything slip to his most trusted friends which he wouldn't want repeated to the king, and avoid being killed first. I don't care who you are, that's a lot to deal with! And this is just a sort of time for Hamlet to slow down and reminisce about better times. Y'know, before his dad was killed by his incestuous uncle (and possibly mother).
It's not just David Tennant, either, who I commend in this. I think Polonius's character was portrayed accurately for the first time since Shakespeare was alive. This lovely person has gone through the trouble of comparing all of the versions of the scene I wanted for me. Thank you, lovely person. So we look at Branagh's version first. He gets the crazy look in the eye down really well, but he again goes for anger all the time. He doesn't seem to realize that all the times he insults Polonius ("I would you were as honest a man," etc.) are supposed to be subtle insults. I mean, when a crazy person sounds crazy as he insults you, you don't really take it as much. "Oh, he didn't mean it; he's just a looney." If the crazy person doesn't sound crazy, only angry, then you sort of take offense. Hamlet's hoping to be king of Denmark; he's going to try to do crazy as much as possible so he can get away with telling people what he really thinks of them without anyone taking too much heed. Ethan Hawke's Hamlet...well...we love you, Ethan, but just...no.
Anyway, this part isn't about Hamlet, it's about Polonius! So, the first one (Branagh) has Richard Briers as Polonius. He does a good job, as Richard Briers always does, but I think he misses the point of being the "doddering old fool," so to speak. We get more of a sense in the first half of this clip that Polonius isn't just old, he's going senile. Now, what I don't understand is why Briers didn't go for this angle as well. He's good at being the doddering old fool; he was brilliant as Hector in Monarch of the Glen, the eccentric patriarch of Glenbogle. So I know for a fact it's not out of his acting range...why didn't he go for it unless he didn't understand?
Bill Murray, however, is far worse. Now, I like him as much as the next person: Groundhog Day, Ghost Busters, Osmosis Jones, What About Bob?, all great movies in their own right. He's a good actor if not a little too sardonic sometimes. His Polonius I think was a miss, though. He's too young, for one. For another, he didn't shout his lines or mutter them like some who don't know what they're saying but still I don't think he quite got the context of the scene. I mean, he did as well as he could acting against Ethan Hawke's greasy hair...Sort of like Rob Pattinson, who's actually a decent actor (not good, just decent), doing his best to act off of Kristen Stewart...who's a worse actress than Kiera Knightly and Christina Ricci combined. And that's saying a lot as I hate them both with a firey passion. Anyway, not a Twilight rant either. My point is, I think Murray was pretty much just doing the best he could with what he had without upstaging Hawke. I do still maintain, however, that he didn't really get Polonius's character.
I'm not certain how to bring this...essay? Rant? Whatchamacallit to a smooth ending, so I'll end it here. It's far longer than I meant for it to be anyway. Expect the next Hamlet entry quite soon, and it won't be so analytical as this. More just sympathizing with minor characters.
No comments:
Post a Comment