OSCAR WILD DAY 2: HAMLET (1948)

Like countless teenagers before me and after, I read Hamlet in high school. It is one of the quintessential Shakespeare plays with a straightforward enough plot that just about everyone can understand and follow. What you take from it depends entirely upon what the reader brings to the table. In the case of film adaptations, however, it’s not just what the viewer brings to the table, but also what the director chooses to emphasize to the audience. Laurence Olivier was given free rein to do what he wanted with this film, and he certainly left his mark on it.

Prince Hamlet of Denmark (Laurence Olivier) sees the ghost of his dead father, who reveals that Hamlet’s uncle murdered him to claim the throne for himself. Piling thoughts of revenge on top of his grieving doesn’t do well for the prince. He agonizes over his own existential thoughts while plotting to expose his uncle and avenge his father, but his indecisiveness holds him back and only serves to exacerbate his troubles and complicate his relationships with everyone around him.

Olivier may or may not have been God’s gift to Shakespeare lovers, and your level of interest in this film may vary depending upon what you think of Olivier or Shakespeare in general. Hamlet is a tormented soul, and Olivier finds ways to convey that in no uncertain terms through both his acting and directing. It’s a fair argument that Olivier (then 40) was much too old to play the aggrieved young prince, but he brings the necessary weight and inner conflict that could have come across as melodramatic in the hands of other actors. His performance may seem like he’s trying to hard to hit all the right moody Shakespearean poses, which shows that what works on the stage doesn’t necessarily translate to success on film.

But Hamlet is more than just a stage show on the silver screen. Olivier uses the medium to explore more of the environment, providing some interesting shots and creative decisions. Instead of static framing, the camera is unafraid to move. Perspective and angles are utilized to enhance the moodiness of the film. Segues, cuts, and transitions show Olivier’s desire to create art. He had been making movies for almost two decades, though this was just his second directorial effort, and it shows his curiosity and attentiveness to what more might be possible through film. Case in point- the decision to have part of Hamlet’s famous ‘To Be or Not To Be’ monologue be voice-over thoughts rather than all exposition was clever.

Hamlet is a tragedy, so it comes as no surprise that any film version should be a bit of a downer. Olivier cuts out some of the levity though (no Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at all), which leaves the film feeling more like wallowing in despair and angst that an exercise in tension. Maybe that’s how Olivier likes his Shakespeare, but it undercuts the flow a little, making the final act something of a relief rather than a climax. Some parts had to be cut to bring the runtime down, though several prestige films of years prior ran longer, but I think some of those choices may have been a disservice to the overall impact the film has on its audience.

Heavy, moody, and dramatic, Olivier’s Hamlet is more than you might expect an acclaimed stage and screen actor to bring to the big screen, but its directorial merits may leave you pondering Olivier’s indulgence. It still holds up as a solid film and a good adaptation, but it feels just dated enough in its methods and approach to miss out on being timeless. Hamlet may live best in our minds, but what written work doesn’t? Ardent Shakespeare fans will hold this as a must-see, but for the average person, other adaptations exist that feel less arty and more approachable.

FINAL RATING: 3.5 out of 5