When I was just a kid and first saw the '48 Olivier Hamlet film, I was very impressed, of course. I enjoyed the way the scenes changed by panning to another section of the castle, the moody tone, and (at the time) how eagerly Olivier chewed the scenery.
Later, watching the movie after having studied Hamlet in college and having read the play on my own, I began to loathe the Olivier version, for several reasons...
- Hamlet is portrayed as some angst-ridden overdone partially swishy guy.
- The Oedipal theme (which I don't think the play itself has at all) is prominent to distraction.
- Claudius is seen as a drunken idiotic fool.
Those are just my principal gripes. Overall I thought that Olivier completely misjudges Hamlet's character and motives, and also sends messages that simply aren't in the play.
It's often said that a good villain is what drives a plot. The actual Claudius is smart, cunning, and therefore a worthy foe to Hamlet. But most productions, stage and film, show him as a slob. The best Claudius is of course seen in the best (by far) film, Branagh's Hamlet. Derek Jacobi is superb here, playing a handsome, romantic, and utterly venal man to whom Gertrude would be attracted.
Hamlet himself, although a bit over-acted by Branagh, is properly seen as brilliant (probably the smartest character in all of Shakespeare), someone who is indeed sucked into the revenge against his better self.
Principally, however, we see in a full length Hamlet the intricate ways that the Denmark court is structured, and how Claudius and Hamlet each combat one another, often by proxy. We also see that Claudius is well protected and that Hamlet couldn't simply stab the king on a whim.
But I digress (just like Prufrock)... I wonder just how many unsuspecting Shakespeare fans have had their total vision of Hamlet warped by that awful Olivier film. Sigh. And your thoughts?