Best and Worst Shakespearean Actors and Movie Versions?

[Lord Macbeth]

I know technically this may or may not fall into the "literature" department, discussing films, but I have three points to make to that effect:

1. It's Shakespeare!
2. We count theatre as literature, and really these types of movies are more like theatre-filmed rather than a movie's movie
3. It's Shakespeare! ;)

Actually, what got me thinking about this topic was when I saw Barnes and Noble had--finally!--a great number of both single-disc and box sets of various versions and adaptations of Shakespeare plays-as-films on DVD, everything from Olivier (a box set with Henry V, Richard III and Hamlet to a 2-disk version of Branagh's infamous 4-HOUR, UNCUT version of Hamlet (because 4 hours insn't enough, I guess, we need 4 hours more with commentary on the first 4 hours and then commentary on shooting the work, which is sort of like commentary on the commentary) to Marlon Brando as Julius Caesar and so on.

And I have to tell you...

After the holidays and my funds replensih, I WILL SWARM THAT SECTION! :D




But I'm curious to hear which versions everyone likes and dislikes, and who everyone likes and dislikes, as, let's face it, even if you HATE Shakespeare--in which case...well...ummm...moving on--you've probably seen at least one version of one of his plays, as they subject kids to them all the time in schools (I love Shakespeare, but he shouldn't be taught as he is in schools, they really ruin him for a lot of kids...you all already know which two plays I'm absolutely LIVID over that they show to kids, together those two plays, though neither bad, ruin Shakespeare for kids) and so on.

So:

Who're the best Shakespeare roles on the silver screen you've ever seen?

And which versions have you enjoyed?

And which roles and versions, by contrast, if any, did you hate (and why?)

All the world's a stage...and all the people...are busy watching Christmas specials on TV at home. ;)

But for now--the rest will NOT be silence! :p

[Seasider]

1 Marlon Brando as Anthony in Julius Caesar
2 John Gielgud as Cassius inJulius Caesar
3 Laurence Olivier as Richard111 in Richard 111
4 Ralph Richardson as the Duke of Buckingham in Richard 111

Can't think of any stand-out female performers in films. More's the pity.

[Lord Macbeth]

Lord Macbeth's Shakespeare Movie Review:

I'll give three categories for the films--films you should buy if you or anyone you know is into classic films or Shakespeare (or both), films you should "rent," by which I mean it's passable and you might want to check it out, but it certainly isn't one of the best, in my opinion, and there are probably better options, and "chuck," by which i mean CHUCK THESE VERSIONS INTO A GARBAGE CAN OR A COMPACTOR OR THE SUN, THEY'RE HORRID AND THEIR VIEWING SHOULD BE OUTLAWED AS A FORM OF TORTURE! :p

WHICH TO BUY:

-Shakespeare Re-Told (Much Ado About Nothing and Taming of the Shrew):

The BBC did modernizations of four Shakespeare plays under the "Re-Told" banner a few years back; I've seen the whole of two of them, part of one (which I'll name later) and I've yet to see their modernization of Macbeth. (Which I hope to find...something tells me I could sympathize with a guy named "Macbeth...") But the two versions I've seen all of, thankfully, are BRILLIANT, and if you like to laugh PERIOD you want to check these out. The language is updated, so--with the exception of some famous lines, obviously--the dialogue's all modern, and so if you don't understand or care for Elizabethan English (which technically IS modern, in a sense) then you'll be just fine. Of the two, I STRONGLY recommend "Much Ado" first and foremost, it is THE BEST VERSION OF THAT WORK THAT HAS EVER BEEN PUT OUT...EVER. Full-stop. I love Kenneth Branagh and his work, but THIS is THE version you want to see, as arguably--and it's a very rare occasion you can say this--it actually IMPROVES on the original ending. *SPOILER ALERT!* In the original story you have two couples, the naive-and-young Claudio and Hero, who are about to marry, and the sarcastic, sardonic, and utterly HILARIOUS Beatrice and Benedict, who constantly take shots at each other before eventually falling in love...the typical couple who bicker so much you KNOW they're supposed to be together. ;) Claudio and Hero are to be married, but villainous--sort of--trickery causes Claudio to think Hero's a slut of sorts, and spurns her in front of everyone, horribly humiliating her and calling her horrible names--but when all is revealed she just forgives him totally without a second thought and we have the stylistically-perfect double-wedding...even though we just saw how horrible Claudio was to Hero, albeit under manipulated circumstances. The BBC version alters this, and Hero DOESN'T take Claudio back, calls him out for what she did to him, and we get a hint they may reconcile someday, as she smiles at him in the end, but that's IT, and she's made it clear she's not taking that sort of treatment. A nice change to my favorite Shakespearean comedy, and Sarah Parish and Damian Lewis as Beatrice and Benedict are HILARIOUS...YOU WILL LAUGH. "Shrew" has its good points as well, and both films are highly recommended for comedy lovers everywhere.




-The Merchant of Venice (2004 Version):

Here's where the first great actor vs. actor bit comes into play...who's the better Shylock: ORSON WELLES OR AL PACINO?! WOW! Two of the best actors in cinema history, and both obviously with a nice body of stage work as well--and particulary Orson, making it all the odder that Pacino's version is superior and his film, too, is better. I AM Jewish, so I'm obviously more inclined to view Shylock sympathetically than we are (or are not, there's an age-old controvery) already, and Pacino really does make you feel for the character. A sampling, from YouTube, of the famous "Hath not a Jew eyes?" monologue from each actor:

Orson's version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH2a45plqQc
Pacino's version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGXUGhIYW-4&feature=related

Sorry, Orson--you're one of my favorite actors and directors, but in this case, I have to go with Pacino, and his version.




-Hamlet (1996):

If you didn't see this one coming...well...moving on...

This film was nominated for four Oscars, and how it went 0-4 is beyond me: this didn't win "Best Adapted Screenplay?" All I can say is with due respect to the winner, THAT was highway robbery. This is THE best version of the play on film, in my book. There are five notable versions of Hamlet in film that come to mind, though obviously there are many more:

-This
-The Mel Gibson version, which I'll discuss in a moment
-The legendary Olivier one, which I'll discuss later
-The Ethan Hawk version, which I'll discuss later
-The just-this-year-done David Tennant version which...I'll discuss later ;)

Mel Gibson's version suffers from a huge flaw--it's Mel Gibson. At the time of filming, was that bad? It wasn't THAT bad, he does a so-so job in that there are scenes and portions he does well and then portions he's absolutely horrible at; Gibson overacts in the role, which was OK for Olivier, that was the style then...which Gibson it's out of place not just in the context of the period in which he's acting, the 1990s, but with the fact he tried to make this film realistic by actually setting it in Medevial Denmark, old castles and all. THAT was a nice choice--but it just highlights how over-the-top he is when, amidst all this classical imagery, we hear a VERY modern-sounding Hamlet screaming like this is Lethal Weapon 6. NOWADAYS the film's even worse off with Gibson's many scandals; the paly lives and dies on how we as an audience recieve Hamlet, as we need to be sympathetic of him, otherwise he comes off as a raving violent madman...and given what Gibson's said and done over these last few years, you can see where I'm going with this.

The 1996 version features an AMAZING, ALL-STAR cast: one of the great gurus of Shakespeare today, Kenneth Branagh, in the titular role, Derek Jacobi as a very fleshed-out Claudius (and a nice homage, as Jacobi played Hamlet in a 1980 film version of the play), Julie Christie is great as Gertrude and actually makes us care a bit about her (which is NOT easy to do, given her role in the play), Kate Winslet as an Ophelia that's both highly-sympathetic and highly-emotional, and her madness scenes are probably the best versions of those moments ever put on film, and on and on and on with THE BEST CAST FOR THIS PLAY EVER.

This version is somewhat infamous for having a LOT of selebrity cameos filling in the small roles throughout the play...and that works to the film's credit in a BIG way, as they all do a great job, including those you wouldn't expect would do a good job in a Shakespeare play--Billy Crystal, of all people, is probably the best and certainly the most memorable person to ever play the Gravedigger in that infamous scene, and Robin Williams--yes, THAT Robin Williams--plays an Osric that, surprisingly enough, actually sounds and acts properly and even memorably...it's a BIT odder to see Robin Williams in a Shakespeare play at first, and you almost expect him to be over-the-top and ruin it, but he's actually pleasantly reserved here, giving just enough character to Osric to make him memorable in that scene (though maybe it's just Robin williams wearing muttonchops that stands out to me, I don't know...) ;)

Which brings us to the ending...and its an ENDING! Hamlet already has a naturally-great ending with a climactic fencing duel between Hamlet and Laertes--both furious at the other and feeling anguish over the deaths of their fathers--and that fury is really brought out in this, some of the best staged combat you'll see in a Shakespeare theatrical OR film version.

Add that to an incredible look to the piece--Branagh sets it in Victorian Denmark, and the castle is so incredibly bright and beautiful it's almost haunting at times, that such dark events could happen in such a bright spot-- and you have the best version of Hamlet out there. If you can sit through 4 HOURS of Shakespeare, it's incredible...and yes, even for someone like me who probably will end up teaching Shakespeare for a living someday, 4 hours is a bit long. My advice? Make a really good meal beforehand or order some large, hot pizzas, get a couple of friends and a few 6-packs of Coke (or something stronger, if you will...) and make a night of it.

And because I've gone on THIS LONG already, here's a clip to show part of why I love this film so much--Kenneth Branagh as one of the best Hamlets ever on film (he's my pick) and Billy Crystal as a surprisingly-good Gravedigger in the infamous "Gravedigger's Scene":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_GqWC_uIfs




-King Lear (2008 TV Film):

Ian McKellan as King Lear.

That should sell it right there.

Ian McKellan, who's been GREAT in everything from Hollywood blockbusters--Gandalf in Peter Jackson's adaptations of The Lord of the Rings and P+the Professor fom the X-Men films--to MORE Shakespeare--the titular role in a version of Macbeth that I haven't fully seen yet, but intend to buy, as from what I HAVE seen of it, namely his version of the "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" speech, that version looks like THE BEST, outstripping the Polanski version--plays King Lear in the play by that name here...

And he's...Ian McKellan. Actually, that's SIR Ian McKellan, knighted for his work.

SIR IAN MCKELLAN. And what a job he does...

The rest of the cast is good, as well, of course, but it's McKellan that makes this a must-see: Shakespeare's four great tragic heroes, Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all of them are extrememly difficult to play, and if they fail, so does the film.

King Lear as a character, though, is interesting, and an anomoly--of the four, he's the only one who doesn't kill anyone in the play. As a result, we don't have someone falling from grace like Othello or Macbeth or even someone who's wrestling with that ordeal like Hamlet. Instead we have someone who's sitting on high and falls--but does so not because of a muderous action or jealousy or ambition, but simply because he happened to raise two serpentile daughters and was himself, in old age, a bit proud, but almost understandably so, Lear's a bit like the self-made man who then proceeds to strut about in his elder years and try to bask in a sea of compliments on how "great" he is to have accomplished so much, you almost feel he's EARNED the right to make a bit of an idiot of himself...and yet it's that one slip-up that costs him everything and sends him into the wilderness and storm to reflect.

And McKellan captures ALL of that--the pride in accomplishing so much. His shock and horror at realizing what his daughters have become. His anguish and turmoil in the storm. Even a lot oa amiability...aside from possibly Hamlet, King Lear is easily the Shakespearean tragic hero you'd probably most like to hang out with for a day...he is, at the start, a fun and happy guy! He doesn't come in saying that today's foul and fair, or come back from school to find very quickly his father's dead and his mother doesn't care and he's out two parents' love and a seat on the throne, and he doesn't come in boasting of military victory. King Lear comes in happy and ready to retire, to hand things off and enjoy some well-earned golden leisure years.

And in a short span of time it all goes awry.

And, again...Ian McKellan captures all of that.




So that's Part 1, the films I most highly recommend...as it's 4:17am where I am now, I'll have to finish this later.

But eager to hear your opinions, and when I come back we'll discuss those as well as the films and performances that are decent...and then get to the fun business of pointing out some of the worst acting and directing in Shakespeare adaptational history. :)

[kelby_lake]

Hamlet
I've seen clips of famous parts from the big film/TV versions. Gibson was okay but the production was a bit too glum. Aesthetically it looked more like Macbeth. Zefferelli overdid the Freudian part a bit too much although there's a moment in the closet scene that is very sinister.

I've only seen clips of Branagh's version but it all seems a bit too...Branagh. It's very self-conscious and theatrical and the closet scene, one of the best duologues in Shakespeare, is bland and dull. He's not so bad in the 1992 radio production- might be worth a listen. Julie Christie was pretty weak as Gertrude so that doesn't help. Also, aesthetically it was a bit garish.

The BBC version starring Derek Jacobi was okay. Jacobi was a bit camp sometimes but the closet scene was nicely judged. It was physical without being incestuous.

My favourite overall performance, and version of the play, is probably David Tennant's. The modern aesthetic works- it's not modernised in the way that the Ethan Hawke one was but it isn't set in Shakespearean times.

There's actually a thread debating portrayals of Hamlet here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49710


I'd definitely recommend buying the Tennant one.



I'll continue this later :)

As for the Best Adapted Screenplay...well, Branagh didn't make any cuts to the text.

[12weeks]

Not sure how many people will agree with me, but I'm going to say my favourite anyway.

It was Laurence fishburne in Othello. I LOVED that movie, it made me cry so bad. No movie has ever made me cry as much as that one. I was literally inconsolable afterwards, as was my friend who wasn't even a Shakespeare fan.

2 girls, 1 box of tissues and plenty of hugs.

What is interesting to me though is my take on the movie, because the first time I watched I felt intense pity for Othello's character, but on a 2nd rewatching many years and many life experiences later, I felt no pity for him whatsoever.

Still a movie I would recommend to those who prefer to watch over reading.

[varnish7]

Well, I think a few bad versions of Shakespeare would be "Romeo and Juliet" with Leonardo DiCaprio and "Hamlet" with, I think, Ethan Hawke. I think they were supposed to be more "modern" versions of the plays. However, instead of adjusting things for the 20th century while basically keeping the essence of the plays the same, they just had the characters spouting the original Shakespeare verbatim while the setting is obviously modern times. They drive cars for example. Aside from stuff like that however, there is absolutely no effort to mesh the two things together.

[L.M. The Third]

Strangely enough, all the film versions I've watched have been of the comedies (aside from Branagh's Henry V, which I quite like).
I absolutely adore his Much Ado About Nothing, though there are some minor performances that aren't so great. It's still one of my favorite films of all time.

Branagh's As You Like It wasn't as good as Much Ado, but I enjoyed it. But I haven't read that play yet, so should probably reserve judgment.

The 1999 A Midsummer Night's Dream is probably my least favorite of the adaptations I've seen so far, but it wasn't all bad either.

[DanielBenoit]

-Chimes at Midnight - A condensing of the two Henry IV plays and bits of Henry V, this is the the best Shakespeare film I've ever seen with Orson Welles in his best and most heartfelt performance as Falstaff.

-Hamlet (1949) - The first time I had ever seen the play, Olivier's version will always be an memorable experience for me.

-King Lear (directed by Jean-Luc Godard) - Not really a film version of the play rather than a very Godardian essay on it, among other things. Most people who see it will probably hate it, but I think it's a great film and worth a plug.

Macbeth - This is the one from the 70's with Ian McKellan (my favorite Shakespearean actor) and Judi Dench. The phantasmagoria of the play is masterful here in its minimalistic and nightmarish staging.

Othello (Olivier version) - I think I just couldn't get beyond the awful blackface of Olivier's Othello. I don't really have too much of a problem with a white actor playing Othello in blackface (probably the only time I think blackface is justified), but it looks like they dipped him in a pot of oil. It is so distracting, as is Olivier's campy performance, and kind of ruins the film.

King Lear (James Earl Jones version) - Not the best King Lear, though to be fair, Lear is probably the most unstagable of all of Shakespeare's plays. Wonderful acting (even though all performances of Lear or Edmund are doomed to be reductive) and the staging is very well done.

[Lord Macbeth]

Before I move opn, I left off one VERY GOOD film that I must recommend, as it not only is a great adaptation but does so with one of Shakespeare's weaker works, and then another good one I forgot as well:

-Titus (1999):

If you've seen or read the well-known Shakespearean tragedies, in a sense you've read the refined versions of this play; Titus Andronicus features gory murders, a man feigning madness before arguably going mad in full, political intrigue, a clash of ideologies, forbidden love, in-family fighting, and so on, all of which, of course, are fixtures in the great Shakespearean tragedies and histories. In this play, however...well, let's just say that while I like it, if you consider a masterpiece like Hamlet to be the equivalent of a "Citizen Kane" or "The Godfather" in the theatre world, ie, a masterpiece among masterpieces, then Titus Andronicus is more akin to, say, a psychological horror flick with some slasher action and rape thrown in for good measure.

It WAS Shakespeare's first tragedy, so it's understandable in that sense, as lots of violence was hugely popular in Renaissance theatre, and with a body count of around 15 or so, all told, and some deaths so brutal and horrific its been wondered if Shakespeare didn't mean for this to be a BLACK COMEDY of sorts, going so over the top.

But Julie Taylor's adaptation of the play is INCREDIBLE, and actually does the unthinkable--it makes you want to watch a screen adaptation of Titus Andronicus over and over. As you'd expect from Taymor there's a TON of symbolic imagery, and the setting of the play is incredible in its idea as well--a mix between the old Roman Empire of the play and a sort of 1930s Italy with facism in full swing, and the two coexist side by side, so you'll have lover and candidate-for-emperor Bassianus driving up in a car and waving to a crowd in stylish Italian leather while Roman Legionaries, swords and shields and armor and all, stand right beside them. It's STUNNING to just LOOK AT, and then the acting is remarkable as well, with the great Anthony Hopkins in the titular role, Academy Award-winner Jessica Lange as the fallen Queen of the Goths, Tamora, and Alan Cumming as the greasiest, most-effete, and just scene-stealing and BEST Saturninus ever.

Besides all these factors, the OTHER aspect that makes this version so memorable and so worth it is the MUSIC, and I'd aregue this is one of if not THE best score to any Shakespeare tragedy's film adaptation, it's THAT good, have a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TvOaMlKI-E

It's an incredible piece, and if you're looking for something different and off the beaten path of the usual Shakespeare subjects, try this film, and you won't regret it (and DEFINITELY as much as Lavinia must regret ever being born...honestly, I challenge ANYONE to come up with a character who has a worse string of events occur to her than Lavinia does in this play and film: brothers dying, one killed by her own father, her fiancee is first forced out of the emperorship and then murdered, and then she's captured, tortured, raped, and as if that weren't enough she has her hands cut off and tongue cut out so she can't tell anyone who's done this to her, she's crucified in the middle of a forest and left to suffer there until her family finds her, and is in such agony Titus simply snaps her neck OUT OF MERCY to just put her out of her misery...at the dinner table! Honestly, I think that has to qualify as for the title of "Most Screwed-Over Character In History.") ;)



-Twelfth Night (1996):

What a year 1996 was for Shakespeare--his best play got a royal treatment with Branagh's version, and one of his best comedies got a great treatment in this production. If you've never read or seen Twelfth Night--do so NOW, as it's sort of a Christmas special, taking place in the twelfth night...though that'd be about January 3rd, but still, it's a fun play, and this adaptation strikes that chord so perfectly. We have the twins Viola and Sebastian, who look incredibly alike, seperated by a shipwreck and Viola assumes Sebastian dead, and takes on the male-alias of "Cesario" and cross-dresses her way into becoming the confidant of the Lord Orsino, who pines away for a Ms. Olivia...and he makes SURE you know he's pining, as Shakespeare, quite tongue-in-cheek, creates something of a comedy spoof of that idea of a "lover's lover" that he had in Romeo. Already there's enough for a great comedy, and it only gets better and more hilarious with Viola's cross-dressing: Orisno tells HER how SHE--as she's pretending to be a HE--is such a good friend, and why can't WOMEN be like this! She goes to see this Ms. Olivia...and Olvia FALLS IN LOVE with this charming "guy!" The she-he gets challenged to a duel by the two worst and most hilarious knights in the land, with both trying ato act manly and brave and both failing miserably...

And on and on and on...until we find Sebastian alive and well...and now there seems to be TWO Cesarios! Oh dear... :p

All this is captured perfectly, and it seems as if the Victorian era is a popular time to place Shakespearean plays, as this one is set then too...it's a fun play and is playfully acted, and definitely worth a watch.




And now for the films that range from so-so to good-with-flaws...


WHICH TO RENT:

-Hamlet (2010 and 1948):

Someone above mentioned that they liked David Tennant's Hamlet best, and someone mentioned Sir Laurence Olivier's version. And both are good. However, I'm going to fly in the face of the common opinion and say not only is Branagh's version better than both (which ISN'T too uncommon a statement, usually people choose either Branagh's or Oliver's, they're the titans of this play adaptation-wise) but TENNANT'S version is better as well.

That may sound like a sort of heresy, as, again, liking Branagh better is one thing, those two versions are really tied and it's up to just taste largely to say which is better--with one exception, and it's that exception that also helps Tennant over Olivier: Olivier cuts Fortinbras, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern ENTIRELY. Small roles, you say? Someone once said "There are no small roles, only small actors," and this play is one of the best examples of that. R&G in particular are important, these are childhood friends of Hamlet that are turned against him, it adds yet another layer of suffering adn betrayal, and what's best is that they're being manipulated into doing so, they don't necessarily KNOW they're hurting their best friend, and so the question over their free will arises...a question so pressing that it helped inspire ANOTHER masterful work in the 1968 play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, which is, to over-simplify things, essentially Shakespeare-meets-Sartre/Nietzsche/Beckett and Hamlet-meets-No Exit/Beyond Good and Evil-Waiting For Godot. In short...I HATE that R&G are cut. It's a TERRIBLE move. Lessening their roles is one thing, as time is a factor and, unless you want to create a full-on, 4-hour version like Branagh--which I'm fine with but, let's face it, most people will prefer about half that time for a film--you need to make cuts, and R&G provide some material that can be cut. But not ALL of it, and not them altogether, otherwise you lose those two great elements they bring, not to mention other small tidbits such as the fact that they're essentially two halves of one person and yet so interchangeable that people often do mix them up, adding another philosophical issue to Hamlet's puzzle on "What a piece of work is man." Fortinbras, too, is a terrible part to cut altogether, as really he's sort of a long-distance mirror for Hamlet, his father killed and he, too, seeks revenge, just in the field of war rather than in the royal court. That's really something that's overlooked and something Olivier really overlooked in his production--THE PLAY TAKES PLACE DURING A WAR. Denmark and Norway are AT WAR. It's another layer: the nations are at war, and then Denmark's royal court is at war with itself with all the betrayal and intrigue, and Hamlet's at war with himself, "To be or not to be," and so on.

Besides that, however, there's another issue with the play that's often either lauded or highly citicized, adn I fall into the latter camp--Olivier's really playing up the idea of the Oedipal connection between Hamlet and his mother Gertrude. The idea itself is fine, it's naturally built-into the script that he might suggest at it...but Oliver takes it WAY too far. This isn't Oedipus Rex. what's more, playing Hamlet that way arguably makes him less likeable, as we'd generally associate someone with that degree of Oedipal attachment, and so OPENLY attached, as being in need of serious psychological help and not someone we can identify as much with--something that it's critical we do with Hamlet--and certaionly not someone who we can really trust or care about when he muses philosophically, for that reason.

Olivier's acting is also over-the-top, but that was the style at the time, in all fairness, and in THAT sense he acts the role superbly...it hasn't necessarily aged well, that style, but if you can appreciate what he's trying to do, what style he's usuing, then you'll enjoy his performance.

But not, I'd argue, as much as you'll enjoy David Tennant's version.

This version, to be honest, is the first version of Hamlet I've seen that really surprised me in terms of quality; with the other four, I pretty much knew what I was getting, I could guess coming in how good it'd be:

Branagh's version and performance is amazing, if not long-winded.
Olivier's version and performance is masterful with some issues I really dislike.
Gibson's version and performance are so-so and probably not worth your time.
Hawk's version...I'll save THAT little "piece" for later (and lower) on this list.

Tennant's version is...good. Very good. And set well. And paced well.

It's very, very, VERY good, and impressive.

I had seen Tennant once before--I have a friend who loves Doctor Who and asked me to try an episode (an episode involving Shakespeare, no less.) And...well, Doctor Who isn't my cup of tea--I'm a Star Trek person, really--but Tennant seemed a capable actor, if not a bit goofy.

When I heard he was going to play HAMLET, I honestly thought it might be the biggest over-acting session this side of Olivier-meeting-Shatner. ;) I was wholly prepared for a goofier, modernized Hamlet.

I was wrong.

Tennant plays the role more moderly than any of the others, but as the setting is modern--unlike Gibson's version--and he has a talent for the role--unlike the fifth version I've yet to talk about--it works. HE works. David Tennant is an engaging, younger-feeling Hamlet, and really made the role work for him, was believable, bringing fresh energy and angst to the character and really having a splendid performance.

With one HUGE exception...and it damn near was a deal-breaker for me early on: Tennant's try at the "To be or not to be" speech is not done very well, and so when you have the signature speech of the signature character of the signature work of theatre itself done poorly, you REALLY get worried for the rest. Tennant's crack at that, to be fair, incredibly-difficult soliloquoy falls flat as he stays in one beat, one mode of speaking and feeling all the time--in a sort of harsh, angst-filled whispering, breathless voice. And it works well...at the start. But that's a long speech and requires some serious beat changes, especially when Hamlet switches from the purely-emotional question of if he should keep taking all of this or just die to the great philosophical question of "the undiscovered country." Tennant gives no such change, and the whole ordeal just doesn't work for me.

To be fair, and to clear up where I stand, though, Branagh and Olivier's shots at it, while the best takes, have their own flaws, and Branagh actually comes close to committing this very error, to staying in a whisper and one beat the whole time until he finally starts to shift late in the speech; in addition, Branagh's version is SHOT the best, with the character standing in front of a mirror, dagger in hand, the whole time--EXTREMELY FITTING for the character and moment, quite litterally holding the mirror up to nature. Gibson--bleh. That OTHER person to take a crack at Hamlet...we'll discuss THAT person's attempt later...

So in all fairness no one has really given an absolutely flawless rendition of that soliloquoy, and so the fact Tennant has a weak outing in it and a couple of rougb moments at the beginning are offset mightily by the many great performances in this, including Tennant's, and someone else who really and truly does deserve special mention:

Captain Jean-Luc Picard himself...

SIR Patrick Stewart as Claudius.

He is nothing short of amazing--I said before, over and over again, "It's Ian McKellan," and that was enough.

It's Patrick Stewart. SIR Patrick Stewart. As King Claudius. Opposite a good young actor and a very talented cast.

That's enough.

So I still stand by Branagh's version as being the best, but if you're not in the mood for a 4-hour epic...well, there ARE shorter versions, but those can feel rushed. Mozart once said that if you add or take anything away from a masterpiece it'd cease being a masterpiece. That's the case with these.

Take anything out of Branagh's version and it loses its power.
Olivier took three whole characters out of the play and added an emphasis on an Oedipal condition, and the film, while still good, suffers accordingly.
Tennant's version shortens a few things and detracts from the signature speech, and so has that as a fault.

But if you don't want to take on Branagh's epic, try these two...and of the two, again, I'll make the recommendation you try Tennant's first, as I truly believe it to be the better version.



-Romeo and Juliet (1968):

Franco Zeffirelli--if you read Romeo and Juliet in school, chances are you saw this version of Shakespeare's play.

Zeffirelli as a director has a tendency to have his films move at a slower pace, often to emphasize imagery or for dramatic effect, and for THIS film, it works...well enough. For ANOTHER...well, we'll get to that later.

But here is probably the definitive version of this play, and it's a good version, to be sure...it's slow, yes, but for a tragedy that can sometimes be overlooked and chalked up to building dramatic effect, to creating a slower pace to allow the characters to dwell on the issues. That's what we have here, and that's why this film version can be forgiven for a slower pace. It's shot beautifully, too, and the acting is at least competent, if not up to the knightly-standards of the likes of McKellan, Stewart, and Olivier.

Well worth a watch, if you can forgive a slower pace which, in this case, I can.




-Macbeth (1971):

Polanski's crack at this tale comes off as a tale not told by an idiot, but certainly full of sound and fury...but whether that signifies anything or, indeed, if it comes to nothing for you depends on a few factors.

Jon Finch as Macbeth is...OK. Not great but...OK.

The film's visual style is...OK. Not stunning, but it gets the job done.

And on and on and on this film goes, setting up potential points where the film COULD have been great, but never seems to make that leap. The visuals just aren't too impressive, and while a few speeches here and there work well, the film as a whole feels very average.

There's plenty of overt violence and nudity, but it's the 1970s and it's Macbeth, so we can forgive nudity as a product of the time--and it's actually one of the few parts which seem to be trying to do something thematic--and we can forgive the violence as...well, it's a rather violent play.

On the whole this is an achingly-average production, a "C" on the letter-grade scale of Shakespeare films if there ever was one--I wouldn't recommend it, but can't really bury it, and if you absolutely must see a film version of Macbeth...find Ian McKellan's version.

But if you can't this will do--just don't expect it to do too much...



And those are my picks for those plays that aren't QUITE so great I'd buy them on DVD, but if you can find them on YouTube or can rent them I'd definitely say you should have a look.

Stay tuned, and I'll wrap this up tonight with some of the worst sins against Shakespeare and cinema in general--SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES...

Namely, VERY bad Shakespeare adaptations! ;)

[Lord Macbeth]

King Lear (James Earl Jones version) - Not the best King Lear, though to be fair, Lear is probably the most unstagable of all of Shakespeare's plays. Wonderful acting (even though all performances of Lear or Edmund are doomed to be reductive) and the staging is very well done.

I disagree--Lear's stageable...have you seen the Ian McKellan movie version of this?

[DanielBenoit]

I disagree--Lear's stageable...have you seen the Ian McKellan movie version of this?

No and I should.

[Lokasenna]

I'm an Ian McKellan fanboy, so basically any version of something he has done comes top of my list: Lear, Richard III, Othello (as Iago), Macbeth...

Olivier is also always worth watching, apart from that horrible As You Like It which is entirely spoiled by Elisabeth Bergner's ridiculous Rosalind.

Nicol Williamson's Hamlet and Anthony Hopkins' Othello are also unwatchable.

[kelby_lake]

So, moving on from Hamlet, here's another recommendation:

Othello (1995)

The first, and I believe only, black actor to play Othello in a filmed version of the play. Laurence Fishburne is not really the Othello of the play- he's a hot young general instead of a middle-aged general- but you can believe that Desdemona would lust after him. The main problem people have with the play is a perceived racism on the part of Shakey and this film luckily avoids that whole debate.

Irene Jacobs can't enunciate the lines but she is pretty and believably innocent without being pathetic.

And Kenneth Branagh does a great job of Iago. As this is Branagh, one might expect the film to turn into the Branagh show, but he actually gives an understated performance. All pent-up jealousy and possible sexual repression.

Although it's been trimmed a lot, for those who want a thrill, this film is great.

[wordeater]

Best: Olivia Hussey in "Romeo and Juliet" (1968)
Worst: Leonardo di Caprio in "Romeo and Juliet" (1996)

[prendrelemick]

Patrick Stewart's Macbeth was shown on TV recently. An excellent performance, as discussed here
http://174.133.97.227/forums/showthread.php?t=58030

[Lokasenna]

Othello (1995)

The first, and I believe only, black actor to play Othello in a filmed version of the play. Laurence Fishburne is not really the Othello of the play- he's a hot young general instead of a middle-aged general- but you can believe that Desdemona would lust after him. The main problem people have with the play is a perceived racism on the part of Shakey and this film luckily avoids that whole debate.

Irene Jacobs can't enunciate the lines but she is pretty and believably innocent without being pathetic.

And Kenneth Branagh does a great job of Iago. As this is Branagh, one might expect the film to turn into the Branagh show, but he actually gives an understated performance. All pent-up jealousy and possible sexual repression.

Although it's been trimmed a lot, for those who want a thrill, this film is great.

Actually, the 1989 version has a black Othello (Willard White). That really is a great production - it is clearly one of Trevor Nunn's greatest. You also have Ian McKellan on top form as Iago, Imogen Stubbs as Desdemona and Zoe Wanamaker as Emilia - what a cast! I consider this version of Othello to not only be the best, but also one of the best Shakespeare films out there. Honestly, I can't find a wrong note in it anywhere.

[prendrelemick]

I agree, Loka. Ian Mckellen's Iago is one of the best performances I've ever seen. I haven't seen Branagh's though.

Not yet mentioned is Orsen Wells' Othello. His direction and his performance combined beautifully together - but not so well for the supporting cast perhaps.

[kelby_lake]

Actually, the 1989 version has a black Othello (Willard White).

True :) What I mean is, no film or TV adaptations. That was a filmed theatre performance and the first black Othello on stage was ages ago. I think Paul Robeson was one of the first black Othellos...

[blackbird_9]

Love:
Olivier's Richard III
Taymor's Titus w/ Anthony Hopkins

Elizabeth Taylor in Shrew was pretty good too.

Still haven't found a R&J I like all that much.

But speaking of Taymor, has anyone seen the new Tempest? Apparently it's out already. I don't know how I missed it. What are everyone's thoughts on Prospero being Prospera? Hell, if you're going to switch it to a female role, Helen Mirren is the one to do it with. Now that I think of it, Prospero's character is kind of woman-ish...

[faithosaurus]

-Romeo and Juliet (1968):

Franco Zeffirelli--if you read Romeo and Juliet in school, chances are you saw this version of Shakespeare's play.

Zeffirelli as a director has a tendency to have his films move at a slower pace, often to emphasize imagery or for dramatic effect, and for THIS film, it works...well enough. For ANOTHER...well, we'll get to that later.

But here is probably the definitive version of this play, and it's a good version, to be sure...it's slow, yes, but for a tragedy that can sometimes be overlooked and chalked up to building dramatic effect, to creating a slower pace to allow the characters to dwell on the issues. That's what we have here, and that's why this film version can be forgiven for a slower pace. It's shot beautifully, too, and the acting is at least competent, if not up to the knightly-standards of the likes of McKellan, Stewart, and Olivier.

Well worth a watch, if you can forgive a slower pace which, in this case, I can.

I was very much a fan of this one. I thought it was very well done. Definitely better than the one with Leo and Claire Danes..that one was a little too "out of the box" for me.

I'm also super excited to see The Tempest
That was one of my favorite of Shakespeare's creations.

[kasie]

I disagree--Lear's stageable...have you seen the Ian McKellan movie version of this?

I saw Sir Ian McKellan as Lear on the stage a few years ago - the film version was quite a good representation of the stage production but oh, how I do miss the input of the audience when I see a film of a play I've seen 'live' - the film seems so sterile by comparison.

The aspect of McKellan's Lear that particularly moved me was his interpretation of Lear's 'madness' - he showed a strong man gradually descending into senile dementia. It was so heart-breakingly detailed in the portrayal it made me wonder if he had made a particular study of the condition or if he had some personal experience of watching the decline of someone he loved in this terrible way. The return of Cordelia was all the more poignant for her reaction, her grief and pity for her father in this pitiful state. The lines around 'We two alone will sit like birds i'th'cage...' doubly wrenched at the heart because even if their lives were spared there was no future for them in his condition.

[kelby_lake]

But speaking of Taymor, has anyone seen the new Tempest? Apparently it's out already. I don't know how I missed it. What are everyone's thoughts on Prospero being Prospera? Hell, if you're going to switch it to a female role, Helen Mirren is the one to do it with. Now that I think of it, Prospero's character is kind of woman-ish...

I don't think Prospero being a woman really adds anything. I guess they were thinking that it would be more effective when Miranda first meets a man but I liked the father/daughter dynamic.

I have actually seen a stage version of the play with an all-male cast. Apart from a weak Prospero, it was pretty good.