Do you hate the Olivier Hamlet film as much as I do?

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...

1. Hamlet is portrayed as some angst-ridden overdone partially swishy guy.
2. The Oedipal theme (which I don't think the play itself has at all) is prominent to distraction.
3. 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?

Keep in mind that there are various interpretations of the play, such that there is probably no "total vision" of it.

The same applies to many other literary works.

You're right, rally, of course, re. different interpretations. But to jam Freudianism into a place where there isn't any to begin with -- especially since Freud has been essentially discredited since the 20s -- is, I think, egregious.

Hamlet is not in love with his mother. Period. And if the text of the play is examined, there's zero indications of this. Hamlet's a bit of a misogynist, to be sure, but Oedipal traits just aren't there to be underlined. And I know that it was trendy at one time to place Freudian interpretation onto most anything, but as Freud himself said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

We could just as well "interpret" Hamlet in a production where the ghost is actually an alien being from a UFO. Or that the ghost is a stunt and it's actually some crony of Claudius to make Hamlet lose his marbles. Those would be nearly as valid. And just as wrong. It it's not discernible from the text of the play, assuming something isn't okay.

Nevertheless I do understand your feedback, and thanks.

The Olivier film refigures Hamlet as a film noir and within its context, I think the Freudian element works.

The Oedipal complex is not about Hamlet being in love with his mother. It's about him wanting to control her sexuality and monopolise her. Of course, it's a bit of an anachronistic interpretation but Hamlet is certainly troubled by her sexuality.

I think elements of the Branagh film works but it's certainly not the best version. It's too gaudy, there are too many cameos and the Ophelia/Hamlet relationship is exploited to sex up the play.

Which video version do you regard as the best, kelby? Because I've not seen one that tops the Branagh and would be interested.

And I agree about the sex angle of the Branagh version, but as for the cameos, most of them work fine, like Billy Crystal as the gravedigger.

The things that make the Branagh version the best, most essentially, 2 items: 1- it's full length and therefore includes critical scenes often left out, and 2- the superb Claudius by Derek Jacobi, not a sham drunken fool, but a brilliant and cunning baddie.

I do respectfully disagree re. Oedipal complex, in that Olivier's Hamlet is totally grabby with his mom, especially in scene 2 where we first meet them, their kissing passionately, etc. And remember that Olivier intentionally chose a Gertrude actress who was his same age (she was actually a year younger than Olivier) so as to emphasize the Oedipal interpretation. And okay, that sort of thing may have been trendy in the 40s and Freud hadn't been exposed as such a true sham to the general populace and culture at that time, true.

I admit to personal bias here -- after all, I stated from the outset that this was my opinion -- but I'm so irritated at the waste of energy and waste of life (due to bad mental care treatment) that Freudianism has caused. The whole damn belief system has been proven to be a freud, er, fraud, ha ha.

I do however understand the noir aspects of the Olivier production and that i've always liked. Thanks again for the opinions here, folks, that's what this forum is for, to air our quiff (to quote from Joyce's Ulysses).

I agree with Kelby on most points here. The Olivier version is not a strict retelling and was never meant to be. He very purposely brought the story into a corrupt post-war world, bringing all the rottenness of Denmark to the forefront, far more than Shakespeare does. In this, it is a very interesting film.

Both the Olivier and Zefferelli versions overplay the Hamlet/Gertrude relationship. This is (probably) to pander to the Hollywood spirit, but we can also thank Freud for ruining this one. The good doctor dug his claws into Hamlet and did not let go until every post-Freud student of literature had it drilled in his/her head: "Hamlet Oedipal!" No, Hamlet had no desire to supplant his fathrer and take his mother. Hamlet was not fixated on his mother, but fixated on the sins she represented. People often ignore the Angelo (cf. Measure for Measure) in Hamlet, and yes I know this is anachronistic as well, but it helps explain things. Hamlet believed in a strong sense of virtue, this is where the desire to control springs from.

That was a bit of a tangent.

As for the Branagh version: it is what it is. There is plenty to like about it - mainly that it is the only full-length version. Branagh is a good actor, but he is Branagh in everything he does, and all his Shakespearean adaptations become the same. The film is however well acted, and some of the subtle interpretations he has are interesting, particularly with Polonius. If you watch it again, pay close attention to Polonius, and how he uses what Shakespeare does not tell us to his advantage.

Thanks for the excellent feedback, Charles. You were eloquent regarding Freud and echoed my feelings exactly.

And yes, Polonius is excellent in the Branagh film.

May the gods of great literature strike me dead, but regardless of the production or film or whatever, the original scenes in the play itself featuring Ophelia's madness are a bit deserving of a judicious edit. But I usually get quickly bored by any "mad scene" anyway.

Try finding the comedy in it. It is a wonderfully funny scene, but the 19th century scholars decided to turn Ophelia into the tragic figure, when really she is the fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

As for the Branagh version: it is what it is. There is plenty to like about it - mainly that it is the only full-length version.

---

Just a note: The 1980 BBC version with Derek Jacobi and Patrick Stewart is also full-length. Bonus: Lalla Ward, who was playing Tom Baker's Doctor's companion Romana in Doctor Who at the time, is Ophelia. She later told a now-famous story about riding in an elevator with Patrick Stewart and him teasing her about doing "science fiction television." She said in a fairly recent interview that she's still never run into him since and still wants to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

Try finding the comedy in it. It is a wonderfully funny scene, but the 19th century scholars decided to turn Ophelia into the tragic figure, when really she is the fool.

---

Hard to say where I'd put Ophelia on the fool/victim chart. About midway, maybe. Despite all his screwy advice, he strangely gives his naive daughter a warning about Hamlet. But whether she's a tragic victim or just an infatuated teen is mixed and it's likely that Shakespeare intended both sides to be seen.

Women of the Elizabethan era were rarely educated and often treated like chattel. Ophelia seems modestly educated although not highly as Hamlet and others. And she's certainly naive. And boooring!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macintosh

You're right, rally, of course, re. different interpretations. But to jam Freudianism into a place where there isn't any to begin with -- especially since Freud has been essentially discredited since the 20s -- is, I think, egregious.

Hamlet is not in love with his mother. Period. And if the text of the play is examined, there's zero indications of this. Hamlet's a bit of a misogynist, to be sure, but Oedipal traits just aren't there to be underlined. And I know that it was trendy at one time to place Freudian interpretation onto most anything, but as Freud himself said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

We could just as well "interpret" Hamlet in a production where the ghost is actually an alien being from a UFO. Or that the ghost is a stunt and it's actually some crony of Claudius to make Hamlet lose his marbles. Those would be nearly as valid. And just as wrong. It it's not discernible from the text of the play, assuming something isn't okay.

Nevertheless I do understand your feedback, and thanks.

---

The difficulty with this issue is that we are looking at performance and not textual analysis, and Shakespeare did not give detailed and numerous instructions on how the play should be performed. This might explain why one might refer to an interpretation as "valid" and yet "wrong."

Of course, if one wanted, say, more authenticity, then we should have something like no film versions of the play, an all-male cast, and members of the audience drinking, eating, shouting, and throwing things at the stage when they do not approve of a performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macintosh

Hard to say where I'd put Ophelia on the fool/victim chart. About midway, maybe. Despite all his screwy advice, he strangely gives his naive daughter a warning about Hamlet. But whether she's a tragic victim or just an infatuated teen is mixed and it's likely that Shakespeare intended both sides to be seen.

Women of the Elizabethan era were rarely educated and often treated like chattel. Ophelia seems modestly educated although not highly as Hamlet and others. And she's certainly naive. And boooring!

---

I should have been more specific, sorry. She is the fool in this one scene (IV.v). The tragedy of her father's control and the removal of that control causes the "madness", but it is not a tragic madness (like the madness of Titus, let's say) - but she takes on many characteristics often displayed by Kemp. And it is only fitting that her death is handled by two more explicit fools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralfyman

Of course, if one wanted, say, more authenticity, then we should have something like no film versions of the play, an all-male cast, and members of the audience drinking, eating, shouting, and throwing things at the stage when they do not approve of a performance.

---

Well, regarding throwing things at the screen (stage) you need to come to one of those cult showings of Rocky Horror. And yes, they're still doing that.

Of course there's authenticity and slavish adherence to Elizabethan theater convention, as you know.

I suppose that I tend to get on a high horse and become irritated if a particular version of something isn't up to what I consider correct, and I'm often wrong, as usual. For example I get miffed if we're shown Arthur's Excalibur as the "sword in the stone" when in "fact" it came from the Lady of the Lake.

And yes, I freely admit to having a serious grudge at Olivier for leading so many Shakespeare fans down the garden path with his smarmy Hamlet. That's just my opinion and regardless, I find it fun to debate these things. I'm likely to go off on a tangent about other things, such as how badly Josef II is misrepresented in the film Amadeus, how much Stephen Hawking is admired without strong questions regarding his statements, and other scattered concepts here and there. Oh, well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I should have been more specific, sorry. She is the fool in this one scene (IV.v). The tragedy of her father's control and the removal of that control causes the "madness", but it is not a tragic madness (like the madness of Titus, let's say) - but she takes on many characteristics often displayed by Kemp. And it is only fitting that her death is handled by two more explicit fools.

---

Again, good commentary, Charles. On a side note, I've always wondered how Ophelia's "slow drown" was faithfully chronicled by onlookers but nobody thought to wade into the creek and rescue her silly butt. Maybe they'd heard enough of her rants? ha ha

This is a fair point. Gertrude must have seen the events herself (maybe they were reported by a shepherd) and did nothing. One possible answer is that her death wasn't slow at all. She was singing on a bough for awhile and then the bough broke and she drowned - I would have to look into the science of how long it takes an Elizabethan style dress to fill with enough water to drown someone - probably not very long.

But Shakespeare anticipated your thoughts: hence the grand debate over Ophelia's death by the two clowns. For myself, I prefer the "water murdered her" theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macintosh

Well, regarding throwing things at the screen (stage) you need to come to one of those cult showings of Rocky Horror. And yes, they're still doing that.

Of course there's authenticity and slavish adherence to Elizabethan theater convention, as you know.

I suppose that I tend to get on a high horse and become irritated if a particular version of something isn't up to what I consider correct, and I'm often wrong, as usual. For example I get miffed if we're shown Arthur's Excalibur as the "sword in the stone" when in "fact" it came from the Lady of the Lake.

And yes, I freely admit to having a serious grudge at Olivier for leading so many Shakespeare fans down the garden path with his smarmy Hamlet. That's just my opinion and regardless, I find it fun to debate these things. I'm likely to go off on a tangent about other things, such as how badly Josef II is misrepresented in the film Amadeus, how much Stephen Hawking is admired without strong questions regarding his statements, and other scattered concepts here and there. Oh, well...

---

I do not think Rocky Horror is seen the same way as Hamlet. If it is, though, then that probably supports the point that there is no "authentic" way of reading or performing the latter.

Also, I'd like to think that "slavish" also describes attempts at "authenticity," especially when the latter cannot be explained or shown to be true, as shown in the first paragraph of my post.

Given that, I think Hamlet can be seen in many ways, including "smarmy."

Personally, I don't think anything is as bad as Branagh...

The BBC Jacobi version, for all I disagree with in it, is far and away the best Hamlet on "film".

The glories of the internet. Lounging into a conversation after about a year.

Well, I can't stand that noisy, crammed, overproduced Branagh version. And Basil Sydney (Olivier's Claudius) is just about my favorite Claudius.

My favorite film version -- brace yourselves -- is the one with Ethan Hawke.