Tue 3 Jan 2012
Reviewed by Dan Stumpf: HAMLET (1969).
Posted by Steve under Films: Drama/Romance , Reviews[8] Comments
HAMLET. Columbia, 1969. Nicol Williamson (Hamlet), Judy Parfitt (Gertrude), Anthony Hopkins (Claudius), Marianne Faithfull (Ophelia), Mark Dignam, Michael Pennington, Gordon Jackson, Ben Aris, Clive Graham. Based on the play by William Shakespeare. Director: Tony Richardson.
I also recently saw Nicol Williamson’s 1969 film of Hamlet, directed by Tony Richardson, made on the heels of Zeffirelli’s surprise Romeo & Juliet hit. Didn’t care much for it, but I was prejudiced two-score years ago by the film’s banal ad campaign, which billed it as “The story of Hamlet’s immortal love for Ophelia!”
Now Hamlet is about a lot of things, but it ain’t about Hamlet’s love for Ophelia, and this slant on the film, intentional or not, put me off on it right from the outset, no doubt clouding my judgement somewhat.
Williamson plays Hamlet as a bookish Grad Student, Weak rather than Vulnerable and Pedantic instead of Poetic. It’s a valid interpretation, but not much fun to watch for two hours.
Likewise Judy Parfitt’s portrayal of Queen Gertrude as Lady MacBeth. Marianne Faithfull is okay as Ophelia, but an incredibly young Anthony Hopkins, looking like a kid in a false beard, is woefully out of his depth as the King.
This is very much a late-60s film, with the kids in revolt against corrupt and complacent authority figures, which again is a valid interpretation, but robs the play of some of the depth and complexity it gets when characters like Polonious, Claudius and Gertrude are developed as rounded characters.
Finally, there are no sets to speak of (this looks to have been shot in the back of UCLA’s Theatre Department Building) and Richardson tries hard to hide this by concentrating on close-ups and restricting physical movement, which works but stifles the action.
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Even though two of the photos I found to illustrate Dan’s review are in black-and-white, this was the first version of HAMLET to have been filmed in color.
January 6th, 2012 at 11:24 am
The problem that I’ve always had with this production is that Williamson, Parfitt and Hopkins were all in their 30s. I imagine that it’s the sort of thing that you can get away with on stage, but becomes embarrassingly obvious on screen.
January 6th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Should we read anything into the number of comments for Shakespeare vs the Three Stooges?
January 6th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Yes. It’s been boggling my brain for a while now — not in a bad way, mind you! — but somehow I’ve been reluctant to bring it up myself…
January 7th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Shakespeare is a big favorite of mine and I’m gearing up for a marathon third rereading of the plays, followed by viewing the BBC TV adaptation of the plays, followed by listening to the audio cds.
However, you are not hinting that The Bard is anywhere near the level of The Three Stooges? I mean the Stooges will live forever as long as mankind exists! Shakespeare will only last a few thousand years. This topic has so upset me, I may be forced to drink my final Three Stooges sixpack of beer.
January 7th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Shakespeare had his beer too. FALSTAFF used to be a favorite of mine.
If only Falstaff could have replaced Curly rather than Shemp.
January 7th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
As Shakespeare said, “To Be a Stooge or Not to Be a Stooge, That is the Question”.
January 9th, 2012 at 7:25 am
Wasn’t Othello once described as “The Moe of Venice?”