Skip to main content

The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.


Hamlet
(1990)

Hamlet was no vanity project for a movie star itching to be taken seriously. Mel was taken seriously anyway, even if he had a penchant for broad action cinema (a Mad Max trilogy, two Lethal Weapons and counting). It was Franco Zeffirelli who seized on the idea of casting him, having been impressed by his mentalist (under Alan Partridge’s definition of the word) posturing as Martin Riggs. Gibson’s only previous access to Shakespeare was an all-male stage performance of Romeo and Juliet (as Juliet) so it’s unlikely he would ever have reached later life with an Uncle Montyesque pang of unfulfilled dreams; that he had “never played the Dane”. All of which makes the accomplishment of his performance more impressive. I’d go as far to say he is the only aspect of the film that really stands out; Zeffirelli’s film is a well-crafted but almost entirely pedestrian interpretation of the Bard’s (possibly) greatest work.

The blame for which must come down to the director. A penchant for opera, and well-received versions of The Taming of the Shrew and (particularly) Romeo and Juliet during the 1960s, do not necessarily imply the rigour and insight necessary for interpreting Hamlet. Which is not to suggest Zeffirelli doesn’t understand the play; the clearly does. But he has absolutely nothing fresh to say about it. This is a handsome period piece populated by a cast of well-respected thesps; it has no real reason to exist other than the director had the clout to mount it.

Honestly, I wish I liked Hamlet more. Occasionally, Zeffirelli happens upon a scene and it rises above his measured approach, assuming an energy all of its own. And throughout, Gibson is a force to be reckoned with. The actor does not embody a fiercely cerebral Hamlet, but he is most definitely a fierce, vital one.

He’s the only “unsafe” choice here, which probably explains why the pay-off is so great. He handles the verse with aplomb, and brings physicality to every scene, reminding you that he is an actor and star with the gift of remaining completely in the moment. Thoughts do not come to him from intense mental exertion, rather they occur at the moment he utters each line of a soliloquy (something Zeffirelli often underlines by having the object of his deliberations within sight).

One might argue that the downside of casting Gibson is that you’re sitting there waiting for “Hamlet Unleashed”; like Jack Nicholson, it’s a matter of when, not if, he will do the crazy.  There’s also a danger that, even softened by a blond-rinse, Mel’s age (34) and bearing stack against the indecisive observer that Hamlet embodies for much of the play; with Gibson at the gears, it’s essential to excise material on the level Zeffirelli has because he’s not the type to sit and dawdle while the malignant Claudius is enthroned. The balance to this is that he rouses his scenes from the slightly dull worthiness of his director’s (lack of) vision. You can see Gibson coming into his own in certain scenes; the arrival of the players, and the putting on of the spectacle for the king, is a highlight. The final duel is a combination of good staging (even if the director doggedly cuts back to the poisoned chalice like there’s no tomorrow) and the actor’s zest and exuberance.  The fake trips and lunges are pure slapstick Mel; many a more respected thesp would make heavy weather of the humour he milks so naturally from the scene.

It’s probably fair to say that Hamlet’s soliloquies are not the most resonant aspect of Mel’s performance. Yet Gibson is a passion unto himself; his turmoil and rage do not have to be directed at another to be conveyed, far from it. Curiously, this is emphasised by the slightly damp interactions with the women in his life. More sparks fly between Gibson and Alan Bates (playing Claudius; Bates himself is a veteran of the lead) than the crucial role of Gertrude.

It’s difficult to put a finger on why Glenn Close doesn’t quite work as the mother (albeit, her performance is generally held in high esteem). If anything, the meager nine-year age gap between Gibson and Close ought to feed the oedipal undertones of their relationship. There is the intention of intensity (physical embraces, kissing on the lips) but it doesn’t signify very much emotionally. Perhaps because you never buy into Close as anything but a strong lead; Hamlet overwhelming her and persuading her of Claudius’ guilt never carries convincingly. This is ironic, as the early sight of Close, running about friskily, suggests she might be attempting a more sensual version of Gertrude. It could be the flipside of Gibson’s inexperience; this was Close’s first Shakespeare, and she is competent but (in contrast to her fantastic turn in Dangerous Liasions a few years previously) rather swallowed by the part and the period. Still, the moment where she slaps Hamlet, and Gibson lets out a cry of anguish like he’s turning into a werewolf, is priceless.

Helena Bonham-Carter is cast as Ophelia with the same kind of weary predictability that saw Kate Winslet play the part in Kenneth Branagh’s version six years later. If there a period role were up for grabs at that time, Helena would be cast. See every Laura Ashley/Merchant Ivory production in the three or four years either side of Hamlet. HBC is quite compelling when called upon to give a crazed Ophelia, which figures as the last decade or so has seen her embrace her more overtly theatrical side (going the “full Burton” for her hubby). Prior to that, she makes an insipid and mousey figure; you don’t really buy into the idea that he ever loved her, as there is no chemistry between the two of them.

Bates is as solid and dependable as one would expect but, as mentioned, it is ironically only in his scenes with Gibson that he becomes a memorable Claudius. Part of the problem is that Zeffirelli has cut away much that would allow more depth to him. The rest of the cast, from Stephen Dillane as Horatio to Michael Maloney as Guildenstern, are agreeable, but there’s no danger of any of them being indelible. Aside from Ian Holm, that is. His Polonious is fantastic creation, running the gamut from pompous to verbose to shrewd to foolish to hilarious. Whether he’s continually not getting to the point with the King and Queen, being fuddled by an obfuscating Hamlet in the library or announcing the players with a flourish that confirms his own courting of attention and plaudits, Holm is a delight. He’s the only performer besides Gibson who can stir scenes out of the stolid ceremony that Zeffirelli instills.

That’s the main problem. The film is well designed, shot and edited. The script, adapted by Zeffirelli and Christopher De Vore, is pruned sufficiently to ensure it doesn’t drag, and only occasionally is it exposed as deficient through that process. But there’s no atmosphere, no point of view. The director’s inspiration appears to have given out after “cast Mad Mel” sprang into his head (I suppose one could credit also him with the choice of naturalistic delivery). Elsinore is, for all Dante Ferretti’s design, a drab over-lit expanse (location work included Dover, Dunnottar and Blackness Castles). There is no atmosphere to the place, no attitude. Even Ennio Morricone’s score hangs uncertainly in the background, with not real impetus to try harder. Just look at how half-heartedly Zeffirelli depicts his ghost (Paul Scofield). He’s almost apologetic about including the supernatural at all, but is clearly far too literal to think up another means of depicting such an apparition (be it real or mental aberration).

Apparently the Zeffirelli didn’t wish his direction to be intrusive, thereby encouraging a sense of intimacy and claustrophobia. Unfortunately, this aloof approach ends up distancing us, rather than pulling us in. It ensures a version of Hamlet that it is worthy but uninspired. For Gibson, at least, it restored some cachet after a year that had seen critical drubbings (Bird on a Wire) and commercial failures (Air America). 

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?