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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.

Blake's 7 2.7: Killer

Robert Holmes’ first of four scripts for the series, and like last season’s Mission to Destiny there are some fairly atypical elements and attitudes to the main crew (although the A/B storylines present a familiar approach and each is fairly equal in importance for a change). It was filmed second, which makes it the most out of place episode in the run (and explains why the crew are wearing outfits – they must have put them in the wash – from a good few episodes past and why Blake’s hair has grown since last week).
The most obvious thing to note from Holmes’ approach is that he makes Blake a Doctor-substitute. Suddenly he’s full of smart suggestions and shrewd guesses about the threat that’s wiping out the base, basically leaving a top-level virologist looking clueless and indebted to his genius insights. If you can get past this (and it did have me groaning) there’s much enjoyment to be had from the episode, not least from the two main guest actors.

An initiative test. How simply marvellous!

You Must Be Joking! (1965)
A time before a Michael Winner film was a de facto cinematic blot on the landscape is now scarcely conceivable. His output, post- (or thereabouts) Death Wish (“a pleasant romp”) is so roundly derided that it’s easy to forget that the once-and-only dining columnist and raconteur was once a bright (well…) young thing of the ‘60s, riding the wave of excitement (most likely highly cynically) and innovation in British cinema. His best-known efforts from this period are a series of movies with Oliver Reed – including the one with the elephant – and tend to represent the director in his pleasant romp period, before he attacked genres with all the precision and artistic integrity of a blunt penknife. You Must Be Joking! comes from that era, its director’s ninth feature, straddling the gap between Ealing and the Swinging ‘60s; coarser, cruder comedies would soon become the order of the day, the mild ribaldry of Carry On pitching into bawdy flesh-fests. You Must Be Joki…

Luck isn’t a superpower... And it isn't cinematic!

Deadpool 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps it’s because I was lukewarm on the original, but Deadpool 2 mercifully disproves the typical consequence of the "more is more" approach to making a sequel. By rights, it should plummet into the pitfall of ever more excess to diminishing returns, yet for the most part it doesn't.  Maybe that’s in part due to it still being a relatively modest undertaking, budget-wise, and also a result of being very self-aware – like duh, you might say, that’s its raison d'être – of its own positioning and expectation as a sequel; it resolutely fails to teeter over the precipice of burn out or insufferable smugness. It helps that it's frequently very funny – for the most part not in the exhaustingly repetitive fashion of its predecessor – but I think the key ingredient is that it finds sufficient room in its mirthful melee for plot and character, in order to proffer tone and contrast.

Like an antelope in the headlights.

Black Panther (2018)
(SPOILERS) Like last year’s Wonder Woman, the hype for what it represents has quickly become conflated with Black Panther’s perceived quality. Can 92% and 97% of critics respectively really not be wrong, per Rotten Tomatoes, or are they – Armond White aside – afraid that finding fault in either will make open them to charges of being politically regressive, insufficiently woke or all-round, ever-so-slightly objectionable? As with Wonder Woman, Black Panther’s very existence means something special, but little about the movie itself actually is. Not the acting, not the directing, and definitely not the over-emphatic, laboured screenplay. As such, the picture is a passable two-plus hours’ entertainment, but under-finessed enough that one could easily mistake it for an early entry in the Marvel cycle, rather than arriving when they’re hard-pressed to put a serious foot wrong.

Ain't nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There's nothing here to like.

Body of Lies (2008)
(SPOILERS) Sir Ridders stubs out his cigar in the CIA-assisted War on Terror, with predictably gormless results. Body of Lies' one saving grace is that it wasn't a hit, although that more reflects its membership of a burgeoning club where no degree of Hollywood propaganda on the "just fight" (with just a smidgeon enough doubt cast to make it seem balanced at a sideways glance) was persuading the public that they wanted the official fiction further fictionalised.

I didn't kill her. I just relocated her.

The Discovery (2017)
(SPOILERS) The Discovery assembles not wholly dissimilar science-goes-metaphysical themes and ideas to Douglas Trumbull's ill-fated 1983 Brainstorm, revolving around research into consciousness and the revelation of its continuance after death. Perhaps the biggest discovery, though, is that it’s directed and co-written by the spawn of Malcom McDowell and Mary Steenburgen (the latter cameos) – Charlie McDowell – of hitherto negligible credits but now wading into deep philosophical waters and even, with collaborator Justin Lader, offering a twist of sorts.

How many galoshes died to make that little number?

Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)
(SPOILERS) Looney Tunes: Back in Action proved a far from joyful experience for director Joe Dante, who referred to the production as the longest year-and-a-half of his life. He had to deal with a studio that – insanely – didn’t know their most beloved characters and didn’t know what they wanted, except that they didn’t like what they saw. Nevertheless, despite Dante’s personal dissatisfaction with the finished picture, there’s much to enjoy in his “anti-Space Jam”. Undoubtedly, at times his criticism that it’s “the kind of movie that I don’t like” is valid, moving as it does so hyperactively that its already gone on to the next thing by the time you’ve realised you don’t like what you’re seeing at any given moment. But the flipside of this downside is, there’s more than enough of the movie Dante was trying to make, where you do like what you’re seeing.

Dante commented of Larry Doyle’s screenplay (as interviewed in Joe Dante, edited by Nil Baskar and G…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.