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). 

***

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism