There are very few names that inspire people to become actors. Not movie stars, but actors. Among them are Marlon Brando, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, and Sir Laurence Olivier. Having already some familiarity with the works of William Shakespeare (by no means, am I an expert, but I know some things), I judged it was time to see how Olivier himself treated one of the Bard's most famous works.
Well, the first impression I got from watching this movie is that it is quite obviously a labor of love. Olivier was an avid practitioner of Shakespeare, and this movie is his tribute. And, one thing I can say about this version of Hamlet is that it appears to be a more faithful interpretation, rather than an adaptation with whole scenes taken out for the sake of time, continuity, and/or to keep the audience's attention. While ambitious, the results are mixed.
First, let's cover what I did like about the movie. On the top of that list is Jean Simmons as Ophelia. Her performance was nearly flawless as Hamlet's girlfriend, who loses her mind after her father's death. Another surprise I spotted was character actor Stanley Holloway (Liza's father in "My Fair Lady") as the gravedigger in the "Alas, poor Yorick" scene. And the swordfight finale was well choreographed.
Now, for what I felt was lacking. Many of the actors in this movie (particularly Basil Sydney, who played King Claudius) appeared wooden. Even Olivier himself looked like he had succumbed to mediocre performance at times. A lot of the lines sounded like they were phoned in, and Polonius (Felix Aylmer) sounded too much like he was dispassionately reading from "Poor Richard's Almanac" while dispensing his wisdom to his children, Ophelia and Laertes (Terence Morgan).
As Hamlet himself said, "The play's the thing", but this is a play put on film. With that, there is an inherent problem with its presentation: Sometimes, it doesn't translate well. While I am sure that on stage, this was phenomenal, on screen it is hit-and-miss. But, like I said, it was a labor of love, and it does mark two firsts in Oscar history: The first movie directed by its star, and the first independent film, to win Best Picture.
For purists and those who study Shakespeare, this presentation is the one to watch. It's a no-frills, camera-eye view of the play utilizing a single set. But this is not just another movie to watch for the sake of watching it. It has been said that true art has flaws, and by that very definition, Olivier's "Hamlet" is art, warts and all.
Well, the first impression I got from watching this movie is that it is quite obviously a labor of love. Olivier was an avid practitioner of Shakespeare, and this movie is his tribute. And, one thing I can say about this version of Hamlet is that it appears to be a more faithful interpretation, rather than an adaptation with whole scenes taken out for the sake of time, continuity, and/or to keep the audience's attention. While ambitious, the results are mixed.
First, let's cover what I did like about the movie. On the top of that list is Jean Simmons as Ophelia. Her performance was nearly flawless as Hamlet's girlfriend, who loses her mind after her father's death. Another surprise I spotted was character actor Stanley Holloway (Liza's father in "My Fair Lady") as the gravedigger in the "Alas, poor Yorick" scene. And the swordfight finale was well choreographed.
Now, for what I felt was lacking. Many of the actors in this movie (particularly Basil Sydney, who played King Claudius) appeared wooden. Even Olivier himself looked like he had succumbed to mediocre performance at times. A lot of the lines sounded like they were phoned in, and Polonius (Felix Aylmer) sounded too much like he was dispassionately reading from "Poor Richard's Almanac" while dispensing his wisdom to his children, Ophelia and Laertes (Terence Morgan).
As Hamlet himself said, "The play's the thing", but this is a play put on film. With that, there is an inherent problem with its presentation: Sometimes, it doesn't translate well. While I am sure that on stage, this was phenomenal, on screen it is hit-and-miss. But, like I said, it was a labor of love, and it does mark two firsts in Oscar history: The first movie directed by its star, and the first independent film, to win Best Picture.
For purists and those who study Shakespeare, this presentation is the one to watch. It's a no-frills, camera-eye view of the play utilizing a single set. But this is not just another movie to watch for the sake of watching it. It has been said that true art has flaws, and by that very definition, Olivier's "Hamlet" is art, warts and all.