Customer Reviews

Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I do not say this lightly. The visual language is unforgettable: the crashing waves, the jagged cliffs, the colossal menacing castle, and amidst it the supreme elegance of Hamlet. Kozintsev is a master of black-and-white. This film has to be in black-and-white. The shades of gray need to be there: the alternately glittering and raging grays of the waves, the mysterious grays of the rock, the deadening gray of the castle, and the slender figure of Hamlet in stark black-and-white contrasted against them. The score by Shostakovitch is shatteringly intense, and it too has to be this way.

Innokenti Smoktunovski was considered one of the greatest actors in the Soviet Union, and it is easy to see why. His voice is awesome. He moves stupendously. At one level, it is attractive and sexy. At another level, it visualizes the fragility, dignity, and beauty of a human being. The scene of Hamlet dying by the sea--a lone figure leaning languidly against the rock--is one of the most haunting images in film.

Directors and actors too often do `Hamlet' clearly in relation to other `Hamlets', so much so that it can become a bit of a pissing contest--who can do a more fiery or provocative (or popular) version. This Hamlet is free from such baggage. Its authors start from first principles. They focus on creating a work of art in the medium of film. They use the possibilities of film, but the medium never drives the message. Everything--the sets, the close-ups, the camera angles--is there only for artistic expression.

A great work of art is deeply transformative, and this film is.

From the first scenes, implicitly conveying the fact of the royal death, and Claudius' monolog, split between a herald reading a decree at a town square, courtiers repeating "in equal scale weighing delight and dole" and foreign ambassadors echoing them in their respective languages, and finally the king himself addressing his advisors - you know you are watching a work of a master. Of the three most popular screen adaptations, the classic Olivier's, the roaring Mel Gibson's and the Kenneth Branagh's parody, none is even close to this one. The excellent set and costumes, great acting, outstanding dark, gothic-like black-and-white camera work, Shostakovich's music - everything tells of a masterpiece. Of course, limitations of a screen play are obvious - lots of great lines omitted, added scenes (such as Hamlet on his way to England forging the king's letter, which was borrowed later by Tom Stoppard for his Rozenkrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead) - but it's the ultimate screen play nonetheless.

I have seen the Olivier and the Gibson versions of Hamlet, and this is the one I prefer by far. Not being an authority on anything, I can only say this rendition suits my taste because it seemed a more natural, flowing, presentation without as much of , what seems to me, the theatricality of the other two. Shakespeare, of course, was limited to the boundaries of a stage; this film, by incorporating some sweeping cinematography of the natural surroundings, particularly the restless ocean, adds a profundity that complements the emotionally charged dramatic action. There is an energy in the acting which I have noticed in other good Russian films, and since there is no Hollywood personality cult around the main actors, the talent and attention given to all roles seems more evenly distributed. The actor who portrays Hamlet delivers, in my opinion, one of the best cinema performances ever. Dramatic intensity without overacting is how I would characterize it. There are a few misspelled words in the subtitles, but this is not enough of a defect to seriously detract.

I just recently picked up this DVD from my local public library, and for once I was glad I did. If you purchase one of these, you'll be stuck with this banal, generic ad that plays at the beginning. ("Ever feel like you're in a Jim Jarmusch picture?") Also, I noticed that this version uses fewer subtitles than the European DVD, and some of Shakespeare's best lines are thrown out. But the film itself cannot be faulted for anything. It puts similar attempts at adaptation by Branagh, Zeffirelli, Olivier, and even Welles to shame. This is the only Shakespeare film I've seen where I can point to any scene and say, "THAT's the way it happens in the play"--especially the disinterment of Yorick's skull. See it if you haven't, but be sure you've read the play first, because for all its strengths. this is no substitute for the text of Old Bill.

I agree with the gist of the other five-star reviews here, so I'll point out two criticisms.

First, after having watched Shakespeare in a foreign language, it has become apparent to me that one of Shakespeare's greatest qualities is his language, which inevitably becomes lost in translation. Yes, the superb characterization, the masterly wrought plot, the emotional cadences--all that and more are still there. But some (perhaps most) of the poetry fails to comes through. When listening to some of Shakespeare's beautiful lines, I sometimes find my eyes welling up. But that does not happen when I watch him in a foreign language.

Second, as for this particular film, the subtitles were poor. I can't quite figure out what happened, but it seems to me that there must have been more than one translator working on this project, because the quality vacillated during the film. As one example, most of the film had subtitles using the standard English "he" for the third person pronoun. But at some later point the subtitles switched to "a", Shakespeare's usual usage. Why the switch? But worse than that, whole lines of dialogue were regularly dropped. I found myself trying to fill in missing lines from memory and then losing the thread of the continuing dialogue. The screen play was written by Boris Pasternak. Sometimes, the translators seemed to be using Shakespeare's original text for the subtitles, but at other times, the translators seemed to doing a straight translation of Pasternak's screenplay. I wish they had stuck with just using Shakespeare's original text. Often lines of dialogue had a noticeably different form from Shakespeare's original, and the differences were jarring at times (at least for someone intimately familiar with the play.) I hate to harp on something that should be trivial like subtitles. But this otherwise superb film would be vastly improved with better subtitles.

Kozintsev's HAMLET is described as "arguably the most intelligent and certainly the most contemporary interpretation of Shakespeare for the screen". This is a description I certainly wouldn't argue with the film certainly resonates with the energy and power of great film making and inspired acting even now 40+ years since its release.

Gamlet is a 140 minutes, black-and-white film. Music played frequently throughout film and sets the mood of the scene. Many of Gamlet's soliloquies are voiceovers. Many lines from individual speeches are cut, but most scenes are included. Act 1, Scene 1 and the scene in which Fortinbras arrives in Denmark with his large army are exceptions, since they have been completely eliminated.

Overall, an interesting adaptation, which I recommend to those who really enjoy Shakespeare. However, for individuals who just want an adaptation to watch instead of reading the text, I recommend Hamlet (1996) starring Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet.



CHANGES OF INTEREST: *** Specifically designed for the Shakespeare afficiando.


Gamlet arrives at castle on horseback, assumedly after receiving news of his father's sudden death.

Elaborate scene is shown in which the castle's drawbridge is raised.

Gamlet does not appear to be particularly close friends with Horatio. Horatio seems to show great deference to Gamlet. [While later in the film, Gamlet appears slightly warmer to Horatio, they never become very touchy-feely with one another.]

In his speech, Polonius leaves out the phrase about not being either a borrower or a lender. [Of course, Polonius' speech also eliminates other lesser-important dialogue.]

Polonius seems almost like a grandfather figure to Ophelia. He gives her advice against becoming too familiar with Gamlet but does not shout at her or treat her cruelly.

Horses break free and run away in terror as the ghost of Gamlet's father appears to Gamlet.

Gamlet never sees the whole face of the ghost. The closest thing Gamlet sees is its eyes at the very end.

When Gamlet says that there is nothing he would rather part with than his life, Gamlet says the last part more to himself than to Polonius.

Gamlet's famous line: "there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so" is eliminated.

Gamlet delivers his "to be or not to be" speech in front of the sea, on the beach alone. [Most of the speech is included.]

When Gamlet and Ophelia talk, the audience receives no clear cue that Gamlet knows Polonius and Claudius are listening.

Gamlet does not say that the play is the thing by which to capture the conscience of the king.
Claudius controls himself pretty well during the play (i.e. "The Mousetrap). However, he is clearly upset even though he claps at the end and pretends that nothing is wrong until after the play has finished.

Gamlet controls himself very calmly when giving his play upon a pipe speech to R & G. [Most of the speech is included.]

Gamlet never sees Claudius while Claudius is praying, and therefore, obviously cannot engage in the mental struggle about whether to murder Claudius as he prays.

Gamlet does not seem to lust after Gertrude, although Gertrude may lust after him.

Adaptation plays up Gamlet's worm eats carcass of king, fish eats worm, and person eats fish speech. Of course, the implication is obvious that Gamlet is trying to play down the belief that royalty is any more important that peasants since both are food for the people still alive.

Gamlet's insult where he tells Claudius to go to hell in search of Polonius is not included.

Film shows Gamlet on the ship bound towards England taking the king's original scroll out of a locked box, reading it, and replacing it with his own, which will send R & G to their deaths. [However, after Gamlet replaces the letter with his own, the audience receives no more information about the fate of R & G.]

Film keeps the scene in which Ophelia picks up sticks and gives them to others while believing they are flowers.

Film shows Ophelia dead at the bottom of a pond, her head facing the surface.

In the grave digging scene, Gamlet picks up Orlick's skull. In fact, this scene is pretty accurate in to the folio text, with the exception that the there is only one gravedigger. (Therefore the lines this gravedigger speaks to the second gravedigger are omitted). Also, the gravedigger is portrayed as a man who likes to drink.

Originally, Gertrude is not watching Gamlet and Laertes jousting.

It appears that Gamlet gives Laertes a wound that would have been fatal whether or not the sword in his hand had been poisoned.

Gamlet stabs Claudius with the poisoned sword before anyone can stop him. However, Gamlet does not force Claudius to drink any of the poisoned drink. Also, we do not physically see Claudius die.

After the jousting (which turned into a dual), Horatio and Gamlet walk outside the castle together and toward the ocean. Gamlet dies outdoors while leaning against a large rock.

Fortinbras never takes over the kingdom of Denmark.

This is from the era when film was still a piece of plastic to be manipulated into the universe of the story. All the elements of the craft are at work here - rich and lush light and its absence, the score, the spare script, the editing and cinematography, all weilded by masters that influenced all who came after them. This really is Shakespeare as it has to be done. View it again and again for more detail, a deeper experience.

Splendid! I think this is the best Hamlet which I've have ever seen either in theather or in cinema. Excellent camera work and tremendous play of the actors. Beside this it is noticible that Pasternak's translation into russian is superb!

This is a Shakespeare play about the prince of Denmark and tragedy surrounding the family. Many people want to say the prince Hamlet is indecision yet he outmaneuvers just about everyone and had depth of vision. Now watch as he discovers who killed the king and how he attempts to get his revenge.

If I did not know the story and characters by heart I would have been lost. The subtitles I watched were in English. However they were a mixture of contemporary and Elizabethan. "How now is a rat?" Unfortunately I know no Russian except for a little bit picked up from this movie, so I could not rely on listing to the words and match to the subtitles as I can in German or Spanish. I know that is my problem not the films. But it did distract from the experience. The only thing that makes the score of any value is because it is by Dmitri Shostakovich.

The outside visuals are impressive and the costumes are not out of place. Even in Russian the actors are not squeaky like the David Tennant version in 2010 or ridiculous looking like Ethan Hawke 2000, or missing Rosencrantz. However we are missing the epilog.

This is worth the viewing and you may come away with a new thought or two.