Shakespeare On Film - My Comments
Submitted by bertie on Sat, 06/22/2002 - 06:55
Tags:
- HENRY V (1944, Laurence Olivier) Shakespeare versus Hitler. This was made with the intention of raising British spirits during the struggle against the Third Reich, including, of course, occupied France. In brilliant Technicolor, the film cleverly takes us from confined stage to open fields and back again, mirroring The Bard's initial appeal to his audience to use their imaginations to visualise horses, armies and battlefields. The propagandaic centre of the piece, the wonderfully rousing St. Crispin's Day speech before the Battle of Agincourt, is well enough done by Olivier- though Branagh was to do it better. What has stayed with me most strongly from this film is Robert Newton's near-perfect Pistol: "Back to England I'll steal, and there...I'll steal."
- MACBETH (1948, Orson Welles) Only last week I was channel surfing late night tv and caught the last 15 or 20 minutes of this - from just before Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking scene to the end. I absolutely hated what Jeanette Nolan did with the sleepwalking scene; its huge dramatic potential was wasted in histrionics and screeching. This great scene, if performed with restraint and subtlety, is immensely powerful - but not this time. Welles's own performance in the title role looked much more interesting - if only I'd seen more of it. The despairing soliloquy "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow..." is quite well done. But the edited play is brought to its end more than a little abruptly. I need to catch all of this.
- HAMLET (1948, Laurence Olivier) There is much to criticise in Olivier's Hamlet, and much to admire. On the con side: it's almost a one-man-band, other parts lacking the strong performances they need; Larry was too old for the part (older than the actress who played his mother); the text was too severely trimmed, leaving out important characters and scenes; and the main character is explicitly and simplistically presented as "a man who could not make up his mind". On the pro side: Olivier's performance is impressive (his rendition of the soliloquy "To be or not to be..." is particularly memorable); the sets and the monochrome photography are very effective (Oscar for Art Direction). This was the benchmark English language cinema Hamlet for several decades.
- OTHELLO (1952, Orson Welles) This film was made the hard way: financing problems forced Welles to shoot it in several installments over a period of four years, and it shows. The sequencing is disjointed and the voices dubbed (on-location sound recording was out of reach of the shoestring budget). But Welles managed to make it a memorable visual, if not auditory, experience by shooting it in old, massive, architecturally fascinating Morroccan fortresses. Welles's performance of the title role is very strong and surprisingly unified, considering the circumstances. This is an Othello you'll either love or hate. I love it. Unfortunately I have it on videocassette only, recorded from tv.
- RICHARD III (1954, Laurence Olivier) After Orson's Othello proved a prizewinner (not an Oscar, merely one of those French floral arrangements), the ball was back in Larry's court. And his return was an ace. Richard, Duke of Gloster, is arguably Will the Quill's greatest villain, and Olivier pulled out all stops in bringing him to the screen. (It's curious how villainous roles so often bring out the best in an actor.) In my opinion, Olivier's Richard was not equaled until Ian McKellan made the part his own (see below).
- ROMEO AND JULIET (1954, Renato Castellani) This is a very good looking production with a good looking pair of lovers. Another plus is Sebastian Cabot who nails his role as Juliet's father. Unfortunately, not much more can be said in favour of this film. Non-Shakespearean and unnecessary explanatory scenes are added while several of The Bard's scenes are cut. The action scenes are poorly done. "But what about the two central performances?" I hear you ask. Well, I think they're not terrible, fair to middlin', but they needed to be more lively; they lack sparkle. This is another one I video-recorded from tv.
- FORBIDDEN PLANET (1956, Fred M.Wilcox) This science fiction classic was clearly inspired by The Tempest. Prospero becomes Dr Morbius; his daughter Miranda becomes Altaira; the spirit Ariel becomes Robby the Robot; the witch, Sycorax, becomes the extinct alien race the Krell; and the witch's monstrous son, Caliban, becomes The Monster From The Id (making the movie Freudian Shakespearean SF). The plots are only vaguely similar, however. Prospero uses magic to shipwreck and bamboozle the enemies who had made castaways of him and his daughter. Morbius's attempts to use alien technology have resulted in disaster for the human colony on the world of the Krell, and mortal danger for his daughter and the crew of a spaceship sent to investigate. This is on my DVD wish list.
- WEST SIDE STORY (1961) Truth to tell, this doesn't have a lot to do with The Bard; it borrows his Romeo and Juliet plot (which he borrowed from some now forgotten writer). But if you're looking for a Romeo and Juliet type story set to music and with some songs that used to be hot plus some dancing that's still cool, this is the one to see.
- ROMANOFF AND JULIET (1961, Peter Ustinov) Now this is a clever idea. The R & J plot is given a Cold War context, so that its scope expands to take in the whole world. (Of course, in a sense, its scope was always universal). Shakespeare's "Two households, both alike in dignity..." become the Western Allies and the Soviet Bloc. The lovers are the son and daughter of the Russian and American ambassadors in a minor (and fictional) country, Concordia. If you've never encountered Peter Ustinov (he plays the Prime Minister of Concordia), you could do worse than start here.
- ALL NIGHT LONG (1961, Basil Deardon) And for our third 1961 film to borrow from The Bard: The plot of Othello is adapted and updated to make a story of malice, jealousy and murder amongst British jazz musicians at an all night jam session. Name actors include Richard Attenborough and Patrick McGoohan (who makes a memorable villian). And for jazz fans we have numbers by such masters as Dave Brubeck and Tubby Hayes. This turns up at least once a year on late night TV where I live.
- HAMLET (1969, Tony Richardson) This production has several good things going for it: a very interesting central performance by Nicol Williamson (who appears looking uncannily like certain portraits of Shakespeare himself); a surprisingly good performance of Ophelia by Marianne Faithful (who was better known as a rock singer, drug addict and girlfriend of Mick Jagger); and, before he was well known, Anthony Hopkins as the villainous Claudius. Williams was too old for the part of Hamlet, but what else is new? It seems that every actor who has taken on the role has been too old for it. Hamlet should be no older than 25, but most who play him are well into their 30s or even 40s.
- MACBETH (1971, Roman Polanski) I know I've seen this film, but it was a very long time ago and it has faded badly in my memory. This is curious since, by most accounts, it is a very vivid production and was considered most shocking when first released. Much blood and nudity (Lady M does her sleepwalking scene without benefit of night attire). Opinions on the film are quite sharply divided: it's a prime example of love-it-or-hate-it. Polanski made this right after making his great horror masterpiece, Rosemary's Baby (which also involved 'witches'), and he was soon to make the acclaimed Chinatown, so he was at the height of his directorial powers when he made it. I badly need to see this again.
- THE TEMPEST (1980, John Gorrie) This is the only production of The Bard's final play I've ever seen. Michael Hordern does a better-than-workmanlike job in the role of Prospero, but otherwise this is bland stuff and unlikely to win the world's greatest playwright any new fans. The Tempest cries out for a new, big budget, imaginative movie version. There's plenty of potential here for a Shakespearean FX movie.
- HAMLET (1980, Rodney Bennett) This is a must see Hamlet. Derek Jacobi's performance is a truly great acting accomplishment, setting the standard for all would-be Hamlets ever since. The scene in which Hamlet kills Polonius and then confronts his mother Gertrude (Claire Bloom) with her 'incest' is unforgetable. Another unforgetable scene is the one in which Hamlet finds Claudius (Patrick Stewart) at prayer and decides not to take the opportunity to kill him then because to do so would be to send him to heaven. This is a difficult scene to do convincingly, but both actors nail it. Jacobi also does my favorite interpretation of the famous Graveyeard Scene: "Alas, poor Yorick!" Jacobi's ownership of the role came from having performed it over a hundred times on the stage. But, wonderful as he is, Jacobi can't take all the acting kudos; he has a supporting cast that was clearly inspired by him to do some of their very best work. Another thing this version has going for it (I think I'm correct in saying this) is that it is, textually, the least cut version made before Branagh's complete version (see below).
- THE TAMING OF THE SHREW (1980, Jonathan Miller) Think about it: John Cleese as Petruchio. What a brilliant stroke of casting! But it gets better: the makers have recognised that this play is not a farce but a serious comedy with (of course) serious things to say about human relationships. Viewers need to recognise it too, or, perhaps expecting a farce, they'll fail to enter into its spirit and be liable to complain that it wasn't played farcically enough. I'm not saying this is a great version, but it is, by far, the best I've seen on film.
- KING LEAR (1982, Jonathan Miller) In the early 80s the British Broadcasting Commission made film versions of all of the plays. The two jewels in the crown of this huge effort are the Hamlet starring Derek Jacobi and this King Lear starring Michael Hordern. This is as good a version of Lear as I ever expect to see. Hordern's Lear manages to stand out even amongst this almost miraculous set of excellent performances. This is another must see .
- MACBETH (1983, Jack Gold) The BBC production starring Nicol Williamson in the title role and Jane Lapotaire as Lady Macbeth. Very much like a filmed play, with minimalist sets and constricted action. But it is a complete version (though the non-Shakespearean 'Hecate' scene is omitted). Both the main performances are interesting: Williamson comes close to achieving a tour-de-force but doesn't quite get there. Lapotaire is less obviously trying hard and so gives us a more unified and ultimately more impressive performance. Her Lady M. is perhaps the best I've seen. The real star is, of course, the Bard's incredible verbal pyrotechnics. The joyously blatant artificiality of the language is at odds with the seriousness of the plot, yet somehow we are awed rather than made to giggle. The art of a supreme genius with words at the height of his inspiration. But what's with all those avian references? :-D
- HENRY V (1989, Kenneth Branagh) Darkness. Then a match is struck and flares into light. The Chorus (a sort of narrator) utters his author's plea for inspiration: "O for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention!" Of course, William Shakespeare was inspired by a muse of fire, and no doubt knew it, but the fact that he made this plea the opening line of the play shows how important it was to him to do justice to the story of Henry the Fifth. Naturally he did do it justice, and in this film Kenneth Branagh struggles mightily to do justice to what is arguably the greatest history play ever written. This story both glorifies and criticizes kingship and war. It shows how becoming king changes Henry from a fun-loving youth capable of deep friendship into an obsessed warrior who ruthlessly abandons his best friend. It shows both the social disruption and tragic waste of war and the glory of battle. Honor, dishonor, treason, loyalty, respect between enemies, courage, cowardice, hope, despair. And if that isn't enough, there's also a smattering of comedy and romance. Branagh's acting style suits the character of Henry almost perfectly. A wonderfully energetic and yet precisely controlled performance. He does the St Crispin's Day Speech - a miraculously motivating call to battle - so well that you'll start looking around for something to use as a sword. The rest of the cast includes Derek Jacobi (Chorus), Ian Holm (Fluellen), Robbie Coltrane (Falstaff), Judi Dench (Mistress Quickly), Paul Scofield (French King), and Branagh's then-wife, Emma Thompson (Katherine). Henry's wooing of Katherine provides great comic relief after the drama of battle. Today's movie audience is fortunate to have this very entertaining production of a marvellous play.
- ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD (1990, Tom Stoppard) It sounds like a great idea for a funny play or movie: take the world's most famous play and concentrate on two of its minor characters. Show what goes on with them in offstage limbo while they are waiting for their few brief moments onstage. R and G are two of Hamlet's childhood companions who also went to university with him. They are "sent for", summoned to the royal court of Denmark. But they don't know why. In fact, they're not even sure which of them is which (just as, in the play proper, Queen Gertrude seems unsure). What they do in limbo is have absurd conversations that touch on a range of metaphysical topics. Eventually they almost come to realise that they are fictional, but they never suspect that they are minor, nor that they are doomed. "The ears are senseless that should give us hearing / To tell him his commandment is fulfilled / That Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead." To appreciate this film you need to be familiar with Shakespeare's Hamlet, to have your ear open for wordplay, and to be in the mood for darkly absurd humor.
- HAMLET (1990, Franco Zeffirelli) Did it happen this way? For his third movie based on a Shakespeare play, Zeffirelli was undecided between Hamlet and The Merry Wives of Windsor. Then he saw Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon (1987). Aha! He'd put Gibson in a fat-suit and cast him as Falstaff. Crazy, man. No, wait a minute: crazy man. Not Falstaff but Hamlet, Hamlet the crazy man! Or Hamlet the man pretending to be a crazy man so as to be the fly in the ointment of his mother's marriage to his uncle who has murdered his father whose ghost has appeared to him and sworn him to revenge which he'll get around to in the fullness of time at the most opportune moment oops! that was Polonius his girlfriend's dad and she won't be crazy about that I'll warrant and her brother'll mayhap be pissed about it too and challenge me to a conciliatory fencing match after I escape 'exile' in England (where Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead) and where as the gravedigger said the men are all crazy as me he he... Probably it didn't. Happen that way. Anyhoo, the resulting film is a travesty for purists and entertaining for us groundlings.
- PROSPERO'S BOOKS (1991, Peter Greenaway) Another case of seen-but-need-to-see-again. I remember it was weird and had lots of nakedness. Okay, this is a piss-poor comment on a not-unimportant film (you know a film is not-unimportant when most critics either love or loathe it), but my encounter with it was just too far in the past for me to give an honest opinion. I generally like Greenaway's stuff, though.
- MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING (1993, Kenneth Branagh) This is almost the only recent movie version of this Shakespeare comedy that's available and worth seeing. There was much critical conflict over Branagh's choice of some cast members, particularly Keanu Reeves and Michael Keaton. I always like Keaton, so I don't object to his oddball interpretation of Constable Dogberry. Reeves was given an unsympathetic character to play, the villain of the piece, and I think he does it adequately, though many commentators profess to be appalled by his performance. Filming partly took place in Italy's sun-drenched Tuscany region, and it shows beautifully. See this for non-trite romance and brilliantly clever dialog in a setting that is the essence of dreamy summer.
- RICHARD III (1995, Richard Loncraine) There's a sub-genre of science fiction called Alternate History - history as it might have happened but didn't. This version of Richard the Third is set in an alternate Britain of the 1930s. Tanks, jeeps, bombers and firearms instead of horses and swords. This generally works surprisingly well, except for the moment when Richard cries out "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" But this novelty of setting doesn't detract nor distract from Sir Ian McKellan's rivetting performance as Richard. Now this is your essential slimey villain. "I can smile, and smile, and murder as I smile." McKellen utterly dominates every scene he's in, which is most of them. I urge all lovers of imaginative film-making and great acting to see this, no matter how you feel about Shakespeare.
- OTHELLO (1995, Oliver Parker) Critics of Shakespeare have complained that Iago, the villain of this play, is 'insufficiently motivated' or even 'unmotivated'. I say such complaints are balderdash. Iago is motivated partly by his envy of Othello's success as a soldier, but mostly by his envy of Othello's success as a man truly capable of passionately loving a woman. Iago also exhibits racism (calling Othello a "black ram" and "the thick-lips"), but his racism is quite secondary to his envy - as is his indignation at not being promoted. These points are clearly brought out in this movie version, even though the editing of the text was severe. Laurence Fishburn, the first black man to play the role on film, is at least as good as any 'white Othello' has been. We are used to seeing Kenneth Branagh play Shakespearean heroes, but here he does an excellent Iago. Irene Jacob as Othello's bride, Desdemona, has to try to make her mark in a ruthlessly edited role, and she probaly comes off second best to Anna Patrick who gives us a very strong Emilia (Iago's wife). This movie is nearly butchered Bard, but nevertheless well worth seeing.
- LOOKING FOR RICHARD (1996, Al Pacino) I can't help suspecting that this documentary was salvaged from a failed attempt to do a version of Richard III. It's like a "Making of..." for a film that never got made. We are given several scenes from the play interspersed with basic explanations and analyses, production details, rehearsals, actor interviews, etc. Most of it is interesting and instructive, and it would be useful to watch this before watching, say, Olivier's or McKellan's version. I've rarely liked Pacino as an actor, and those of you who do like him will probably be more impressed by his Richard than I was.
- TWELFTH NIGHT, OR WHAT YOU WILL (1996, Trevor Nunn) A very good recent version of this romance - comedy. Nunn's fine direction is enhanced by an excellent cast who all understand their roles and lines. The only problem with the casting is that the two actors who play twin brother and sister don't look enough alike to make it believable that they could be mistaken for each other. The romantic aspect of the story works very well, but many may find the comedy too broad and unsubtle. But overall this is a successful and memorable Shakespeare adaptation.
- ROMEO + JULIET (1996, Baz Luhrmann) R&J adapted for the MTV generation. Could have been worse. Setting cleverly modernised. Stay away if you're a purist about The Bard.
- HAMLET (1996, Kenneth Branagh) This is the first filmed version of the play to give us the complete text - every line of Shakespeare's dialog. There is a shortened edition of the same film available, but why would you pay to see it? If you're not prepared to devote four hours of your life to the greatest play ever written, why bother at all? Branagh's performance of the central role is good to very good, but he can't claim the title of Best Movie Hamlet, a title which is still held by Derek Jacobi (who plays Claudius in this version). The adventurous casting of this film resulted in performances ranging in quality from excellent to embarrassing. The most obvious casting error was Jack Lemmon as the sentry Marcellus: he completely fails to hold up his end of the scenes he is in. On the other hand, the casting of Charlton Heston as the Player King works wonderfully well. He makes the 'play-within-a-play' one of the highlights of the film. Kate Winslett also impresses as Ophelia. Another success is the setting of this version in the early 19th century, or thereabouts. As an IMDb commentator has pointed out, this setting allows the film to be visually interesting yet without the distractions that would probably have been generated by either a 'historically accurate' setting or an even more modern one. Is this Branagh's most successful encounter with The Bard? Probably not. But it is very valuable both for its completeness and as a record of what can go right and wrong when actors tangle with this great work of dramatic art.
- RICHARD II (1997, Deborah Warner) Yes, that's Richard the Second, not the more famous Third. The story is basically about how a king who really isn't psychologically fitted for the role of kingship comes to lose his throne to an aggressive usurper. The interesting thing about this particular version is that the role of Richard is played by a female actor, Fiona Shaw. This would have been impossible in Shakespeare's day since there were no female actors then and all The Bard's roles, male and female, were originally played by men or boys. I found Shaw's performance to be fascinating, and not just because she was playing a man. Ultimately, the words are what counts in Shakespeare and Shaw clearly understands all that she is saying and delivers it in a way that holds the attention constantly. This is just as well, because the play is word-heavy and has little physical action in it. Worth seeing, both for its novelty and for fine acting.
- SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998, John Madden) Bar Girl: "So what's it about?" Actor Cast As Juliet's Nurse: "Well, there's this nurse..." Okay, so it's not Shakespeare; it's about him. A fictional comedy-romance about actors, one of whom happens to be him. And one of whom happens to be his lover, a woman, smitten with what he's written [sorry!], and playing the part of a man, at a time when the very idea of a female actor was scandalous. An entertaining movie, more so if you are familiar with the writings of Will the Quill.
- 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU (1999, Gil Junger) None of The Bard's dialog, just the plot of The Taming of the Shrew given a present-day setting, the main characters becoming high school students. Entertaining enough, more so, I expect, if you are a teenager.
- A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM (1999, Michael Hoffman) I wanted to like this, but it just doesn't work. Everyone seems miscast and either dull (e.g. Michelle Pfieffer) or trying too hard (e.g. Kevin Kline). You'd do much better to read the play; it contains some of Shakespeare's funniest material.
Author Comments:
Of course, I can offer comments on only those films I have seen. During my research for this list I became painfully aware of the many highly rated films I have not yet encountered. Perhaps I will make a separate Wish List of those.
Tell me you're going to include Branagh films too.
Indeed I am. Like the title says, the list is under construction.
Even with only one complete entry, this list is well on its way to being my favorite list of yours, which is definitely saying something considering how much I enjoy your other entries!
Hey, Bertie, I'm really looking forward to seeing how this list turns out.
Are you only listing films that you've seen on this and/or are you open to suggestions? If the latter have you considered some of the Shakespeare-based Kurosawa stuff and/or adding some more of the alternative takes on his work like the recent Scotland PA (2001)? If you're open to suggestions then I've got some.
Did you intentionally leave Shakespeare In Love off of this list because you haven't seen it or because it's not truly based on a Shakespearean work or for some other reason?
I'm pleasantly surprised the semi-constructed list has attracted any attention. I plan to eke it out, adding one 'My Comment' per day.
I conceived this to be a personal list rather than a 'contributors welcome' list. May I suggest that you do a clone? I'd love to see it, and I expect Jim would too.
I have seen SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE and somehow didn't think to add it. Thanks for reminding me.
You are very convincing - I've added the 1980 production of Hamlet to my "to see" list. Thanks!
Can't wait for you to finish your Henry V (1989) comments, and I'm sorry to hear you had a hard day. I love that film. I knew a guy that memorized the St. Crispin's Day speech and would deliver it as a motivational speech to his team during halftime. :-)
Speaking of, that reminded me of "Renaissance Man", when that one recruit recited the St. Crispin's Day speech (I believe it was). Being ex-military myself, that was really good.
Yes, the Danny DeVito movie. I saw it under the title "Army Intelligence". He starts teaching them using Hamlet, but they go on a field trip to see Henry V. The speech is used to good effect at the end to answer the officer who was giving them a hard time. Effective little 'feel good' movie.
I don't know if you've seen them, but may I also point out the recent redo of Othello, O. Oh, and the Hamlet with Ethan Hawke.
Unfortunately I haven't seen either of these - yet. But when I do I'll comment here.
And - I doubt you've seen it, but what did you think of the concept of TNT's King of Texas? (Lear in wild west Texas)
Looks interesting, though all that remains of Shakespeare is his plot. And those who have borrowed The Bard's plots have usually departed widely from them. But he couldn't complain, because he borrowed many of his plots from other writers, and freely adapted them. I'm not sure about the origin of the King Lear plot. We've had a medieval Japanese version, Kurasawa'a RAN, so why not a wild western version? I like Patrick Stewart, so I'll watch KOT if I encounter it.
Those are nothing. Someone I knew in college went so far as to design the costumes for a Klingon version of Lear (which, when you think about it, would probably work as well as any other culture).
Was it going to be performed in the Klingon language? That would be something - to avoid. I once heard of a plan to do Hamlet in Pig Latin: "Ootay eebay roay otnay ootay eebay, at-thay siay eethay estionquay." Hopefully, their own tongues strangled them in rehearsals.
I don't think the planning ever got further than the concept and the costume design (which was done for a class assignment).
Congratulations on finishing this wonderful list! I hope you continue to add to it! Will you add Ran someday? I'd also be curious as to your thoughts on the recent version of Hamlet with Ethan Hawke (came out in 2000).
I agree with most of the comments you've listed about Hamlet (1996), the acting is...interesting. But the real star is the cinematography which is extraordinary, as good as anything in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. That goes for basically the entire visual side of the film, sets, costumes, and the colors are breath-taking. Another remarkable feat is Brannagh's slow, methodical reading of the text. A modern audience can be swallowed up by the coplex, layered verses and their suble meanings. Brannagh made an effort to let the average person enjoy the beautiful poetry. Good job. Definately the 4 hour version, it's worth it. A grand movie.
You're missing 2 notable adaptations though, both A Midsummer Night's Dream. The first a 30's film with James Cagney of all people, the second a 68 adaptation directed by Peter Hall and including Ian Holm and Judi Dench. They're both pretty darn good.
Is Forbidden Planet the best filmed version of The Tempest?
T'ho
:?)
I'm aware of these two adaptations of the Dream, but unfortunately have never caught up with them.
It would be disgraceful if FP were the best movie version of TT. Perhaps Branagh will don Prospero's magic cloak when he's older, about the time he's ready to play Lear.