MovieChat Forums > Hamlet (1948) Discussion > Flawed and it did not deserve it's oscar...

Flawed and it did not deserve it's oscars. - My review

posted 14 years ago by Gloede_The_Saint
4 replies | jump to latest

Do not under any circumstances expect a new Henry V. Unlike Olivier's innovative and daring debut this is far more traditional film making. The style is rather theatrical, it is hard to make Shakespeare seem natural due to the complicated language involved but it has been done multiple times. What works on the stage does usually not work in film. Don't misunderstand me. I did like it. In fact it's probably the best film adaptation I have seen of Hamlet. It's competently done and does indeed have the Shakespeare magic.

However, in my humble opinion it's very flawed. It makes some changes from the original play that really lessened it, not that I'm against changing classical plays but here there was no point to it. One of my favorite parts, the plot about changing the letters, have been removed. And the characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have been removed. Which annoyed me seeing how I just watched "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead", which was what inspired me to finally check this film out.

But lets not rest at that. Could you believe that Eileen Herlie, 10 years the junior of Laurence Olivier, was his mother? In their scenes together I would rather have believed she was his daughter. She did a great job and with a younger lead it could have been very believable, but this way it was rather annoying. Furthermore it saddens me to say that Olivier didn't fit the part either. He looked too old and oddly enough he seemed to have a problem finding his usual charisma.

My main disappointment however was how non-cinematic it all was. As mentioned it was rather theatrical. Many of scenes resembled nothing but a taped play. What annoyed me was how little they seemed to have tried. The frames were just so average and far from spectacular you could cry. And the effects was far from good. Smoke covering the ghost did not(too me) look as good as I assume they intended. And the flashes of the ships at sea was not at all neccesary, especially since next to nothing was shown. It was just told. This though was probably a attempt to elevate it cinematically.

Overall a disappointment. Not because it was bad, but because I had expected so much more. With 7 oscar noms and 4 wins, including best picture and a best lead for Olivier I have to shake my head in disbelief. The three other BP nominees I have have seen from this year are all better and contains far better acting from their respective leads. As it stands Hamlet is one of the 10 weakest films ever to win the BP. As stated a good film, but far from an impressive one. I give it a weak 7.

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

[–] critic-2 14 years ago

Well, you have to remember that the film was made at a time when many believed that Shakespeare done in realistic settings just would not work because the plays are written (mostly) in blank verse. Laurence Olivier and John Gielgud have both gone on record as saying this. I even heard Olivier say once in an interview that he felt that he could not make any of his Shakespeare films too realistic simply because the idea of people speaking to each other in verse in a realistic setting would just be too much for audiences to swallow. Even Orson Welles felt the same way at first. No Shakespeare film had ever been done with realistic scenery up to then (except the Battle of Agincourt in Olivier's "Henry V)".

Real scenery wasn't extensively used in a film of a Shakespeare play until Orson Welles made his version of "Othello" in 1952.

And although Eileen Herlie was younger than Olivier, I think she looks a lot older than twenty-seven.

But I do agree that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern should never have been left out of the Olivier "Hamlet".

[–] netshopper-2 12 years ago

Thanks for this explanation. It has helped me look at the film through a different filter.

[–] dailyshampoo48 11 years ago

I thought the same thing. This movie was so boring! It doesn't take any risks! I've read interviews in which Ralph Fiennes describes obsessing over Olivier's masterful vocal inflections, but personally I couldn't stay focused on his performance long enough to notice. It's such a shame because the play is quite good! I've enjoyed it many times without any help from actors or pretty staging, all of which makes a girl wonder if Olivier weren't trying to put her to sleep.

[–] geoffrey-jackson 11 years ago

I'm sorry to disagree with both you and the OP but I really enjoyed this film. I suppose not being a Shakespear person helps.

It didn't take me long to get into the Shakespear groove so to speak. I might be flamed for this but when I say into the groove I mean how I had to adjust to the style of language like in Romeo + Juliet http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/ before I could sit back and relax and take in the story. It's probably a linguistics thing people will probably have to deal with when, say, viewing a film that is in a language that they have a rusty handle on, if you know what I mean.

Anyhow, I think this film is brilliant. Watching Laurence Olivier in his prime is a great experience.

For the record, I rated this film 9/10.