MEL's HAMLET


Hamlet is a STUDENT in the play (& during a time when there was no concept of "graduate school"). Think of him as between 16 & 23. Unlike Kenneth Branagh, Mel Gibson was & is incapable of that kind of acting challenge. This version is so bad it's hilarious.

reply

So I'm assuming you're ignoring the line in Shakespeare's text where it says that Hamlet was 30 years old, right? You know, the graveyard scene, act V scene I, when the gravedigger says he has been digging graves since the day Hamlet was born, thirty years ago.


But I'm sure you remembered that, and have a perfectly good reason for ignoring it...

And if my math is correct, being born in 1956 makes Mel Gibson 34 when he played Hamlet. Imagine, a 34 year old playing a 30 year old. Completely outrageous!

reply

A) Hamlet is 30 in the play.

B) Mel Gibson was 34.

C) Kenneth Branaugh was 36.

Don't speak again.

reply

Hamlet's age is quite disputable and ambiguous. The text simply contradicts itself since no 30 year-old Prince would still be studying at University. Most critics accept this discrepancy and move on since there isn't much way to resolve the issue.

Arguing that Hamlet is, without a doubt, 30 is just as faulty as arguing that he is, without a doubt, a teenager.

reply

And people forget that Olivier Hamlet was 41 and I don't think anyone complained about him being that old.

I believe Mel's Hamlet is remarkable. Easily the most entertaining/captivating to watch. Never got bored watching him.

reply

Well, in defense of the original posting, the line about Hamlet being 30 is not in the film.

reply

Also, Branaugh who for some unknown reason other than his version was uncut, is the fans' favorite and he was 36 when he played Hamlet. Gibson was 34.

Oops.

reply

The poster said Gibson wasn't up to the "acting challenge" of playing a younger man. He didn't compare the actors' ages, but just their abilities to act younger.

reply

Yeah, Softerworld, but that's wrong as well, because Gibsons playing is much more passionate and dynamic than Branagh's - Kenneth seems like an old man if you compare them.

reply

[deleted]

Agreed.

And as a director, Branagh is so disconnected from his audience, his version feels too fake to me at times. Look what he did with Thor. The supporting characters feel like actors acting, rather actually becoming their characters.

reply

I have been looking through the play quite a few times tonight and I still havent found the line wherein it says Hamlet is 30 years of age. In the scene at the graveyard it simply says he was born the day Lord hamlet defeated Fortinbras of Norway.. I am very curious to find out how you get to the number 30. Can you please send me "scene and line" that explains his age!

Thank you!

reply

Haven't seen Branagh's version, but I LOVED Mel's. I thought he did a fantastic job!

reply

"Haven't seen Branagh's version, but I LOVED Mel's. I thought he did a fantastic job! "

My thoughts exactly! I love Mel in this movie. Not going to lie, he's pretty attractive in it too ;)

reply

Oh, yeah, Mel's a hottie!

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!

reply

This is far too old, and you'll probably never see it, but the line is there. The gravedigger first says that he's been a gravedigger since King Hamlet defeated Fortinbras, which was the same day Hamlet was born. A few digressions pass, and then he says:

"I have been sexton here man and boy thirty years." Act V, Scene 1, Line 137.

You could argue that he's been sexton longer than he has been gravedigger, but it's not likely.

reply

hahhahaha i love the proffesional Imdb critics, you guys are like hmmmmm typewriters on perminent batteries. Cockroaches, you guys will co exist among passion and talent. The *beep* that comes off from your fingers. THis and that bla bla bla bla.. idiots on a medical scale. Too bad none of you ever made it as actors .

reply

What the heck are you talking about? This thread is about whether Mel Gibson is too old or not!!

reply

That guy is clearly high.

-"My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

reply

Ha! Gibson plays the part better than Branagh, who borders on over acting! This is the best screen version of Hamlet if you ask me.

reply

The original material (the play) is so good it works no matter how strong or wrong the casting is. Production value doesn't seem to matter on this one either. Among the British and American versions of the stage play I have seen, I also once saw a Long Island Community Theatre production of this play and it was powerful inspite of the untrained non-Shakesperian actors. I think Hamlet was played by the local mailman, and Ophelia by a Real Estate Agent. The original material, however, is so strong it almost directs itself. It just works no matter what. Even this version was powerful: how unhappy the Mailman was over the death of the Real Estate Agent. Now that wss sad. Anyway, it's well written. Though the stage directions tend to be a little vague.

reply

I prefer Branagh's Hamlet, in all honesty. (And this has nothing to do with the signed photo of him framed on my desk. Stop looking at me like that! =P) Branagh captured the brooding hate and misery that the character needs, and his madness was more subtle. During the final swordfight with Laertes, he kept to the character, instead of having Hamlet become a clown.

Also, the fact is that Gibson is an action star, not a Shakespearean actor. He was unsuited for the part from the very beginning. Kenneth Branagh is trained in Shakespeare, and has a deep love for the craft. Mel Gibson was made for action. Which is fine! I happen to really like him as an actor, and his movies are quite good. But he is not right for the part of Hamlet.

He's there, the Phantom of the Opera...

reply

^ I HATE typecasting. I mean I REALLY HATE it.

Gibson was given crap for being miscast until the movie was released and turned in a very intelligent and nuanced perofmrance but still people go "the Austrailian action hero playing Hamlet?! Please."

I own both versions and like both a lot. I think Branaugh does have a better grasp of the language and it flows more naturally for him (he also has the whole play instead of 45% of it sitting being butchered out), but Gibson gives a much more flawed and darker Hamlet than Branaugh. He gives a performance that is intentionally vague on rather he is insane or not while it is clear Branaugh fakes his madness and plays it as a clown. There is just an edgy rage to Gibson's Hamlet missing in Branaugh.

And the most ironic thignn to me is that Branaugh plays Hamlet more the Hollywood action movie hero than Mel Gibson did. His Hamlet is not insane, not dubiously wrong when he kills Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, is not faulted for driving poor Ophelia mad but rather her father tricked her into betraying Branaugh's Hamlet and thus absolving him of guilt and and Branaugh's Hamlet is the one at the end who heroically fights the Erroyl Flynn sword fight that ends in throwing his sword like a javalon into Claudius before swinging down the chandelier into him. Iti s ridculously cheesy and felt like something in a '30s swashbuckler.

I like both portrayals, but this post is mostly in the defense of Gibson because people tend to typecast him (which he chooses to do mostly one kind of movie, sadly true) when Branaugh played Hamlet far more heroically and much more the action star than Gibson did.

reply


I am going to take a very high brow view of this matter. As a student of English and theatre studies I would like to say that:

MEL GIBSON ROCKED

And yes I did need capital letters to get the message across.

I was three years old when this movie was released. When I watched it five years ago I coouldn't believe how old it was asa it seemed so fresh.

IMDb is not a fansite.

reply

It's typecasting like this that makes it impossible for great actors like Mel to be recognized for their talents. It's BULLSH!T.

reply

Branagh wasn't overacting but like Olivier in his day, Branagh was too fake in the role. He wasn't natural enough. He was too in love with himself to actually become Hamlet.

Mel is incredible, because his Hamlet may be the most natural Hamlet ever put on film.

reply

Mel is incredible, because his Hamlet may be the most natural Hamlet ever put on film.



I agree!


"Guys like you don't die on toilets." Mel Gibson-Riggs, Lethal Weapon

reply

I think Mel Gibson did a very good job portraying Hamlet, and I actually think that his acting skills are often underrated.

I love how the thread starter got owned with the first reply, lol.

reply

Oh its another Mel Hater. Well love him or hate him to say Mel Gibson just doesn't have the acting skills is dead wrong. In all his films his acting seems intuitive and passionate. As much as his acting can be fueled by raw emotions it can also be held back and refined into softer and sometimes more curious and surprising moments. He is an action star, but what made him a success in Mad Max and Lethal Weapons was his ability to play darker, pain-filled souls, and without this depth of talent those movies would have been flat.

What I like about this Hamlet is that it is not elitist. Its not for just the stuck up snaubs in Manhattan and L.A. or for that matter high minded librarians or Literature professors. It makes Shakespeare approachable to the masses, despite the language barrier. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in a four hour version by Branagh. If you're interested that is fine. But for all the talk about how faithful Branaghs film is to the text he goes and pulls the play into a different time period that makes it no more relatable to the audience. Say what you will of my opinion, I just don't see the point in Branagh's vision of Hamlet.

Last thing to be said of it all, when comparing the abilities of Mel Gibson and Kenneth Branagh, please keep in mind, the success of each man's career. After Zefferellis' Hamlet, Mel went on to, A Man Without A Face, Maverick, Braveheart, Lethal Weapon 4, The Patriot, Passion of Christ. While after Branagh's Hamelt, he went onto play a paralyzed confederate villian who drives a giant robotic spider in the Wild Wild West.

reply

I think both men are great actors, but I must say I prefer the Zeffirelli version. I enjoy Branagh's but his Hamlet is obnoxious and I really can't stand the portrayal of Gertrude in the movie, much less the Ghost, who seems like a cartoon. Glenn Close is a breath of fresh air as Gertrude; I think she's brilliant in the role and very sensitive. Julie Christie just acts way too silly the whole time. I also don't understand why people consider this version an "action" movie, when the Branagh version ends like an episode of Batman: swinging from chandeliers, leaping in the air, swashbuckling up and down stairs. As much as I appreciate Branagh including all of the text, I just find other aspects of his interpretation way too irritating. And all of the "celebrity sightings"--Billy Crystal, Robin Williams, Charelton Heston, Gerard Depardieu, Judi Dench--detract from the seriousness of the play. The best thing about Branagh's is Kate Winslet's performance of Ophelia: the best I have seen.

That said, I thought Mel did a great job as Hamlet. He looked the part and brought across the intensity of Hamlet; you can feel his pain and anxieties. The ending is much more depressing as well. I thought the Ghost scene was incredible, both because of the calm sadness of the Ghost and Mel's reaction.

I do enjoy both versions, despite my critique of Branagh's version, but I prefer Mel's.

reply

For me, I dunno. He played it exactly how I thought he would play it and I felt I was being read the lines, rather than watching something ... natural? Good bit of acting though.
I just thought he didn't bring anything unique to the role.
But, that's just my opinion.

reply

... having said that I did watch it for 2 hours before I realised Lady Macbeth wasn't in it.

reply

Gibson has not an ounce of subtlety. He is constantly wincing, spitting, screaming, or stage whispering in hilariously misguided desperation. Hamlet is meant to be defined by his subtlety; it's even part of his tragic flaw. Gibson's performance is outrageously overacted, the type of ridiculous, overwrought acting that is meant to hold non-Shakespeare fans' attention.

That being said, I gave up trying to take Mel seriously after an hour and laughed my head off. As a comedic performance, his is unrivaled.

reply

You know what I love about this little brouhaha is, can you just imagine if a certain playwright could be made aware that people would still be wrangling over his work 400 years after he died? It's almost like he's standing behind these people with a pitchfork, isn't it?

Give 'em heck, Will!

reply

I still don't understand "real Shakespeare fans'" need to constantly ridicule Gibson for playing it like a movie star and then praising Branagh's. Of the two, only one played the part like Erroyl Flynn complete with knocking people to their deaths and rope swinging. When Gertrude died, Gibson's Hamlet really felt the pain of loss and expressed it. Christie's Gertrude died off-screen because Branagh was too busy giving himself a heroic close-up as he throws his sword like a spear into Claudius.

I like both films, but Branagh makes Gibson look like a subtle actor, which he is not. But he was a better Hamlet.

reply

[deleted]

I enjoyed Mel Gibson's performance in Hamlet. I do think he looks older as a student, B U T , he's a prince isn't he, so he needs not to worry about getting a job and starting a career, and in the movie he seems studious, he enjoys being around books as shown, so for me it seems logical that he can be a student long as he wants. What's NOT convincing is casting Glen Close as her mother. Yes there are women who look much younger than their age but M.G. just looks way too mature to have a mother like G.C. I would have loved to see M.G. as Hamlet with other actress, or have G.C. as Queen but with a different Hamlet. Just my opinion!

reply

He's a prince of Denmark in what era?? Do you know how hard life was back then? The harshness of an environment can age a person 10 years. By all practical standards, Hamlet at 30 was half way in his grave.

reply

Hamlet is older. There is talk about over three and twenty passing. (23 years passing) since Hamlet was a child and playing on the grounds of the castle.

Hamlet is likely in his early thirties.

--The day I hold too tightly to my opinion is the day I stop learning. May that day never come.

reply

Mmmm...as other posters have pointed out, Hamlet's age is a continuity error on Shakespeare's part. Or, rather, not so much a continuity error as an attempt to accomodate the troupe's lead actor, who WAS about thirty.

There's no mention of Hamlet being a grad student, so it seems a little unusual to have a thirty-year-old undergrad. Plus, Hamlet's general demeanor seems more in line with a young adult of no more than twenty or so than a settled, maturer man of thirty.

The First Quarto had Yorick only dead twelve or thirteen years, so that would make Hamlet about nineteen or twenty. Some speculate that Shakespeare upped the number of years in the later edition to explain away the age of his lead actor. Read a little more here: http://princehamlet.com/chapter_1.html

My favorite quote from this page:

So there’s all sorts of evidence in and surrounding the play showing that Hamlet is a teen. But beyond all this “hard” evidence, there’s Hamlet’s character. In addition to being brilliant, noble, acceptably eloquent, and all those other things we love about him, at least until the final act he’s naïve (“meet it is I set it down/That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain!”), peevish, petulant, wildly changeable from moment to moment, maddeningly and intransigently judgmental, a know-it-all theater critic, and a shallow philosopher who actually believes he can solve the eternal human problems that nobody else has succeeded at. If that’s not a teenager, what is?


reply

Sounds like I wasn't imagining things all those years ago - I thought Gibson was outstanding as The Dane, and this from someone who has never really liked him in anything else or been in any way impressed by him as a person from anything I'd heard about him.


If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat.

reply