i know this is probably blasphemous to the shakespeare fans. but being set in new york and repreesnting denmark as a company...couldn't the dialog have been updated to vernacular?
---
Homer: I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman!
I don't think it was the dialogue, it was the fact that they mumbled their way through the production. Have you seen Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet? I barely realized they were talking in blank verse, and I'm only 13! That was set in modern times too, but the dialogue was fine, becuase they said it slowly and clearly, with gestures and expressions that you could understand anyway.
In Hamlet, it was all murmurs and mumbles. I didn't catch a word of what the Ghost was saying, and Hawke ruined Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy, by muttering every line except that one. The only ones who I undersstood were Murray and Stiles, and on occasion, the Queen.
It wasn't Shakespeares script, it was the way it was delivered.
I have to disagree with you on your comparison of Romeo & Juliet. Hamlet, as a text, is much more complicated. I know if I had picked up Hamlet and read it in 4th grade (when I read Romeo and Juliet) I would not of understood it. We read Hamlet in our English class, and I still did not full understand it when I was reading it. It is not just that the style of writing is more complicated, it is also full of infelicitous speech acts, and more complicated analogies. The reason Romeo & Juliet updated worked so well is also that it is a much simpler play. Sure, Hamlet as a plot is pretty simple, but the play is not just about the plot, it is more oriented toward psychology. The things that are discussed and displayed in Hamlet are harder to understand. I enjoyed the movie; it took the play down to the bare minimum, but still retained most of the expected aspects. I also thought how the updated it was very good.
shareActually, I'm rather happy about the "To be or Not To Be" speech, only because it's so overdone. Don't get me wrong, I love the whiny prince of Denmark, however, I like the reinterpretation of it. I think for an overdone play, they did a good job (although, I think Hamlet was a tad on the young side, considering he's basically a 30-some-year-old college student) and you got a better glimpse at what Hamlet was going through...and his inaction. *sigh*
shareHawke seems to me, to be the only actor so far to be even remotely young enough to play the role. Did you know that Glen Close is only nine years older than Mel Gibson, and she played his mother! This isn't as bad as the Olivier version, there is a 13 year age difference between mother and son, he being 13 years older than the actress who played his mother! Do they really think the audience won't notice these things??? The Hawke version was refreshing in the fact that you actually believed that Hamlet and Ophelia loved each other, it was a relationship you could see happening. Granted Stiles is more than a few years younger than Hawke, but the age difference is believable.
shareFirst off...3rd grade, 4th grade...anyone else start Shakespeare in High School. My first reading of shakespeare was 8th grade...and that was R&J. You two must have gone to a much better school that expected more. Good Job.
Secondly, the "To be or not to be" soliliquie in the blockbuster...I think it was cool to have it in such an ordinary place. However, here he is contemplating suicide, all the whole he is there picking up movies, deciding what to rent. It's one thing to contemplate suicide holding a skull, but contemplating while holding up a copy of Forrest Gump or whatever it is?? Sorry, did not like it.
Thirdly, We saw Luhrman cast a comedian with John Leguizamo...in my opinion...he was the best actor in the movie. Did Murray work? I enjoyed and could not wait to see what Murray brought to Polonius. I enjoyed his performance a lot.
Just to correct a common misconception...when Hamlet is contemplating suicide in the "To be or not to be" speech, he is NOT holding the skull of Yorick. He's holding the skull of Yorick in the "Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well" bit, which comes along later.
Another common misconception, its not "Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well" but "Alas poor Yorick, I knew him, Horatio...." The "well" is often said but incorrect.
On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
This could have been better, but it's a lot better than "Romeo and Juliet" in this style.
shareI'd say it's not really about the actual age of the actors, it's about the age they're possible to make you believe they are in the role.
But I agree. Hawke was believable as a young man, not older than twenty, perhaps twenty two.