MovieChat Forums > Hamlet (2010) Discussion > More black comedy than tragedy

More black comedy than tragedy

posted 14 years ago by bkosloskymd
19 replies | jump to latest

If Olivier's Hamlet was oedipal, and Branagh's narcissistic, Tennant's seemed more comedic (manic?) to me. Even Stewart's infamous shrug seemed to be winking to the audience. I bet their stage production was very entertaining in that they seemed geared toward interacting with the audience. If this were filmed in front of an audience, you'd get the feeling that this was more black comedy than tragedy.

This version had to different in some way. In the DVD commentary it was mentioned that there was unexpected laughter at a couple of points during the stage performance. I couldn't buy Tennant's portrayal of melancholy at the beginning, and even the "To be" soliloquy had facial expressions that were exaggerated but not for the right dramatic effect, IMHO.

The ending seemed rushed. The meat of this performance were the manic moments, and I couldn't get emotionally invested in the more somber scenes.

I just finished watching the DVD and thought the technical quality was lacking. During the graveyard scene the highlights on Gertrude's forehead were orangey and blocking up. Maybe the Red camera is good for low light situations, but not for high contrast scenes where the lighting ratios are higher.

The cracked mirrors were too much for me. If's Shakespeare's words couldn't do the characters justice, I don't think overused props would. The CCTV didn't do anything for me, nor the film diary with the scratched film special FXs. Did he have a projector to watch these? I was half expecting him to be posting on Facebook or Twitter.

[–] emergencyCALL_911 14 years ago

Maybe you just have something wrong with your emotions. I don't see how someone could not find it moving.

Oftentimes I think that some people just lack the emotional capacity to delve beneath the surface and see the emotional depth in something that, on the surface, is comical.
______________________
A! Elbereth Gilthoniel!
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bkosloskymd 14 years ago

IIRC, the original legend of Hamlet upon which later plays were based, including Shakespeare's, portrayed Hamlet as a young lad who had to wait years later until he could enact his revenge. In the interim he acted simpleminded in order not to arouse suspicion.

Shakespeare aged Hamlet, added the visitation by his father's ghost, and made Hamlet's mental state ambiguous.

His disregard for the feelings of Ophelia and his mother demonstrates his self-centered and lack of empathy for others. The Tennant Hamlet is not as dark as most performances, and the psychological aspect seems not as important.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bkosloskymd 14 years ago

It could be that Hamlet didn't want to ascend to the throne, and Claudius seeing this reluctance decided to make a play for the crown by wooing Gertrude and killing King Hamlet. Whoever was to become king would have to wage war with the young Fortinbras, another prince who had to avenge the death of his father.

In his first scene Claudius appears too overconfident in his handling of Fortinbras.

Why does Hamlet reject Ophelia so strongly, to the point of mocking her in public? Was it an insecurity about all women based on his tenuous relationship with Gertrude? How much to blame was she? Did she know about the murder?

Why was Hamlet reluctant to kill Claudius? Again, by becoming king he immediately would have to face Fortinbras.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bkosloskymd 14 years ago

Hamlet is totally lacking as far as a moral compass is concerned, IMHO. I think this was a jab at the academics of Shakespeare's time.

After he kills Polonius by mistake, it's clear that this doesn't bother him at all. If his anger is directed at anyone at all it's at his mother. Why? Even King Hamlet's ghost has to step in to tell him to cool it.

It amazes me to think that such a complex psychological play was presented at a time when bear baiting was popular entertainment.

[–] historylover820 12 years ago

You know, everyone asks why Hamlet was reluctant to kill Claudius, and say that indecision is Hamlet's fatal flaw.

I don't see it like that.

While some time has passed between Hamlet's visitation by his father and the play, he never gets the opportunity to kill his uncle (6 weeks, in fact. When he first sees the ghost, Gertrude and Claudius have been married 2 weeks. The night of the play, Ophelia tells Hamlet that they were married two months ago). First, he's questioning his own sanity ("The play's the thing" soliloquy), trying to determine if the ghost was actually a ghost or a demon. If it's a demon, Hamlet just murdered a might-be innocent man.

That's why he asks the players to act that specific play "The Mousetrap" and why he asks the players to incorporate his own lines into the play. He wants proof. He wants to know that what the ghost told him was right.

Now, he could have killed Claudius when Claudius was in the confessional, seemingly praying. But, since this play uses Catholic overtones (no evidence if Shakespeare was Catholic or Protestant), Hamlet thinks that if he kills his uncle while praying, his uncle will go to Heaven and Hamlet will still be guilty of his murder. He even says that himself. He has no way of knowing that Claudius isn't really confessing or asking for forgiveness.

The next time he's with Claudius, he's sent to England for Polonius' murder. I like how this movie depicts that confrontation--Hamlet is tied up. He's not going to be attacking Claudius.

As soon as Hamlet's back, he's rattled by Ophelia's death. No attacking Claudius in the cemetery. Right after that, he's challenged to the duel with Laertes.

As soon as Hamlet has an opportunity, he does kill Claudius. But, it's not like he got the proof he wanted and then was indecisive.

Kat

[–] SMicali 12 years ago

There's a misconception by everyone that Hamlet would automatically ascend to the throne upon his father's death. Not so:

"Claudius was elected King instead of Hamlet. Denmark in the play does not have primogeniture (automatic succession of the eldest son.)

There's nothing in the play that explicitly identifies why the electors chose Claudius. Interpretation is required on that point.

Gertrude's influence was undoubtedly important, since she had been Queen for so long. Her marriage to Claudius was an obvious endorsement of Claudius. It's clear enough that Gertrude married Claudius before the election."

[–] historylover820 12 years ago

Agreed with you, SMicali.

There's a line that Claudius says before he decides to send Hamlet to England. I don't actually remember how it goes or where it is. But, Claudius is worried about Hamlet's popularity with the public. Now, it could be that he's worried that Hamlet could lead an uprising (like Laertes attempts to do), but it could also mean that he's worried about Hamlet being elected as King.

The one line I can find is from Act V, Scene II. Hamlet refers to Claudius' election ("He that hath killed my king and whored my mother/popped in between the election and my hopes.") When Hamlet is dying, he also mentions an election: ("But I do prophesy the election lights/On Fortinbras, he has my dying voice."

I really wish I could find the line that Claudius says that makes me think that Claudius was elected to the King position over Hamlet. But, I can't find it now.

Kat

[–] BruceMcM 13 years ago

Not to be overly fussy, but it's pretty well established in the text that Hamlet is thirty years old. That's probably not quite a boy any more.

From Act V Sc. i:

HAMLET
... How long hast thou been a
grave-maker?

FIRST CLOWN
Of all the days i' the year, I came to't that day
that our last king Hamlet overcame Fortinbras.

HAMLET
How long is that since?

FIRST CLOWN
Cannot you tell that? every fool can tell that: it
was the very day that young Hamlet was born; he that
is mad, and sent into England.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Neck-O-Phobia 12 years ago

The reason there are many versions is that there were no recorders or printing machines back then.
Many of the plays by Shakespeare were transcripts that others copied down while watching the play, kinda like an early-day bootleg. Sometimes the actors mumbled and some words were lost.

[–] bron-tay 12 years ago

I hadn't touched Shakespeare in YEARS -- too antique -- and I watched this one on a lark. I was utterly stunned and swept away at how steeped in antic and death this production showed the play to be. I sensed that Hamlet was sliding down a dark tunnel into death, but I still felt great suspense over the impending duel. Odd that you found the ending rushed. Do you mean because the Fortinbras part was cut?

~~~~~~~
Think cynical thoughts.

[–] Prismark10 12 years ago

I have seen several Hamlets' and it ranges from melancholy to some rather humorous approaches in parts but it still ends in tragedy.

Its that man again!!

[–] disknerd 10 years ago

I have always thought Hamlet to be one of Shakespeare's wittiest plays. It is sincerely funny. That does not make it any less tragic or moving.

[–] hayrodgers 8 years ago

If you haven't read the play, I would. I felt this one was more true to the earlier comedy that the play has. Also, they made it clear Hamlet BECAME crazy, he wasn't outright. His madness came with his heavy task.

I completely disagree about it not doing the characters justice, but to each their own, I guess.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (943) 2 years ago

I thought the black comedy worked for the story. Who says Hamlet has to be dirge-like? And I also still found the ending deeply moving.

To be honest, this was one of the few versions I felt did the play justice. Best of all-- no oedipal nonsense!