overacting hamlet




man, talk about an over the top performance. did he always have to mug/ bug his eyes? and why were the colors so drab and washed out?

reply

About his eyes: it looks to me that he had some Botox, which explains that kinda buggy, kinda "deer in the headlights" look he had. I thought his eyes look unnaturally wide to me, and then I noticed certain muscles around his lower eyes weren't moving. Tennant has a slight problem with the muscles in his left eyes, that when he squints or smiles, his left lower eyelid raises up more than the right. Yet his lower lids were immobile in this production, suggesting he had Botox, because I saw a pic of him in late 2009, and that left lower eyelid thing was very, very noticeable, as it always has been, except in this production.

Unfortunately, I think it had an effect on his overall expressiveness, and not for the better. At times when he was suppose to look angry or upset, he just looked dyspeptic, like the champagne they were (stage)drinking in Act I wasn't sitting well with him or something.

I really hated the scenes with Tennant or other actors looking right into the camera. This sort of thing works better on stage, when an actor can turn toward the audience and just speak in their general direction, but with a camera, it's too obnoxious. It's like having a person make direct eye contact with you--it's uncomfortable, and unless your reason as an actor for doing it is to make the audience uncomfortable, then you probably should avoid doing. Yet Tennant did it excessively. I really disliked this during Hamlet's soliloquies, where Tennant would start off acting unaware of the camera and then suddenly turn to the camera and talk right into it. Either the soliloquies conversationally address the audience, or they are private, interior dialogues spoken aloud that the audience is observing. Pick one and stick to it. But of course, Tennant had to try to do both at once, and it just didn't work, IMO.

The lighting was pretty dreadful too. The set itself was problematic for filming, lots of glossy black with metallic accents in that main set, and both reflective surfaces and metallic tones like those are both notorious turn drab and flat on film. The lighting was pretty unflattering for most of the actors as well: Gail, Stewart and Davies looked bloodless, the guy who played Horatio looked ashy and Tennant was looking jaundiced in some of the scenes. The whole thing looked like it was shot with florescent shop lights.

I don't have an issue with Tennant "overacting" so much as I don't like his and Doran's choice to play Hamlet in the way they did. With Hamlet's madness, interpretations run the spectrum from it all being Hamlet's ruse to keep his plans for revenge a secret from Claudius to him being full-blown insane. I think Shakespeare was aiming for something more nuanced and in the middle of those two ends, but Tennant and Doran went with the "Hamlet's just pretending to be crazy" vein, and it just ended up with Hamlet acting like a brat at times, which I think is counter to the gravity of Hamlet's ordeal.

reply

[deleted]

Re: About his eyes:

As someone who has eye muscle problems running throughout her family. Most eye muscle problems are worse when tired. He was most probably just refreshed and had a good night's sleep.
Not to mention a photograph is a split second, you can't judge anything on "a pic of him in late 2009"

And personally, as a life-long Shakespeare and Hamlet fan, I think it's one of the best interpretations I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot).

reply



I am a lifelong Shakespeare and Hamlet fan as well; even studied in London and saw Hamlet at the young Vic, and have taught Hamlet in High School and at University.

reply

Well, different people like different things after all. It'd be a boring world if not.

(My comment was more aimed at rosepitseleh anyway)

reply

I also have that thing with the eye when I smile, my right eye actually :D
It gets smaller then the left eye when I smile :P It's not really like you notice it unless you know it :D
I wish i could tell you more, but [insert goverment/aliens/terrorists of choice] are listening!

reply

I wouldn't call it "over the top", I think they were playing to the close ups trying to use the camera to pick up on the internal conflict in the same way modern television might. I thought it worked pretty well in Claudius' case, but the idea of Hamlet addressing the camera (aka us) took me right out of what was going on. Interesting idea, but I think it just didn't work for Hamlet, and the idea that there was CCTV but he was somehow breaking a different fourth wall--the actual, objective fourth wall-- felt like it cheapened what they were trying to do with communicating internal conflict.

Re: the colors -- does anyone know what kind of camera they used? I thought the photography overall was really odd and kind of made it look lower budget than it probably was. I don't know if it was the camera or something in post, but I don't think it served the stark black reflective surfaces to dampen all the colors. I almost think that stark contrast (particularly in the scene with the play) would have better served the mirrors and reflective surfaces motif.

reply

[deleted]

"The soliloquys directed to camera were a way of emphasizing the productions on-stage history. We were the audience."

I understand what they were going for, but it ruined the suspension of disbelief for me--particularly given Hamlet (and the castle) were already under surveillance. With the original text including so much eavesdropping, and the adaptation including surveillance--why break the fourth wall at all?

"Similarily, in the play they used 2 way mirrors more to show the heightened survelliance that Elsinore was under."

Mirrors are often a theme of Hamlet adaptations for a lot of reasons.

"Difficult to use this successfully in the film (they do attempt it though) so they used CCTV to portray it. My only quibble is the amound of time they cut to it, and also who was watching at the end when everyone had died? lol. It did provide a nice moment when Hamlet ripped the camera off the wall though. "

Cutting to CCTV perspective seemed so arbitrary at times, as if it were just to break up the visual of the scene. They might have been served better by (dare I suggest it?) cutting the text from the original stage version. It is, after all, a film adaptation of the stage version. Show, don't tell, and all that. Hamlet purists hate it, but what good is putting it on film if people only ever want to watch it once.

"They used RED HD cameras. The muted colours were a reflection of the muted colours on stage. The outfits weren't that bright irl either."

That's interesting. I thought immediately it was a RED, but as it went on, I started to think otherwise because everything seemed so dull, and in the behind the scenes footage, the sets did not seem quite as muted.

I haven't looked much at the RED, but there is so much buzz in the indie film community about high def camera accessibility to low budget productions that I have only recently been paying attention to its use in studio and network releases. This is probably the first time I really didn't like it aesthetically.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

When someone starts having heart to heart conversations with thin air, I hardly think it matters anymore whether they're looking directly at the camera or not. In real life Hamlet would have been thinking all that stuff in his head, not saying it out loud.
______________________
A! Elbereth Gilthoniel!
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath

reply

and why were the colors so drab and washed out?


The drab colors were meant to set a somber mood. It hardly would have set the tone right tone for a tragedy if they had had everything in TARDIS colors.
______________________
A! Elbereth Gilthoniel!
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath

reply