Hamlet At Elsinore (TV Movie) (1964) -
I was a little bit confused by the story, because my only reference prior to this version was 'The Simpson's' (1989-) and that was a far more simplified telling than this one, but I had thought that it was Ophelia that went mad, not Hamlet himself.
I felt that it was a shame that the production values of this version were so poor, because the actors deserved a better, clearer picture and sound, most of which should have been available in 1964, especially when considering other films of the era and before.
With regard to the actors, I would never have expected Michael Caine to be able to deliver Shakespeare so well and I apologise to him for thinking that, because he was superb as always in his role of Horatio.
I wasn't sure that Christopher Plummer as the title character Hamlet was that brilliant though. He was a tad corny and I couldn't distinguish his sobs from laughter, which obviously confused some issues. Based on his performance, I also couldn't tell if Hamlet was genuinely suffering with mental health issues or if he was just pretending for the sake of his plans to overthrow his Uncle/Dad. One minute he was cognisant, in control of his faculties and another he was completely away with the fairies in a way that seemed disingenuous.
I did like Robert Shaw as the Uncle/Dad Claudius, King Of Denmark. He reminded me of Charles Dance's performance of Tywin Lannister in 'Game Of Thrones' (2011-9), which was of course a great delivery too.
However, I couldn't really understand the purpose of Rosencrantz (David Calderisi) and Guildenstern (Bill Wallis). They didn't add much to the story in my opinion. Perhaps they just got a bit lost, surrounded by so many huge names and massive performances and it might be that in another interpretation they stand out as something more essential to the plot.
I did feel that Osric (Philip Locke) was incredibly camp for the 1960's, quite obviously representing a member of the LGBTQ community, but Hamlet and Horatio had moments where I felt that there was something to be suggested between them as well. Mr Plummer was definitely a bit luvvy in general anyway.
This film, and as part of that, the story, was hard work at times.
I refer to Google and the IMDB trivia a lot when watching films and I tried desperately to stay off of my phone whilst watching this, because I've been on it so much lately that my wrist is clicking like a vuvuzela, but this interpretation of Hamlet was a bit of a slog to get through, despite those great performances and because of the bad. The terribly grainy filming was probably the largest issue though, because it was so snowy I just didn't enjoy looking at it and my mind probably wandered. I do look forward to seeing other interpretations of this story though to see the Bard's work done a greater justice and hope that the messages come across a lot more clearly.
In its day a stage viewing of this one may have had a profound effect on me as an actor, writer and reader, but I felt that this TV translation lost something.
489.01/1000.
I was a little bit confused by the story, because my only reference prior to this version was 'The Simpson's' (1989-) and that was a far more simplified telling than this one, but I had thought that it was Ophelia that went mad, not Hamlet himself.
I felt that it was a shame that the production values of this version were so poor, because the actors deserved a better, clearer picture and sound, most of which should have been available in 1964, especially when considering other films of the era and before.
With regard to the actors, I would never have expected Michael Caine to be able to deliver Shakespeare so well and I apologise to him for thinking that, because he was superb as always in his role of Horatio.
I wasn't sure that Christopher Plummer as the title character Hamlet was that brilliant though. He was a tad corny and I couldn't distinguish his sobs from laughter, which obviously confused some issues. Based on his performance, I also couldn't tell if Hamlet was genuinely suffering with mental health issues or if he was just pretending for the sake of his plans to overthrow his Uncle/Dad. One minute he was cognisant, in control of his faculties and another he was completely away with the fairies in a way that seemed disingenuous.
I did like Robert Shaw as the Uncle/Dad Claudius, King Of Denmark. He reminded me of Charles Dance's performance of Tywin Lannister in 'Game Of Thrones' (2011-9), which was of course a great delivery too.
However, I couldn't really understand the purpose of Rosencrantz (David Calderisi) and Guildenstern (Bill Wallis). They didn't add much to the story in my opinion. Perhaps they just got a bit lost, surrounded by so many huge names and massive performances and it might be that in another interpretation they stand out as something more essential to the plot.
I did feel that Osric (Philip Locke) was incredibly camp for the 1960's, quite obviously representing a member of the LGBTQ community, but Hamlet and Horatio had moments where I felt that there was something to be suggested between them as well. Mr Plummer was definitely a bit luvvy in general anyway.
This film, and as part of that, the story, was hard work at times.
I refer to Google and the IMDB trivia a lot when watching films and I tried desperately to stay off of my phone whilst watching this, because I've been on it so much lately that my wrist is clicking like a vuvuzela, but this interpretation of Hamlet was a bit of a slog to get through, despite those great performances and because of the bad. The terribly grainy filming was probably the largest issue though, because it was so snowy I just didn't enjoy looking at it and my mind probably wandered. I do look forward to seeing other interpretations of this story though to see the Bard's work done a greater justice and hope that the messages come across a lot more clearly.
In its day a stage viewing of this one may have had a profound effect on me as an actor, writer and reader, but I felt that this TV translation lost something.
489.01/1000.