Hamlet, like all the great Shakespeare's has been done numerous times on film, the most recent Hamlet before this one being Kenneth Branagh's version which was fiery and charismatic. By complete contrast, this version from director Michael Almereyda, is cold, dry and artificial. It is not unwatchable, but it has no soul except for the spirit of Hamlet's father.
Hamlet here is relocated to present day New York. Denmark is the name of a high profile media corporation, and Hamlet himself is not a prince but the son of the corporation head. I am assuming that anyone who is reading this is doing so because they are interested in the movie, and has subsequently read the play.
Hamlet 2000 is in a bit of trouble to begin with. The decision to maintain Shakespere's tongue in the 21st century America demands a suspension of disbelief which feels unfair to the audience. we become forced to examine not so much what the actors can bring to their roles, but how convincingly they deliver Shakespearian grammar. Given the contemporary setting, Hamlet 2000 is kind of demanding on the actors too, in the sense that it requires a merging of both film and theatrical acting (not one or the other). It is no surprise then that the best performance is turned in by Sam Shepard. Being a play write himself, Shepard knows how to act in the style of both.
As for the rest of the cast, I'm not super impressed, but I'm not super annoyed either. Ethan Hawke filling Hamlet's shoes does his best. His delivery is okay, but he doesn't quite convince.I think part of the problem is that the movie sort of restricts his potential by using not the actor to sell emotion but rather the existence of video technology. The famous to be or not to be speech is delivered as the character wanders through the aisles of a block buster video. Almereyda asks us to focus here not on entirely on Hawke, but on a dramatic movie being run on one the stores TV monitors being inter cut with the speech.
From a designers point of viewer, (and this too is in contrast to Branaghs film) Hamlet 2000 looks and feels quite clustered. All the indoor scenes take place in very small quarters: Tiny screening booths, tiny apartments, tiny offices, even the cabin of a large jet plane looks about as spacious as a Prius. Camera work is minimalist, in part because of how all the sets are build, giving the camera crew not much space to move around in. This is all clearly intentional.
Something else that Hamlet 2000 could use is a more spectacular finale. This movies take on the climactic duel feels contrived. Lemme ask you this: Who has a fencing harness rigged from a room's ceiling on the top floor of their office building? The duel itself looks like it was improved, or as if a sword master was not hired. By contrast Hamlet as told by Branagh successfully recreates swordplay in Errol Flynn style, and is far more epic and satisfying. Seeing a pistol being fired at point blank range has nothing on watching a sword being thrown across a ballroom, and into a man's chest (even if it is a little unbelievable)
Hamlet 2000, when all is said and done, qualifies as a good try, but not quite good movie. It is the product of an interesting vision but when translated to the screen it feels rather lacking in presentation, emotion and credibility, making it somewhat tricky to recommend.
Hamlet here is relocated to present day New York. Denmark is the name of a high profile media corporation, and Hamlet himself is not a prince but the son of the corporation head. I am assuming that anyone who is reading this is doing so because they are interested in the movie, and has subsequently read the play.
Hamlet 2000 is in a bit of trouble to begin with. The decision to maintain Shakespere's tongue in the 21st century America demands a suspension of disbelief which feels unfair to the audience. we become forced to examine not so much what the actors can bring to their roles, but how convincingly they deliver Shakespearian grammar. Given the contemporary setting, Hamlet 2000 is kind of demanding on the actors too, in the sense that it requires a merging of both film and theatrical acting (not one or the other). It is no surprise then that the best performance is turned in by Sam Shepard. Being a play write himself, Shepard knows how to act in the style of both.
As for the rest of the cast, I'm not super impressed, but I'm not super annoyed either. Ethan Hawke filling Hamlet's shoes does his best. His delivery is okay, but he doesn't quite convince.I think part of the problem is that the movie sort of restricts his potential by using not the actor to sell emotion but rather the existence of video technology. The famous to be or not to be speech is delivered as the character wanders through the aisles of a block buster video. Almereyda asks us to focus here not on entirely on Hawke, but on a dramatic movie being run on one the stores TV monitors being inter cut with the speech.
From a designers point of viewer, (and this too is in contrast to Branaghs film) Hamlet 2000 looks and feels quite clustered. All the indoor scenes take place in very small quarters: Tiny screening booths, tiny apartments, tiny offices, even the cabin of a large jet plane looks about as spacious as a Prius. Camera work is minimalist, in part because of how all the sets are build, giving the camera crew not much space to move around in. This is all clearly intentional.
Something else that Hamlet 2000 could use is a more spectacular finale. This movies take on the climactic duel feels contrived. Lemme ask you this: Who has a fencing harness rigged from a room's ceiling on the top floor of their office building? The duel itself looks like it was improved, or as if a sword master was not hired. By contrast Hamlet as told by Branagh successfully recreates swordplay in Errol Flynn style, and is far more epic and satisfying. Seeing a pistol being fired at point blank range has nothing on watching a sword being thrown across a ballroom, and into a man's chest (even if it is a little unbelievable)
Hamlet 2000, when all is said and done, qualifies as a good try, but not quite good movie. It is the product of an interesting vision but when translated to the screen it feels rather lacking in presentation, emotion and credibility, making it somewhat tricky to recommend.