After revisiting Richardson's Charge of the Light Brigade a couple of days ago I put this on again. I found myself far more impressed than when I'd first watched it, two or three years ago. This was even though I'd always admired Nicol Williamson in whatever else I'd seen him in, such as The Bofors Gun, and Laughter in the Dark. Everything about this version now struck me as really excellent, especially the manner in which it had been shot, with the multiple facial close-ups. Shakespeare is words, not scenery. The backdrops only have to be suggested in a minimal manner. This allows the script to take over, as it should, and as Shakespeare wrote it. Words, words, words; the finest ever produced.
The ghost was imaginatively conceived. I formed the impression that its lines were actually spoken by Williamson himself, indicating that this apparition was largely a figment of his own thoughts and suspicions --- in spite of first being seen by the sentries. I may be mistaken in this casting.
Of course there are many anomalies in the play. It's never clear quite how long a time elapses between Old Hamlet's death and Gertrude's marriage to Claudius: Two months ? Ten days? Soon enough for the funeral food to be served up at the wedding? Similarly, Shakespeare never makes it clear exactly how old Hamlet really is. Complaints about the comparative ages of the actors playing Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude always seem to me quite irrelevant. The parts are being ACTED for heaven's sake. Shakespeare's stage had boys and men playing female parts; as well as white men playing black men. No actor is "really" a king, a prince, or a hero. It's a matter of the quality of the verse delivery, not the pursuit of some phony "realism". All art is fake, and total illusion anyway.
This production reveals much of the play's subtleties, especially the psychology of Hamlet's state of mind, in ways unlike Olivier's Hamlet, which I also admire. I've seen another production, set in modern New York, which I thought was a complete failure. Having compared Branagh's Henry V with Olivier's, I don't think I'll be bothering with the full-length Branagh Hamlet. Branagh did nothing for me as Henry, and performing the entire script end-to-end strikes me as quite pointless; I sincerely doubt that it was ever performed like that on the contemporary stage. The varied interpretations delivered by different directors means that the work is always fresh and renewable.
Watching this production by Richardson is a highly rewarding experience, and every part is played supremely well
The ghost was imaginatively conceived. I formed the impression that its lines were actually spoken by Williamson himself, indicating that this apparition was largely a figment of his own thoughts and suspicions --- in spite of first being seen by the sentries. I may be mistaken in this casting.
Of course there are many anomalies in the play. It's never clear quite how long a time elapses between Old Hamlet's death and Gertrude's marriage to Claudius: Two months ? Ten days? Soon enough for the funeral food to be served up at the wedding? Similarly, Shakespeare never makes it clear exactly how old Hamlet really is. Complaints about the comparative ages of the actors playing Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude always seem to me quite irrelevant. The parts are being ACTED for heaven's sake. Shakespeare's stage had boys and men playing female parts; as well as white men playing black men. No actor is "really" a king, a prince, or a hero. It's a matter of the quality of the verse delivery, not the pursuit of some phony "realism". All art is fake, and total illusion anyway.
This production reveals much of the play's subtleties, especially the psychology of Hamlet's state of mind, in ways unlike Olivier's Hamlet, which I also admire. I've seen another production, set in modern New York, which I thought was a complete failure. Having compared Branagh's Henry V with Olivier's, I don't think I'll be bothering with the full-length Branagh Hamlet. Branagh did nothing for me as Henry, and performing the entire script end-to-end strikes me as quite pointless; I sincerely doubt that it was ever performed like that on the contemporary stage. The varied interpretations delivered by different directors means that the work is always fresh and renewable.
Watching this production by Richardson is a highly rewarding experience, and every part is played supremely well