Product Description

Studio: Image Entertainment Release Date: 09/19/2000 Run time: 155 minutes

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #20039 in DVD
• Brand: Image Entertainment
• Released on: 2000-09-19
• Rating: Unrated
• Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
• Formats: Black & White, Closed-captioned, DVD, Full Screen, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: English
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 155 minutes

Amazon.com
In the opening scene of Hamlet (1948), Laurence Olivier's voice-over describes the play as "the tragedy of a man who couldn't make up his mind." But Olivier's screen adaptation is considerably more thoughtful and complex than this thesis would suggest. Drawing on his experience playing the prince on stage at Elsinore in 1937, the legendary thespian provides the film with the patina of greatness and shows how the constitution of the formerly cheerful prince weakens increasingly under the burden of his own thoughts and inability to accept his mother's hasty marriage to uncle Claudius (Basil Sydney). As Ophelia, Jean Simmons captures the character's early spirit better than her gradual disintegration. Purists may bemoan the loss of Fortinbras, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, but these choices allow Olivier to focus more squarely on Hamlet's plight. The winner of four Oscars^® (Best Picture, Actor, Art Direction, and Costumes), this is a Hamlet for the ages. The rest is silence. --Kevin Mulhall

Customer Reviews

Entertaining, but a lot is missing
Laurence Olivier's Hamlet, at 153 minutes, is no popcorn flick. However, in order to get the film down to this rather long length, Olivier had to make significant cuts to the famous Shakespearean play. As a film that won four Oscars, this is (was) mainstream entertainment. Presenting Hamlet in its entirety (or even close to its entirety) under these circumstances was therefore an impossibility. Olivier's modifications come in three forms: small deletions from speeches and conversations, "streamlining" of main story lines, and cuts of entire subplots. The first, least drastic change, leads to the second, and finally the third, and greatest, of the changes. The cutting of lines has the least effect on the production's ability to tell the story. The removed lines are usually unnecessary and repetitive, and the transitions are smooth. Without a written version of the text in front of him, a viewer (unless he knows the play extraordinarily well) can rarely pick out where a line has been cut. A good example of this seamless cutting follows the ghost's exit in the bedroom scene. Hamlet's speech to the queen (Act III, scene iv, lines 144-159) is cut approximately in half, by cutting 2-3 lines from three different places. Such instances - cutting a line here, three lines there, etc. -- can be found throughout the production, but in order to locate them one must follow along with a written text. Rearranging parts of play adds to the continuity of storylines and makes the story itself easier to follow. Viewers familiar with Hamlet, however, will probably find these modifications more jarring. Most of the time this "streamlining" is logical. For instance, the meeting of Hamlet and Ophelia in the nunnery scene directly follows the planning of this meeting by the King, Queen, and Polonius, and Hamlet's "fishmonger" conversation with Polonius. In the play itself, this storyline is interrupted by the players' arrival, but in the Olivier production this event takes place after the unfolding of the nunnery scene. Once again these modifications take place throughout the play. The third, and most obvious modification that Olivier makes is the total removal of subplots, as well as other major events. These cuts have a great impact on the telling of the play. Cutting the Player's recitation of the fall of Troy causes Hamlet's soliloquy, "What a rogue and peasant slave am I..." to be cut. Olivier's decision to delete the character Fortinbras, has great consequences, because this necessitates cutting Hamlet's final soliloquy, "How all occasions do inform against me... ." The ending of the play is also altered by this choice. The deletion of two rather prominent characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, has the greatest effect on the play because the deletion or transplantation of several scenes results. The cuts of a line here and there can be viewed as creating a snowball effect that leads to the rearranging of scene, and the rearranging leads to the cuts of whole storylines and events. Most of the material that is cut by the minor deletions is repetitive, and these choices have little immediate effect. However, Shakespeare had a purpose in these repetitions, and that was to ensure that the audience could follow the play. By removing this repetition, one also makes the play considerably more difficult to understand. Olivier employs a logical solution -- that is, increasing the continuity of the story. This requires the rearranging that is so prevalent in his production. However, if one rearranges all of the critical scenes of Hamlet so that they unfold chronologically, then one is left with a considerable amount of unnecessary scenes and even storylines themselves. Therefore, Olivier's decision to cut these excess storylines again seems logical. A viewer familiar at Hamlet may at first find these modifications very uncomfortable, but when one analyzes what caused Olivier to make the decisions he did, these rather sweeping changes become perfectly acceptable.

Reviewing this film is a trap
Consider this: Shakespearean films more than other films are dependent upon the director's translation of the text. HAMLET in particular has been adapted roughly 43 times in film. I'll say up front that this version is not my favorite interpretation, but I won't deny that it certainly set the standard back in its day.

For those unfamiliar with the play, Hamlet's father, the king of Denmark, has recently passed away and he resents the speed with which his mother, Queen Gertrude, remarried. It doesn't help that her new husband is the dead king's brother, Claudius. Soon an apparition who is the spirit of his father, the dead king, visits Hamlet. The ghost explains that Claudius, Hamlet's uncle, murdered him in his sleep and tells Hamlet to avenge his death. The remainder of the story primarily revolves around the Prince's struggle to stop thinking and start doing (exemplified by the famous "To be, or not to be" speech. Can Hamlet do what it takes to truly avenge his father's death?

Olivier and his much-celebrated interpretation of HAMLET are considered by many to be the best of all Shakespeare film adaptations -- it certainly bears the indelible stamp of its director/star's personality. Apparently, the Academy agreed rewarding it with Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress and Best Costume Design and among others. (Trivia: Olivier's direction was also nominated losing to John Huston for "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" in 1948).

Olivier's take on Shakespeare's story of madness and murder most foul is unmistakably cinematic -- he takes full advantage of the medium, avoiding the trap of merely filming a play as some Shakespeare adaptations do, with monologues delivered as internal thoughts heard in hushed voiceovers. He occasionally uses dizzying camerawork to show Hamlet's inner turmoil, a trick that could never have worked on stage. The setting, lighting, and cinematography are wondrous setting the somber and Gothic tone.

Some notable scenes for me include the sequence where the Ghost appears. Olivier uses sound and voice to create the disorientation that Hamlet and others feel when in the presence of the supernatural for a great creepy effect. Another arresting scene is when Laertes and Claudius are planning the murder of Hamlet. It starts with a close shot of the duo but slowly backs away, as if it wants to separate itself, and the audience, from the bloody deeds being discussed.

But there are many disappointing choices made. Substantial cuts were made to the text (forgivable if you realize he needed to cut a 4-hour play into at least 2 hours. The omission of the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (childhood friends of Hamlet who are ultimately killed because they were too loyal to Claudius, and not to the Prince) is unfortunate as they bring so much contrast and subtle texture to the play.

While I am a great fan of Olivier's, I strongly believe there were certain roles that were out of his range, Hamlet topping the list. (And I'm not even going to talk about the fact that 41 year old Olivier is playing a character who is in his mid to late twenties.) Olivier also insists on taking the Freudian approach with Hamlet and his mother Gertrude, an idea not really supported by the text suggesting that the real reason Hamlet is upset is not so much due to his father's murder, but that he should be with Gertrude, not Claudius. But the thing that nags at me most is that Hamlet is fundamentally a man of action, though a man of action who is aware that his actions have consequences. He is divided: determined to act, destructive when he does act, and consequently disconnected from his actions. But while Olivier lives well in the language and his rendering of the lines is a kind of dark poetry, his overall portrayal is mannered and brooding and almost petulant. It's a disappointing adaptation by an otherwise brilliant actor.

Now as a DVD, this release of HAMLET is by the superior Criterion Collection. Criterion DVD's are often considered to be state-of-the-art, and this one is no exception presenting a nicely restored film good quality and sound. A definite must for a film collector. Having said all that, I'll end my review this way: again, this is not my favorite version of HAMLET (go watch Branagh's, Zeffirelli's or even Mel Gibson's versions) but as a piece of cinematic history this is definitely a watchable film worth seeing for it's accomplishments and cinematography.

The classic Hamlet
I would have to say that this is one of the two best Hamlet's on film. This is known as the "traditional" Hamlet, and the other great is the recent modern take on the play with Ethan Hawke and Julia Stiles. Laurence Olivier plays a melancholy, intelligent, and loving Hamlet, well suited to the gloomy castle settings of Elsinore. Olivier was forty when he made this, but makes himself look twenty years younger. His Hamlet is never boring or overwrought, it is simply perfect. Eileen Herlie was 25 when cast as Gertrude. She graciously allowed herself to be made up to look older. Her performance is satisfactory, conveying the dueling emotions that she has for her son and Claudius well. There is a strong overtone of incest here, which is fine since I believe that to be a valid interpretation. Herlie's Gertrude is also strong-willed at times, knowingly drinking the poisoned cup to save her son. Basil Sydney as Claudius is excellent, although his is played as an overweight drunk. He has some fine moments and deserves credit for playing such a difficult role well. I like Felix Aylmer's performance as Polonius. He is played not as comic relief or as a doddering old man, but as an intelligent fool who is full of himself and enjoys throwing his weight around. Jean Simmon's interpretation of the tragic Ophelia is that she is a virginial woman who is somewhat dim-witted. Ophelia is not dim-witted, her destruction is caused by herself being used and stamped on by men, and not being allowed to fight back. At the end of the nunnery scene Ophelia is seen weeping on the stairts. Polonius comforts her a little, and then leaves her in desperation while he exits with Claudius. Her madness scenes and suicide are good and affecting. The overall atmosphere of this Hamlet is right. It is faithful to the play, and evokes an engrossing mood. My only large complaint is that Terence Morgan as Laertes looks too much like a football player than a courtier.