My Shakespeare Tragedy Film Marathon

For the past month, I've been listening to Peter Saccio's "Shakespeare: Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies" (36 lectures presented by the Teaching Company). Saccio, a professor of Shakespearean Studies at Dartmouth, does a wonderful job of bringing the Bard, his work, and his times to life. This has been one of my favorite Teaching Company programs, and I heartily recommend it.

Listening to these lectures motivated me to seek out and watch a number of film adaptations of Shakespeare's tragedies: Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, MacBeth, Julius Caesar, and Romeo and Juliet. I had read all of these (except Othello) when I was student in the 1960s and early 1970s, but hadn't gone near them since. Thus, I was able to approach them both with a "fresh eye" and also nearly forty years of "life experience" that I (obviously) didn't have as a student.

Let's start with the Hamlets (I watched three versions).

Hamlet (1948), starring Laurence Olivier. This won Oscars for Best Picture and Best Actor. I had a lukewarm reaction to it. There are two reasons. First, the entire Hamlet play is four hours long, but this version was abridged to just over two hours, so I felt like I was missing something. Second, it was essentially a film version of an austere stage play, and felt cold and remote. Plus, I felt Olivier's performance was unconvincing (he was 41 at the time). I'd give the film **1/2 (out of four).

Hamlet (1990), abridged and directed by Franco Zeffirelli, and starring Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, Helen Bonham Carter, and Alan Bates. Mel Gibson brings a freshness and energy to the role of Hamlet; I thought he was quite believable in the part (at that time he made this picture, Gibson was the world's top box office attraction and the "sexiest man on the planet"). I also liked Glenn Close as Gertrude. Her bedroom confrontation scene with Gibson after the murder of Polonius is absolutely riveting. I'd give it ***.

Hamlet (1996) complete and unabridged, screenplay and directed by Kenneth Branagh, and starring Kenneth Branagh, Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Charlton Heston, Billy Crystal, Robin Williams, and many more. This version is stunning. It is four hours long (with an intermission) and is on a scale comparable to Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago. The color, light, costumes, and detail are outstanding (it's filmed in 70mm TechniColor — a huge plus).

Branagh has set the play in a mid-19th century Denmark (he used Blenheim Palace for the exteriors), and you really get the sense that the characters (especially Claudius and Polonius) are running a country. And for the first time, I got a sense of the larger context of Hamlet. Branagh had lived and breathed Hamlet (and Shakespeare) for years, and it shows in his imaginative screenplay. There are also many well-choreographed tracking shots.

This was the best DVD I've seen this year, and I recommend it to all. Indeed, I watched the entire film again (yes, all four hours) with the Director's Commentary on. Most edifying. I'd give it a well-earned ****.

Here a few quick comments on the other films I watched.

Othello (1995) starring Laurence Fishburne (in the title role) and Kenneth Branagh (as Iago). A delightful production. ***1/2

MacBeth (1971) directed by Roman Polanski. This version still holds up well today. Polanski made this soon after his wife, Sharon Tate, had been murdered by the Charles Manson family. I'm sure the second witches scene in which MacBeth has something akin to an acid trip had some therapeutic value for him. I saw this version when it first came out when I was a student at Stanford in 1972. It seemed like half the people in Mem Aud recited MacBeth's final soliloquy along with him ("To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time . . ."  ***

King Lear (1974) starring James Earl Jones, Raul Julia, and Paul Sorvino. This was a video tape-to-DVD production of a live performance in Central Park (New York) in 1974. The audio and video quality aren't great, but the enthusiastic audience give this production a certain warmth.  **1/2

Julius Caesar (1953) starring Marlon Brando, James Mason, and John Gielgud. I felt that (a young) John Gielgud as Cassius stole the show. And Brando (as Marc Anthony) is interesting to watch as well. ***

Romeo and Juliet (1968) directed by Franco Zeffirelli. I first saw this in 1969, and I remember there wasn't a dry eye in the house at the end (it was a great "date movie"). Zeffirelli's version holds up well today. This won Oscars for Best Cinematography and Costumes and nominations for Best Picture and Director. ***1/2

Also: Last year during my Akira Kurosawa Marathon, I saw his adaptations of MacBeth (Throne of Blood, 1957) and King Lear (Ran, 1985), and I'd give each of them ***1/2.

Question: What other Shakespeare film adaptations would you recommend (or avoid)?

Comments

[Mark McGuinness]

Great survey Roger, I really must try the Branagh Hamlet.

My favourite Shakespeare film is probably Prospero's Books - totally over the top and darkly magical, and Gielgud is a magnificent Prospero.

I also like Kurosawa's samurai versions of Shakespeare - Throne of Blood (Macbeth) is stunning and Ran (King Lear) is also pretty good.

[Doug van Orsow]

Roger,

I also recently watched Olivier's Hamlet and listened to Branagh's Hamlet. The hype over Olivier made me think it wasn't so great, but even just hearing the Branagh Hamlet made it so much more of a completed feeling and experience.

You may find my Teaching Company user forums useful where I review all lectures in recent courses:

http://teachingcompany.12.forumer.com

Feel free to read, reply or post.

enjoy,

Doug van Orsow
forum moderator

[Cam Beck]

I don't know if it's good or bad, since I fell asleep barely after the opening credits, but based on it's inability to hold my attention, I'm going to say it's perhaps best to avoid Titus (1999).

[Roger von Oech]

Mark: Yep, I agree with you. Both "Throne of Blood" and "Ran" are very good. Indeed, I think that "Ran" is one of the most powerful films I've ever seen.

[Roger von Oech]

Cam: I agree with you about "Titus." Although, in fairness to the film, I wasn't really in a "Shakespeare Fame of Mind" when I watched it.

Doug: Thanks for the offer.

[Rob Donoghue]

Ian McKellan's Richard III (1995) is my go-to movie to show people exactly how magnificent Shakespeare can be on the screen. It uses the early 20th century as a backdrop, allowing the use of some fascist imagery, which works perfectly with McKellan's performance. Branagh's Hamlet (Which I was lucky enough to catch in full on the big screen - the intermission was _necessary_) is the only thing that keeps me from handing it the crown.

Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet (1996) is well worth seeing, if only for _how_ he did it. Modern setting, classical language and a certain amount of music video sensibility make for something that is a flawed but magnificent effort.

For pure silly fun, "10 Things I Hate About You" is a teen comedy telling of "Taming of the Shrew" and is far better than it has any business being.

[Stephen Denny]

YES TO RICHARD III WITH IAN MCKELLAN. This is the best of them, for my money. Not only the fascist backdrop, but the use of his Sonnets as the vocal score set to the big band numbers playing as background music.

Was ever woman in such humor wooed? Was ever woman in such humor won??

Fantastic.

[Roger von Oech]

Rob and Stephen: I had completely forgotten about Ian McKellan's "Richard III." (I think I was focusing on "tragedies" and Richard III is usually classified as a "history.")

I saw it in 1997 or 1998, and I agree that it's well worth viewing. You're right that the 1930s fascist imagery is a great backdrop. Very good supporting cast including Annette Bening, Robert Downey, jr., Jim Broadbent, Maggie Smith, and Kristin Scott Thomas.

[Rob Donoghue]

You're right of course, it is properly a history. It's just such a _grim_ one that I tend to forget. :)

[Dermot]

Roger

"Richard III" with McKellan to echo those above.
Baz Lurhmans "Romeo and Juliet". Kenneth Branagh's version of "Much Ado About Nothing" is a wonderful comedy (and shows Shakespeare's range) wonderful performances with one exception - Keanu Reeves). Branaghs "Henry V" is excellent. If you like Hamlet (I don't like the play) then try Branagh's version of it.

Dermot

[Jen]

Have to echo Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet - was reluctant to watch originally, but when I did, I really loved the interpretation Luhrman did and the way he brought elements of the play into his world.

[Roger von Oech]

Dermot: Another Richard III fan, and also a Branagh one well!

Jen: I'll have to check out Baz's R&J.

[Shakespeare's Fool]

Roger,

I'm not sure even you can get me to attend to more commentary on Shakespeare, but The Teaching Company's "Joy of Thinking: The Beauty and Power of Classical Mathematical Ideas" by Michael Starbird and Edward B. Burger was so enjoyable (particularly the part about the 4th dimension) that I just might.

Every video I've seen of Romeo and Juliet has something to recommend it.

The DVD of Romeo and Juliet by the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Stratford, Ontario, Canada (http://www.stratfordfestival.ca/merchandise/index.cfm?shelf=32&itemid=000AD77E-75D7-106C-9A3D0B070A0050F0
= http://snipurl.com/1vlxg ) excels in many ways. The performance of Juliet, particularly the scene which includes the lines

Come, gentle night, come, loving, black-brow'd night,
Give me my Romeo; and, when he shall die,
Take him and cut him out in little stars,
And he will make the face of heaven so fine
That all the world will be in love with night
And pay no worship to the garish sun.

is as good as anything I have ever seen. I could wear out the rewind button on it.

Mark McGuinness,
Yes, I should look up Kurosawa. Thank you for the reminder.

John

[Roger von Oech]

John: Thanks for the recommendations. (Although I was expecting at least one reference to King Lear from you : -)