theneobez

We've just read Hamlet in class. . .well, I've read it about 4 times, definitely one of my favorite works.

I've seen the Ethan Hawk version of Hamlet, and I really liked it, but I'm wondering if this 1948 version is the "definitive" cinematic version of Hamlet.

What are your opinions on it? Do you recommend it as a blind buy?

ckolchak

i'm not a big fan of the Olivier version and wouldn't recommend it, especially as a blind buy and given the Criterion price point.

the version i would recommend however is the Zefferelli/Gibson version from 1990.
Oliviers Hamlet is the typical, conventional Hamlet as just about everybody plays him, full of somber intonation, and a very 'contemporary' interpretation of the word menlacholy, whereas Gibson/Zefferelli interpret Hamlets melancholia as something more akin to manic depression with the emphasis on manic.

not only is that a valid interpretation, it also gives the material a lot more verve and energy.
its also a very handsome production with beautiful location work and an excellant supporting cast including Alan Bates and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia.
good price point too, and if i'm not mistaken it may be due for a price drop soon.

theneobez

cool, thanks for the thoughts

cfmartin3

Pretty much in agreement with ckolchak. The Olivier did some things that were pretty daring for its time, and it is fascinating to watch.

That said, I've always thought that the Gibson Hamlet was underrated. Helena Bonham Carter is terrific as Ophelia, and Paul Scofield is my personal favorite ghost (I've seen the Olivier, Williamson, Jacobi, Gibson, and Branagh versions; can't speak for the Burton, Kline, etc.)

Hokeyboy

I always liked Olivier's version, but it has some glaring omissions and I think he was too heavily sucking at Welles's teat on that one.

I prefer his "Richard III" and "Henry V", to be honest.

That having been said, there is surely

adamblast

Having seen all those repeatedly, my own opinion is that the Branagh comes closest to deserving the word definitive, if only because he managed make filming the entire text work so well. But every version has its strengths and weaknesses.

For someone young who has seen only the Ethan Hawke--and is looking for solid storytelling and strong visual approach--the Gibson works well. What Mel lacks--the ability to handle Shakespearean language with excellence--he makes up for with a vigorous and engaging characterization.

If you're a budding stage actor, I'd recommend the Kevin Kline video treatment instead. Some very inspiring performances, in a "modern Broadway" non-period production.

Olivier's Hamlet is excellent in many ways, but Matt is right to place it behind his Henry V and Richard III. Make the Criterion your, um, *fourth* Hamlet.

adamblast

Indeed, there certainly

theneobez

I'm not, but I'll check it out out of interest.
Cool though, thanks to all for the responses. I really like what Branagh did with Henry V, so I think I'll check out both the Gibson and Branagh Hamlets.

purplechoe

In all honesty I thought he did a better job "handling Shakespearean language" than did Glenn Close. By far Gibsons Hamlet is my favorite version of the story on film. I do like Branaghs and would definitely buy it if it was released.

kenbuzz

I'll second that emotion. If you're looking for a Criterion-Shakespeare-Olivier blind buy, go with Henry V over Hamlet. Heck, I'd even recommend the Branaugh Henry V over the Olivier Hamlet.