|
| Hamlet |
|
  (5/10)
|
Runtime: 140 |
| Public Rating: 9.65 (17 votes) |
Director: Grigori Kozintsev |
MPAA Rating:  |
| Genre: Drama |
Year: 1964 |
| Writer(s): Boris Pasternak, Grigori Kozintsev |
| Reviewed by: Vadim Rizov |
| |
No, it's not the greatest screen Hamlet of all time; it's not even close. Somehow, this Soviet film from 1964 has acquired that reputation; I don't understand how, since this undistributed film presumably has no hired publicity flacks. The truth is that the film feels like two in one to me: a strong first half that feels nothing like a Soviet film, and an overindulgent second half that gorges on the typical tricks of the most over-acclaimed Soviet films: fantastic mise-en-scene with no point, ridiculous moodiness, long silences with overwrought movement denoting "virtuoso acting." It's a shame, because the first half is a solid and somewhat innovative, if not really exciting, interpretation of the play.
A proper, complete Hamlet clocks in at about 4 hours, so where filmmakers choose to cut, and how much they cut, is a crucial indicator of their vision. Kozintsov cuts the work down to 140 minutes, and his cuts are far from kind: all of Hamlet's soliloquies (save the inevitable "To be or not to be") have been cut, and so has lots of dialogue between Hamlet and Gertrude and/or Claudius. The point, I've read, is to create an "active" Hamlet, one not constrained by Freudian niceties or self-doubt, but one who acts. Fine, but we have no idea why this Hamlet does what he does. Legendary Russian actor Smoktunovsky is far too old for the part, and his constantly prowling Hamlet has no time for doubt or thought. His is a wide and flashy but not particularly deep Hamlet; this Hamlet never even gives the impression of insanity, and his grimly lucid speech could fool no one. He's obviously out making trouble, and while such an interpretation is fair game I suppose, it's not particularly interesting.
So much for him. Now for the rest: the performances of the cast are variable, with top honors going Vertinskaya's delicate Ophelia (in one of the film's true innovations, she's shown constantly rehearsing dance steps, which she goes through once she finally goes mad) and Tolubeyev's suitably foolish Polonius. The cinematography is terrific, a black-and-white widescreen film that benefits immeasurably from big-screen viewing (it's not on video anyway); it's Jonas Gritsius, who only did 3 other films, 2 of them by Kozintsov, plus the George Cukor oddity The Blue Bird (the first Soviet-U.S. coproduction). The first half is snappy and decidedly cinematic; it moves pretty well, never feeling shallow, though never revelatory. But the film's second half is decidedly different: a slow-moving, high-style low-content work that will bore the hardiest of audience members. Hell, Branagh's four-hour Hamlet has more energy. The filmmakers remove a great deal of dialogue and substitute it with...nothing. (Incidentally, Pasternak's quite vernacular translation of the play is ill-served by the decision to use subtitles straight out of Shakespeare; it does the spirit of the translation an injustice.) Left to burn on widescreen mise-en-scene, the film flounders hopelessly and bores the audience. Timid audience members noted that the film was depressing, too afraid to admit that it was the way it was made that made it so frigid and lifeless. It all gets a bit soul-sapping, like the worst of Eisenstein. Still, the film overall has its moments, and is worth seeing for them, as well as being good viewing for any devoted shakesperean. The first half gets 6 stars, the second about 4, so 5 seems like an acceptable compromise.
|
 Printable Version
|
Do you agree/disagree with this review of Hamlet? Let your opinions be heard in our forum.
|
Buy the Poster of Hamlet (Click Here)
|
|
|
|
