list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Hamlet on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Hamlet/14565/default.aspx Title: Hamlet
Year: 1948
Director: Laurence Olivier
Plot: Although criticized by Shakespeare devotees upon its release because of director, producer, and star Laurence Olivier's decision to excise large portions of the text, his cinematic version of Hamlet is widely considered the best out of several dozens (and counting). Hamlet (Olivier) is a medieval Danish prince who's still melancholy over the sudden death of his father and the quick, subsequent remarriage of his mother, Queen Gertrude (Eileen Herlie) to his uncle, Claudius (Basil Sydney). Informed by the ghost of his father that Claudius murdered him, Hamlet schemes to take revenge. Unsure how best to proceed, his delays and the horrible secret burdening him eventually lead to the violent snuffing out of several lives in both his family and that of courtier Polonius (Felix Aylmer), whose daughter Ophelia (Jean Simmons) is in love with Hamlet. Greatly influenced by the inventive camera work in Citizen Kane (1941) and by modern, psychological reinterpretations of Shakespeare's play, Olivier's masterpiece was the winner of four Academy Awards, for Best Picture, Best Actor (Olivier), Best Black and White Art Direction/Set Direction and Best Black and White Costume Design. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 4
Number of Lists: 16
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:55:59 GMTHamlet1948Laurence OlivierAlthough criticized by Shakespeare devotees upon its release because of director, producer, and star <a href="/players/P___105057/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Laurence Olivier</a>'s decision to excise large portions of the text, his cinematic version of Hamlet is widely considered the best out of several dozens (and counting). Hamlet (Olivier) is a medieval Danish prince who's still melancholy over the sudden death of his father and the quick, subsequent remarriage of his mother, Queen Gertrude (<a href="/players/P____31920/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eileen Herlie</a>) to his uncle, Claudius (<a href="/players/P____69419/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Basil Sydney</a>). Informed by the ghost of his father that Claudius murdered him, Hamlet schemes to take revenge. Unsure how best to proceed, his delays and the horrible secret burdening him eventually lead to the violent snuffing out of several lives in both his family and that of courtier Polonius (<a href="/players/P_____1275/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Felix Aylmer</a>), whose daughter Ophelia (<a href="/players/P____65749/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jean Simmons</a>) is in love with Hamlet. Greatly influenced by the inventive camera work in <a href=/films/6239/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Citizen Kane</a> (1941) and by modern, psychological reinterpretations of Shakespeare's play, Olivier's masterpiece was the winner of four Academy Awards, for Best Picture, Best Actor (Olivier), Best Black and White Art Direction/Set Direction and Best Black and White Costume Design. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide4Slightly Tagged (1-5)1623http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t07896qcn0v.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Hamlet/14565/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/7/23/32928.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 7/23/2008 3:52:52 AM
Body: Sir Laurence Olivier's Hamlet is a brilliant, difficult, and to a degree, unreasonably dark movie. It's hard to deny that the picture works, but by the end, you wonder if the journey was really worth taking, as this must be one of the most effectively gloomy films ever committed to celluloid. It's impossible to watch Olivier's film and not compare it to the numerous other screen adaptations of Shakespeare's most famous play, most notably the 1996 masterpiece by Kenneth Branagh. Branagh is not a better actor than Olivier (only Marlon Brando could possibly hold that title), but he made a movie that was brimming with the energy of life, one that fully explored the metaphysical concepts in the original play. Olivier's goals are more mundane- he's most interested in the psychological and archetypical elements of the play, so the movie is far shorter than Branagh's and its smaller in scope. More than one critic has referred to the settings as claustrophobic. It's as if these characters exist in an entire world unto themselves- an interior world, with a lot of fog and humidity. There is no escape from this dysfunctional family- there is literally no where to go. Despite the opening narration, Olivier interprets Hamlet's problem as not so much being unable to make up his mind as much his being unable to function as an adult. He has genuine love for his mother Gertrude (Eileen Herle) and late father (significantly, voiced by Olivier). But it's the love of a young child who worships his god-like parents. Hamlet's problem is not that he's poorly negotiated the inevitable separation trauma because he's never separated- at least while his father was still alive. This is made exceedingly clear by the film's most dominant relationship, between Hamlet and his mother. It's significant that Herle was born thirteen years after than Olivier. The fact that Gertrude is so young and that Hamlet feels such affection for her is made obvious, and this makes his hatred of Claudius (Basil Sydney) even more basic and primitive. This was an interesting approach to take, but it means that Hamlet's relationship with other characters suffer. The quasi-romance between the prince and Ophelia (Jean Simmons) is DOA, and his friendship with Horatio (Norman Wooland) is undeveloped as well. And although Olivier's performance is of course brilliant (you can bet he deserved the Best Actor Oscar he won), I was ambivalent about many of his directorial choices. The intellectual tone of the picture, combined with the sadness and angst in the movie's atmosphere, make for a movie that is obviously made a genius, but also one that is at times difficult to sit through. The movie is rarely boring, but after spending more than an hour with these super-serious people and their Freudian problems I was ready for it to lighten up a bit and it never did. This is where Olivier's film suffers the most in comparison to Branagh's. The contemporary film had such an energy to it, that even in the more tragic moments you felt that at least the characters were really alive. In this picture, it's as if they are hypnotized, waiting for their psychologist to wake them up and send them to a more lively world. Hamlet (1948)
]]>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:52:52 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog7/23/2008 3:52:52 AMSir Laurence Olivier's Hamlet is a brilliant, difficult, and to a degree, unreasonably dark movie. It's hard to deny that the picture works, but by the end, you wonder if the journey was really worth taking, as this must be one of the most effectively gloomy films ever committed to celluloid. It's impossible to watch Olivier's film and not compare it to the numerous other screen adaptations of Shakespeare's most famous play, most notably the 1996 masterpiece by Kenneth Branagh. Branagh is not a better actor than Olivier (only Marlon Brando could possibly hold that title), but he made a movie that was brimming with the energy of life, one that fully explored the metaphysical concepts in the original play. Olivier's goals are more mundane- he's most interested in the psychological and archetypical elements of the play, so the movie is far shorter than Branagh's and its smaller in scope. More than one critic has referred to the settings as claustrophobic. It's as if these characters exist in an entire world unto themselves- an interior world, with a lot of fog and humidity. There is no escape from this dysfunctional family- there is literally no where to go. Despite the opening narration, Olivier interprets Hamlet's problem as not so much being unable to make up his mind as much his being unable to function as an adult. He has genuine love for his mother Gertrude (Eileen Herle) and late father (significantly, voiced by Olivier). But it's the love of a young child who worships his god-like parents. Hamlet's problem is not that he's poorly negotiated the inevitable separation trauma because he's never separated- at least while his father was still alive. This is made exceedingly clear by the film's most dominant relationship, between Hamlet and his mother. It's significant that Herle was born thirteen years after than Olivier. The fact that Gertrude is so young and that Hamlet feels such affection for her is made obvious, and this makes his hatred of Claudius (Basil Sydney) even more basic and primitive. This was an interesting approach to take, but it means that Hamlet's relationship with other characters suffer. The quasi-romance between the prince and Ophelia (Jean Simmons) is DOA, and his friendship with Horatio (Norman Wooland) is undeveloped as well. And although Olivier's performance is of course brilliant (you can bet he deserved the Best Actor Oscar he won), I was ambivalent about many of his directorial choices. The intellectual tone of the picture, combined with the sadness and angst in the movie's atmosphere, make for a movie that is obviously made a genius, but also one that is at times difficult to sit through. The movie is rarely boring, but after spending more than an hour with these super-serious people and their Freudian problems I was ready for it to lighten up a bit and it never did. This is where Olivier's film suffers the most in comparison to Branagh's. The contemporary film had such an energy to it, that even in the more tragic moments you felt that at least the characters were really alive. In this picture, it's as if they are hypnotized, waiting for their psychologist to wake them up and send them to a more lively world. Hamlet (1948) http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2008/5/31/30258.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 5/31/2008 9:09:36 PM
Body: Andre Bazin in his essay “In Defense of Mixed Cinema” claims that screen adaptations cannot damage the source literature- “ It is nonsense to wax wroth about the indignities practiced on literary works on the screen, at least in the name of literature. After all, they cannot harm the original in the eyes of those how know it, however little they approximate to it. As for those who are unacquainted with the original, one of two things may happen; either they will be satisfied with the film which is as good as most, or they will want to know the original, with the resulting gain for literature”. While this is technically correct- no one would say that a repudiated novel is horrible solely because the movie is bad, Bazin fails to realize that cinema offers a false substitution. Surely, degradations do not directly damage the original. When (under pseudonym) Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda published his own inferior sequel to Don Quixote the work did not damage masterpiece Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, in fact, Cervantes incorporates this false sequel into his own sequel, using the blunder to his advantage. Cinema seems to be a synthesis of other arts. It includes the auditory and visual strengths of theater, the mobility in time and false motion of literature, the memorable images of photographs and paintings, the notes of music, and to some extent the craftwork of sculptures. Because cinema contains elements from each of the art forms before it, at surface level cinema seems an evolutionary progression or extension of these other art forms. Cinema is in some perceptual ways more realistic than other forms of art because a main strength of cinema is its isomorphic representation of reality and its illusion of motion. Cinema appears to have more ties to reality. And being more realistic in auditory and visual ways, when cinema adapts literature it appears to be an almost evolutionary enhancement of literature- an extension of what was. This is not the case. But many feel that a cinematic adaptation is an apt substitute for literature- this is the illusion of substitution. Many feel that an adaptation equals the source, and as a result, one is often traded for another. This substitution should never happen, but it does happen when people do not have the time to read the book. For example, James Whales’ movie adaptation of Frankenstein is a dim-witted, pale reflection of the original Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein though people more readily recall Boris Karloff as the monster than Mary Shelly’s novel. The viewer that substitutes the inferior movie for the original literary classic either 1. has no interest in the original work because of the poor quality of the movie, or 2. feels s/he has a sufficient understanding of the literature because of the information provided in the movie. The fact is cinema is art and an art that is distinct from literature. A movie can equal or surpass its literary source in terms of greatness (see Kubrick). But one should not judge a book by its movie. Unfortunately, because a movie is related to its source book material, associations from the movie affect people’s perceptions of the book. If one watches a bad adaptation before reading the novel, it is possible that the viewer/ reader will (when reading the book) recall the images from the bad movie, and thus the movie will negatively impact their reading of the novel. We should remember the distinction between the two art forms and judge according to the standards of quality for each art, but one cannot deny that the perception of a movie does sometimes affect (and/or create an aversion) to the source book. Movie should not, but they do affect the reading of a book. Movies also help to create a popular conception of the source literature. And so, a bad adaptation can, contrary to Bazin’s claim, negatively effect literature. Satisfaction with inferiority can damage art. “I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams”. ~Hamlet, scene ii. Hamlet (in one aspect) is a play about the inifinite space of the human mind. Lawrence Olivier’s Hamlet offers a very weak interpretation of Shakespeare’s masterpiece Hamlet (Bias alert- I think Shakespeare’s Hamlet is undeniably one of the greatest pieces of art in any category of all time). For the majority of the movie, Olivier (as Hamlet) is bounded in a nutshell, for his approach to the character is of a restrained melancholy introvert. As a result, Olivier denies us the mind of Hamlet through his too cautious restraint. O that his too too solid flesh would melt. Olivier is too firm, too resolved for a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders. As a result, we have the loss of infinite space. It is tragic to deny us this mind. ~Kristen Gorlitz
]]>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:09:36 GMTkristenkristen Blog5/31/2008 9:09:36 PM Andre Bazin in his essay &ldquo;In Defense of Mixed Cinema&rdquo; claims that screen adaptations cannot damage the source literature- &ldquo; It is nonsense to wax wroth about the indignities practiced on literary works on the screen, at least in the name of literature. After all, they cannot harm the original in the eyes of those how know it, however little they approximate to it. As for those who are unacquainted with the original, one of two things may happen; either they will be satisfied with the film which is as good as most, or they will want to know the original, with the resulting gain for literature&rdquo;. While this is technically correct- no one would say that a repudiated novel is horrible solely because the movie is bad, Bazin fails to realize that cinema offers a false substitution. Surely, degradations do not directly damage the original. When (under pseudonym) Alonso Fern&aacute;ndez de Avellaneda published his own inferior sequel to Don Quixote the work did not damage masterpiece Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, in fact, Cervantes incorporates this false sequel into his own sequel, using the blunder to his advantage. Cinema seems to be a synthesis of other arts. It includes the auditory and visual strengths of theater, the mobility in time and false motion of literature, the memorable images of photographs and paintings, the notes of music, and to some extent the craftwork of sculptures. Because cinema contains elements from each of the art forms before it, at surface level cinema seems an evolutionary progression or extension of these other art forms. Cinema is in some perceptual ways more realistic than other forms of art because a main strength of cinema is its isomorphic representation of reality and its illusion of motion. Cinema appears to have more ties to reality. And being more realistic in auditory and visual ways, when cinema adapts literature it appears to be an almost evolutionary enhancement of literature- an extension of what was. This is not the case. But many feel that a cinematic adaptation is an apt substitute for literature- this is the illusion of substitution. Many feel that an adaptation equals the source, and as a result, one is often traded for another. This substitution should never happen, but it does happen when people do not have the time to read the book. For example, James Whales&rsquo; movie adaptation of Frankenstein is a dim-witted, pale reflection of the original Mary Shelly&rsquo;s Frankenstein though people more readily recall Boris Karloff as the monster than Mary Shelly&rsquo;s novel. The viewer that substitutes the inferior movie for the original literary classic either 1. has no interest in the original work because of the poor quality of the movie, or 2. feels s/he has a sufficient understanding of the literature because of the information provided in the movie. The fact is cinema is art and an art that is distinct from literature. A movie can equal or surpass its literary source in terms of greatness (see Kubrick). But one should not judge a book by its movie. Unfortunately, because a movie is related to its source book material, associations from the movie affect people&rsquo;s perceptions of the book. If one watches a bad adaptation before reading the novel, it is possible that the viewer/ reader will (when reading the book) recall the images from the bad movie, and thus the movie will negatively impact their reading of the novel. We should remember the distinction between the two art forms and judge according to the standards of quality for each art, but one cannot deny that the perception of a movie does sometimes affect (and/or create an aversion) to the source book. Movie should not, but they do affect the reading of a book. Movies also help to create a popular conception of the source literature. And so, a bad adaptation can, contrary to Bazin&rsquo;s claim, negatively effect literature. Satisfaction with inferiority can damage art. &ldquo;I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams&rdquo;. ~Hamlet, scene ii. Hamlet (in one aspect) is a play about the inifinite space of the human mind. Lawrence Olivier&rsquo;s Hamlet offers a very weak interpretation of Shakespeare&rsquo;s masterpiece Hamlet (Bias alert- I think Shakespeare&rsquo;s Hamlet is undeniably one of the greatest pieces of art in any category of all time). For the majority of the movie, Olivier (as Hamlet) is bounded in a nutshell, for his approach to the character is of a restrained melancholy introvert. As a result, Olivier denies us the mind of Hamlet through his too cautious restraint. O that his too too solid flesh would melt. Olivier is too firm, too resolved for a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders. As a result, we have the loss of infinite space. It is tragic to deny us this mind. ~Kristen Gorlitz http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suicide/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuicide
Number of films tagged: 1828

Number of people who tagged: 80

Number of times used: 185

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:40:50 GMT182880185Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ghost/MemberTagFilms.aspxghost
Number of films tagged: 1219

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 137

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:06 GMT121958137Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/deception/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeception
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 123

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:18:11 GMT109055123Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/shakespeare/MemberTagFilms.aspxshakespeare
Number of films tagged: 35

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 48

]]>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:21:06 GMT353648Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/insanity/MemberTagFilms.aspxinsanity
Number of films tagged: 258

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 47

]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:02:27 GMT2583547Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/killing/MemberTagFilms.aspxkilling
Number of films tagged: 7191

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 96

]]>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:01:54 GMT71913196Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Picture/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Picture
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 118

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:16:34 GMT8326118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/philosophy/MemberTagFilms.aspxphilosophy
Number of films tagged: 489

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 35

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:12:13 GMT4892635Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/prince/MemberTagFilms.aspxprince
Number of films tagged: 529

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 40

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:02:23 GMT5292140Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criterion/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriterion
Number of films tagged: 396

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 407

]]>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:08:23 GMT39617407Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/maniac/MemberTagFilms.aspxmaniac
Number of films tagged: 806

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 19

]]>Tue, 05 May 2009 13:12:46 GMT8061419Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Actor
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:35:20 GMT78987Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/indecision/MemberTagFilms.aspxindecision
Number of films tagged: 15

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:45:28 GMT1511Tag