Doctor Who & Captain Picard in Halmet

[The Borgified Corpse]

Actually, this production unifies actors from the 3 great sci-fi franchises. Not only do you have Tennant & Stewart representing Doctor Who & Star Trek: The Next Generation, respectively. Also, Polonius is played by the guy that played one of Queen Amidala's advisors in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

It's a good production on dvd and worth seeing but not as solid as Branagh's version. There are some peculiar directorial choices, like the CCTV conceit which isn't well integrated, and the cast is not a strong throughout. Tennant and Stewart are outstanding, though. I'm betting that young David will be Sir David before his career is over.

Agreed. I found the CCTV bit really distracting. And while Hamlet, Claudius, & Polonius all turn in great performances, I don't much care for the rest of the cast. I also think that Patrick Stewart kinda fumbles his performance at the end. For most of the story, he plays Claudius as a very haunted man, plagued by remorse over murdering his twin brother. I get the sense that he regrets it so much that he truly wishes he could take it back and doesn't have any desire to kill anyone else. But then, at the end, when he makes the decision to kill Hamlet, I'm not really sure I see where that came from. (This wasn't a problem in the Kenneth Branagh version, where you never doubted for a moment that Claudius was a greedy, manipulative little villain.)

A very interesting choice to make King Hamlet & King Claudius twins I must say! It made me wonder for a time if, perhaps, the ghost wasn't a ghost at all but rather a guilt plagued Claudius sleepwalking in his dead brother's armor.

David Tennant really sells the emotional devastation that Hamlet is going through. Most interpret Hamlet as a shrewd schemer pretending to be crazy to manipulate Claudius, Gertrude, & Polonius. I think Tennant's Hamlet actually is crazy, although he's a crazy man trying to act crazy.

Polonius is usually portrayed as a pompous fool, yet no one seems to really realize it. Here, he clearly seems to have some elderly dementia and you can tell from the way the other characters react that they all realize this and yet no one has the heart to fire him.

Unfortunately, I think the performances from Gertrude, Ophelia, Horatio, & Laertes are all very weak. And this is probably one of the least funny Rosencrantz & Guildenstern combinations I've ever seen. On those fronts, I definitely prefer the Branagh version.

 

[Mal]

There are some peculiar directorial choices, like the CCTV conceit which isn't well integrated

Agreed. I found the CCTV bit really distracting.

i quite liked the CCTV. they weren't pretending that this was just a filmed play, but were actually making use of some things that would not otherwise we possible on stage. but YMMV.

And while Hamlet, Claudius, & Polonius all turn in great performances, I don't much care for the rest of the cast.

Polonius was absolutely spectacular! i laughed and i laughed. they guy made his lines seems absolutely natural, as if shakespeare wrote in english or something

I also think that Patrick Stewart kinda fumbles his performance at the end.

i was underwhelmed. some of the lines were clearly better performed in TNG. granted Tennant had the "what a piece of work is man" line, not Stewart (as he did in TNG), but i still wasn't wowed by Claudius.

Unfortunately, I think the performances from Gertrude, Ophelia, Horatio, & Laertes are all very weak.

i agree. ophelia was awful. and i had such high hopes. i loved when she found condoms in laertes' suitcase. but oh. my. god. did she go way over-the-top after that.

i thought gertrude played an acceptable mother. Hamlet & Gertrude's scene together in her chamber is pretty touching.

 

[Christopher]

Actually, this production unifies actors from the 3 great sci-fi franchises. Not only do you have Tennant & Stewart representing Doctor Who & Star Trek: The Next Generation, respectively. Also, Polonius is played by the guy that played one of Queen Amidala's advisors in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

Oliver Ford Davies, who played Naboo's Governor Sio Bibble (really, that was his name). The Bibble character is amusingly handled in the Darths and Droids webcomic.

And Tennant is one of seven actors in this production with Whovian experience. Most notably, the Player King is John Woodvine, who was the Marshal in "The Armageddon Factor." I listed them in my blog post linked above.

I also think that Patrick Stewart kinda fumbles his performance at the end. For most of the story, he plays Claudius as a very haunted man, plagued by remorse over murdering his twin brother. I get the sense that he regrets it so much that he truly wishes he could take it back and doesn't have any desire to kill anyone else. But then, at the end, when he makes the decision to kill Hamlet, I'm not really sure I see where that came from.

Interesting observation. You have a point -- Stewart's Claudius is rather sympathetic and impressive, clashing with all the dialogue about what an inferior and unworthy man he is. But I didn't see his decision as contradictory. Yes, he regretted what he did, but he'd convinced himself it was necessary, and that's a slippery slope. It's always easier the second time.

If anything, looking back on it now and thinking about the question, I think maybe Stewart's Claudius based his decision not only on covering up his own crime, but on the belief that Hamlet's madness made him a danger to others (as his murder of Polonius proved), and so he had to be eliminated for everyone's good -- but he couldn't just be condemned and executed for Polonius's murder, because that would air out a lot of dirty laundry, things best kept hidden from the public lest they harm the royal court.

A very interesting choice to make King Hamlet & King Claudius twins I must say! It made me wonder for a time if, perhaps, the ghost wasn't a ghost at all but rather a guilt plagued Claudius sleepwalking in his dead brother's armor.

Interesting idea, except the fact that the armor was constantly smoking (as his sins were "burnt and purg'd away") makes it pretty clearly supernatural, along with the appearing and disappearing.

And again, as I said, having them both be Stewart is hard to reconcile with the play's lines about how Claudius is a base and ugly man in comparison to King Hamlet's glory.

David Tennant really sells the emotional devastation that Hamlet is going through. Most interpret Hamlet as a shrewd schemer pretending to be crazy to manipulate Claudius, Gertrude, & Polonius. I think Tennant's Hamlet actually is crazy, although he's a crazy man trying to act crazy.

Not crazy, but definitely manic-depressive and in deep emotional turmoil. Which is understandable under the circumstances. He's damaged, but not quite broken, but he's pretending to be broken. But there are moments where the line between the reality and the pretense becomes very blurred.

Unfortunately, I think the performances from Gertrude, Ophelia, Horatio, & Laertes are all very weak.

I liked Mariah Gale's Ophelia much better than Lalla Ward's in 1980. As I said in my review, Ward's Ophelia was so tediously weepy and despairing throughout most of the play that it was a relief when she went insane and finally seemed to be enjoying herself. Gale's Ophelia is stronger and more likeable, and when she snaps, she's not just an oblivious loon, but has genuine anger and accusation under her madness, so much that I wondered if she was pulling a Hamlet and feigning insanity while probing Polonius's murder. (Which made me wonder if Gertrude threw her into the river because she was getting too close to uncovering Hamlet as the culprit.)

i quite liked the CCTV. they weren't pretending that this was just a filmed play, but were actually making use of some things that would not otherwise we possible on stage. but YMMV.

The problem is that it's illogical. If every room of this castle is under constant video surveillance, why the hell did everyone have to hide behind arrases to spy on each other?

 

[Mal]

I also think that Patrick Stewart kinda fumbles his performance at the end. For most of the story, he plays Claudius as a very haunted man, plagued by remorse over murdering his twin brother. I get the sense that he regrets it so much that he truly wishes he could take it back and doesn't have any desire to kill anyone else. But then, at the end, when he makes the decision to kill Hamlet, I'm not really sure I see where that came from.

Interesting observation. You have a point -- Stewart's Claudius is rather sympathetic and impressive, clashing with all the dialogue about what an inferior and unworthy man he is. But I didn't see his decision as contradictory. Yes, he regretted what he did, but he'd convinced himself it was necessary, and that's a slippery slope.

I agree. Patrick Stewart really emphasized the line:

Madness in great ones must not unwatch'd go.
​

Which to me seemed to say that although it is understandable that the death of a father can make a man fall into a manic state, when that man is in a position of power (like Hamlet), his insanity becomes not just a threat to himself, it imperils all those around him (or all of Denmark). Indeed as Peter Parker might say: with great power comes great responsibility

 

[DevilEyes]

And again, as I said, having them both be Stewart is hard to reconcile with the play's lines about how Claudius is a base and ugly man in comparison to King Hamlet's glory.

Many of the stage and film versions of Hamlet I've seen also went against those lines by casting attractive and rather charismatic actors as Claudius.

But that's the thing with having just the text of the play (rather than seeing the actors and their costumes and makeup, as Shakespeare's audience did), you may interpret the lines as true or not. After all, the only people who claim that Claudius is so inferior to the late Hamlet are the late Hamlet himself and his adoring son, both very biased and unreliable sources. Shakespeare probably really meant for Claudius to be uglier and less impressive in appearance and personality than his brother, and the actors were probably cast, made up and told to act accordingly, but the text alone allows for different interpretations. You may as well see it as Hamlet's bias and old Hamlet's arrogance. After all, Gertrude found something likable in Claudius, so he probably had some appealing qualities... and I've always found the Ghost rather selfish and arrogant.

This is how I've filled the backstory on the brothers in my mind. I've always kind of imagined the late Hamlet to have been a very confident man with a lot of 'presence' and royal demenour, but also quite arrogant, as someone who was raised as the future king from birth. His brother might have also been smart and charming in his own way, maybe not unattractive either, but since he was used to being in his brother's shadow, he had a bit of inferiority complex, was quieter and sneakier, and used to getting what he wanted through underhand tactics. He was always obsessively jealous of his brother, and that's at least a part of the reason he fell in love with his brother's wife. Maybe Gertrude liked Claudius better, as someone who was more attentive and easier to talk to than her high and mighty husband, even if she realized that Hamlet was more 'proper' and worthy of respect.

This imagined backstory would work in an even more interesting way if they are twins, and it was just their upbringing (firstborn son vs younger son) that made all the difference. That would, of course, make the scene with Hamlet showing Gertrude their pictures quite funny, but it's possible to imagine that 1) he was speaking metaphorically and wasn't really referring to their looks as much as their personality, or 2) he thought one could easily see the difference between his beloved father and his uncle, even in their pictures (again, Hamlet is a family member, and very biased in favor of his father; most people outside the family and the immediate circle, who didn't know both men that well, might not be able to see any difference in the two pictures at all).

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I agree that Claudius probably isn't supposed to be an ugly or unattractive man. It's not like he's Richard III afterall. Like you said, the only characters with anything particularly unflattering to say about Claudius are the ghost & Prince Hamlet, neither of whom are at all objective about this. All of their bias is pro-King Hamlet & anti-Claudius.

I also think that Patrick Stewart kinda fumbles his performance at the end. For most of the story, he plays Claudius as a very haunted man, plagued by remorse over murdering his twin brother. I get the sense that he regrets it so much that he truly wishes he could take it back and doesn't have any desire to kill anyone else. But then, at the end, when he makes the decision to kill Hamlet, I'm not really sure I see where that came from.

Interesting observation. You have a point -- Stewart's Claudius is rather sympathetic and impressive, clashing with all the dialogue about what an inferior and unworthy man he is. But I didn't see his decision as contradictory. Yes, he regretted what he did, but he'd convinced himself it was necessary, and that's a slippery slope. It's always easier the second time.

Stewart's Claudius is so sympathetic, it almost feels like they should have written a totally different ending. He goes down like a villain instead of a tragic figure. I almost want to retitle the play King Claudius for the way Stewart skews my usual sympathies.

One of the other differences I got out of Stewart's Claudius: Usually I infer that Claudius murdered King Hamlet to satisfy his political ambitions. This time around, I wonder if it doesn't have more to do with a desperate romantic desire for Gertrude. (And if King Hamlet & Claudius are twins, what is Gertrude really thinking when she's with Claudius?)

I liked Mariah Gale's Ophelia much better than Lalla Ward's in 1980. As I said in my review, Ward's Ophelia was so tediously weepy and despairing throughout most of the play that it was a relief when she went insane and finally seemed to be enjoying herself. Gale's Ophelia is stronger and more likeable, and when she snaps, she's not just an oblivious loon, but has genuine anger and accusation under her madness, so much that I wondered if she was pulling a Hamlet and feigning insanity while probing Polonius's murder. (Which made me wonder if Gertrude threw her into the river because she was getting too close to uncovering Hamlet as the culprit.)

Interesting interpretation. I never thought of that before. I will say this version of Hamlet is great for raising all sorts of new questions & interpretations of the material. It's like seeing it for the 1st time again. And I also agree that all of the performers here, particularly Stewart, speak Shakespeare as if it's regular English. That alone is a miracle.

BTW, what did you think about Kate Winslet's portrayal of Ophelia in the Kenneth Branagh version?

i quite liked the CCTV. they weren't pretending that this was just a filmed play, but were actually making use of some things that would not otherwise we possible on stage. but YMMV.

The problem is that it's illogical. If every room of this castle is under constant video surveillance, why the hell did everyone have to hide behind arrases to spy on each other?

I didn't have a problem with the logic of it. That would simply be another adaptation of Shakespeare into a more modern era, and I'm quite fond of those. You've got the Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet which brings events forward to the 19th century. You've got the Ian McKellen movie of Richard III that uses a World War II setting. I've also seen stage adaptations of Twelfth Night set in 19th century India & Two Gentlemen of Verona set in Hollywood during the height of the silent film era. (And most recently, Twelfth Night of the Living Dead.)

However, I did feel that the CCTV gimmick was intrusive and didn't make much sense from a narrative standpoint since the CCTV was never showing us any particular character's POV. But I did like the bit where Hamlet removes one of the cameras before saying, "Now we're alone."

 

[Christopher]

BTW, what did you think about Kate Winslet's portrayal of Ophelia in the Kenneth Branagh version?

The only thing I remember about that version is disliking Branagh's one-note soliloquies. And weren't there a whole bunch of mirrors in the set design?

 

[Forbin]

^1980 BBC version, actually.

*Checks DVD case*
That's the one!

 

[Forbin]

Speaking of the Trek/Who Hamlet connection:

 

[Christopher]

Yep. In fact, there are two Time Lords in that shot, Claire Bloom and Lalla Ward.

 

[Whofan]

Wasn't Stewart up for a WHO role around the same time they did the stage version of Hamlet?

Rumors that he would be possibly playing a time lord, I wonder if that's the same role that Timothy Dalton got cast for.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Rumors that he would be possibly playing a time lord, I wonder if that's the same role that Timothy Dalton got cast for.

No, he was up for the role of the Mad Monk, which as I recall, is a classic Who character, which would of meant a return of the character.

 

[Forbin]

Would of?

 

[Christopher]

Some people think that's how "would've" is spelled.

 

[Owain Taggart]

My bad. And I usually try to be very careful about grammar and other things like this