betsywetsy

Biting irony and Shakespearean tragedy trade hits with Hollywood cliches and saccharine in the real battle for TROY. Peter O'Toole faces off with Orlando Bloom. Julie Christie vs a totally inadequate female lead. A gorgeous Horse, in an Ilium that would shame The Mummy. Brad Pitt's physical beauty betrayed by Brad Pitt's wooden delivery - in a role that he should completely own! Stylewise it's a three way battle between Braveheart, The Ten Commandments, and all the corniest parts of the Star Wars series.

I don't know what to think. The war story is excellent: lots of characters very well acted, with real complexities and a real sense of tragedy and fate. The Paris-Helen story is jejune and selfish and hardly seems to fit. No more does the weepy wife of Hector, or the inane counsellors of Troy. Priam (O'Toole) is a very Lear, though without Lear's felicitous madness. Achilles is cynical, flawed, a bad boy, complex. The casting of Brad Pitt should be brilliant - Achilles is a swaggering rebel - except someone made him do it impassively, thoughtfully, and in a very sketchy English accent. What happened?!

The fight scenes are multifarious and excellent. Each is suspenseful and interesting. CGI troops/ships are used in setup panoramas, but I didn't notice CGI in the actual action. Achilles has minor superhuman abilities, but they're not excessive or used constantly.

Mythology and many great parts of the Iliad are completely excised. This is the story of men at war, with women thrown in mostly for color. Did a woman start this war? You'd never think it. The gods - well, who knows if they're even there? And who - oh who? - has seen the mobled queen? Where's Hecuba?

You will be surprised how quickly it all ends, in more way than one.

I still don't like these films, but this was the least intolerable of the three. I think it had the greatest departures from the books in plot, but was perhaps the closest to the books in meaning. I'm not even talking about all the characters and events left out; there's lots of stuff here that never happened in the book.

The acting is sometimes painful. Frodo and Sam are particularly given to intervals of mawkishness. Gimli is shamefully used for comic relief. The dialogue's just horrible; exposition is awkward ("A diversion!") - I suspect the actors are giving the director what he's asked for, it's the director and writers I question. Anyway, the adults come out okay except Eomer, reduced to mere grimacing in the background. It's the little people who suffer.

Visuals are often not to my taste, but are impressive. Frodo always glows. Everything hobbity is very golden-lit and twinkly and twee - I think that's the worst setting mistake. Hobbits should be those we identify with most closely, not those we're distanced from. Minas Tirith is barely glimpsed before it's overrun by the Goths and Visigoths; Edoras outshines it.

I don't like the battle scenes. Cuts to show the sea of Orcs menacing a small city of troop of Men are unimpressive after so many repetitions, and the fighting scenes are very rapidly cut and look kinda undercranked and unfocussed, especially when using lots of CG troops. Necessary perhaps, but it still looks bad.

What was right? They made a great scene of the lighting of the signal fires, and the relay from hill to hill, though it went on too long. The songs were good. The human kings rallying their troops to hopeless battles were actually magnificent. Gandalf was less the remote magician and more the humanized power than in the first two movies. The tone is more epic than in the first two installments - they seemed to use scale of battles and scale of scenery as a substitute for theme and pace. ROTK didn't make me look at my watch nearly as much as FOTR and TTT. And there's more Viggo, whom I love, but he may not be quite as good. *sigh*

Anyway, it's still pretty crummy. Gak! Also, I think this one would be _very_ hard to understand without having read the books or seen the first two - I wished I'd refreshed my memory of the previous movie before watching this.

Works better on the screen than the other filmed stage productions - Kline's, Olivier's, Burton's. As others have said, very fast, staccato - even time-compressed - disconcerting extreme close-ups. Williamson at 31 isn't really too old for the mysterious prince, but somehow he looks it. Anthony Hopkins' Claudius seems apathetic, a choice I don't understand. Ophelia is pretty despite painfully dated 60s makeup, but she's also reduced to a 60s type of female - sort of knocked-on-the-head accepting smilingness through whatever storms go one around her. bleah! Gertrude is a 60s evil queen, sensual, but unsexed -- a la Snow White. argh! Horatio is much more out of place than Hamlet, much older, almost doddering in his scholarly spectacles. Interesting Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - very intrusive. Hamlet v. combative. Soliloquies to the camera, a frank style I like better than voice-overs -- the actor never does much during voice-over soliloquies, so you're staring at an unmoving close-up for endless minutes. The style of direction is uneven, but perhaps purposed - sometimes alienating as in the quick back and forth cuts between two speakers, sometimes captivating as in the almost candid, home-video style of the camera movements in the soliloquies. Curiously even in the characters I don't like (Ophelia, Gertrude) the interpretive decisions are well made and intelligently, though the style is off-putting. I long for a meatier Claudius, but Hamlet should care more about the women anyway - but then we should have a meatier Ophelia. I wonder if Hamlet shouldn't be most sane when he seems mad and most mad when he seems deadly sane. Or when he thinks he is. Laertes a fool with mutton-chops. ugh!

I don't think we should take away any lesson that comedy is better than drama, although Sturges himself said something to that effect. I think we do get a bit of an anti-preaching message, but that's not the same as anti-message or anti-drama. The real focus of this film is one man: Sullivan, good-hearted, but willful, self-centered, and clueless, and the lessons of the film really apply to him. This is an individual journey, and we learn by observation of his faults and merits than by slavish taking-to-heart of his very personal lessons.

** *** possible spoilers follow! *** **

One lesson is about responsibility, and it was clear to me that responsibility for the safety and comfort of the girl were why Sullivan gave up his journey - not caprice or tiredness or even discomfort. Gallantry, perhaps, but also very practical - would you answer for the safety of a homeless Veronica Lake? One of the lessons that he doesn't learn that disappoints me a tiny bit is that bad things *can* happen to film directors - once he makes himself known, all troubles disappear. There's reality in that, but it lacks a bit of the morality of the rest of the pic. I love this movie dearly, it must be one of the best of all time for sheer meaning and humor and memorableness, and the scenes in the black church for their startling beauty and grace. God forgive me for a clueless racist, but I thought those sequences were very human and moving, not stereotyped.

This film is violent, prurient, and exploitative. It is unjust. It is needed that a great actor should be Iago, but here in this perfect performance from Kenneth Branagh, we are abused. We are shorted our Othello. The camera lingers on handsome Iago, catches his every thought - but the Moor is more a distant spectacle, meted more thriftily the camera's time and the microphone's. We see him feast, dance, fight, consummate his vows, but we don't get the Promethean heat. Our hero is tormented by salacious visions, unnecessary, over-long, and ineffective. Fishburne is obviously comfortable with Shakespeare and capable of the range of emotions, but he stays too aloof, too formal. He is most tormented by the mere idea of Desi's disloyalty, tbe matter of proof and of her more incriminating acts are de-emphasized, and doubt (of Iago) holds no place. All pathos is Desdemona's and much of hers taken, too. The music is quite good, including Iago's and Desi's songs. Roderigo and Cassio well done. Desdemona has an annoying accent and too much of a single look - very young and innocent. Emilia quite good. The whole doesn't hold together. I love Branagh, I think Fishburne could do better, but Orson Welles is still the standard for Othello, piteous, subtle, a man driven by irresistible suggestion, whereas Fishburne seems willingly to go along, and kills more violently than gently and regretfully. Perhaps it is an unwhitewashed Othello...

I'm a snob, and this movie started inauspiciously, I think, confirming my fears of a modern adaptation with popular actors. It does use Shakespeare's language, with only a few words changed for the modern viewer, and the usual rearrangements and jettisonings. And there are titles to explain the initial situation. Eek! Actually, the editing and the resetting of scenes is significant enough that we cannot anticipate the next line or even the next scene, and must look at the play with clean eyes, occasionally wide eyes. This is a great benefit to those of us dangerously overfamiliar with the material.

Much of the occurence does not make any sense in the '90s corporate setting. The language and personal relationships are likewise problematic, but the brain easily ignores such minor details. Many lines are rushed through on metre and with no particular grace or expression. This turns out okay in Hamlet since he is sort of depressed, thinking aloud, and... well, he's a blank slate, receiving all our interpretations instead of making his own, mostly reacting instead of acting. Gray and vague like an Etch-a-Sketch, and like an Etch-a-Sketch, sometimes getting shaken up and losing his picture. Um... He's also annoying, constantly watching black and white video clips on various monitors. So, this is not as so often a piece centered about one star, it's more of an ensemble, the cast is quality to the smallest part.

Ophelia is depicted with particular excellence, except she doesn't make sense. To me, she never makes sense, unless she is just very simple, somewhat stupid, and dutiful. I think this is a fault of the medium, I hate to say the play. How can the full immensity, the emotional weight of these situations ever be depicted on stage or film? That lacking, our imaginations must supplement and engross their motives, or the characters become exaggerated, volatile charicatures of themselves, moving too slow or too soon, reacting in too great tenor. Ophelia's lover is mad - that's never depicted to my satisfaction. He must confuse her enough to make her willing to deceive him, and the stronger a character she's made, the higher a standard of motive is needed for her change. Nonetheless, with this single inconsistency and a little perhaps excessive screaming forgiven, she is beautifully, strongly, and touchingly drawn. No shrinking violet she, but a woman signified by water: still and moving, pellucid, powerful, changing, falling...

The Ghost is for once, more attractive than Claudius, aiding our accord and approval of Hamlet's obsessive grief. Neither a terrifying nor an overwhelming, nor a pathetic figure, he is mostly human, and for that effective. Laertes - oh, well done! The grave scene achieves only an unsatisfying quiet pathos, but in all else, full of most excellent differences. Liev Schreiber is perfectly cast, impulsive, capable of great emotion and violence, but basically warm-hearted.

Claudius is unctuous, slightly sinister, appropriately threatening in a testosterone-y way. Bill Murray's Polonius is undistinguished, no fault. Our Gertrude is lubricious and perhaps a lush, a wretched queen indeed, but she has her moment.

This Hamlet, now. He becomes most moving. Moodier than other portrayals, yet he does not bore or disengage us. Those annoying movies begin to be important and involving, not mere directorial flourishes. He's special. This is a Prince trying to act, but then... perhaps he has ADHD - he forgets his purpose. It's tragic. Also, one big problem - he's not really mad! Hamlet in general plays more than is mad, though we debate to what extent. But this Hamlet hardly even plays mad, making others' reactions to him not bear examination, but acceptable because we know the story, know that's what they do. Likewise his play is too vague - we can understand the king's reaction, but would anyone else in the court understand?

In fine, this is a most unusual, powerful, and moving production, due to depth of cast, the excellencies of particular interpretations, judicious editing and canny use of technology, which I hate to detail for fear of spoiling - I think some of the power owes also to the surprise of the edits and resettings. Coming to this with an open mind, but not completely new eyes, I do not think it is logically complete, like the play within the play, it ought to be confusing without our prior knowledge. Possibly I am wrong, even if not, it touches me not - I love the current film better than the other 5 or so Hamlets I have known. A surpassing update.

Not more hours, though the missing scenes here are gratefully restored - some of them really are important! Not more star cameos - they range from surprisingly appropriate (Heston) to slightly out-of-place (Crystal, Williams), to sad and painful (Dear Lord, that horribly awkward Marcellus is Jack Lemmon!). Not more Fortinbras, though I've never trusted him. Marching through on his way to Poland? Something's rotten... Not more sex, though, hey, it's always welcome. I just hoped for a more involved, a more charismatic, a more common, human, less elite, agressive, ambitious, antagonistic Hamlet from Kenneth Branagh, especially after watching his lighter adaptations of the comedies and Henry V. I would love him anyway, but he's competing with Derek Jacobi's suave, soothing, loveable Claudius. Lecherous, treacherous, - but bloody? bawdy? Better than most of the Hamlets out there, and it's wonderful to see the bits you've never seen before, but I think Zeffirelli's naturalistic, Oedipal, and chopped to ribbons Hamlet is a better movie.

The best of the stagey Hamlets I've seen, as opposed to the Gibson and Branagh really dedicated movie versions. I expected even better from Kline though; if he was pushing a new interpretation, I missed it completely. It was, after all, stagey, and pretty much standard in reading.

The disturbing thing is that I thought the Player King in his Priam speech was more natural than the outer play. I found that spellbinding and enlightening in a speech - sadly shortened - that I'd never paid

attention to before. I guess that's the stage for you, though.

Zeffirelli's Hamlet is naturalistic, accessible, and merciless. He's chopped and rearranged and interpolated the play into a very compelling story, really taking advantage of the resources old Will didn't have. The setting is actually medieval Denmark, with an amazing castle, and rich, but not new-looking costuming. The result - a highly entertaining movie.

Like no other, it focuses on Gertrude and Glen Close's lusty, needy, affectionate queen goes a long way to explaining Hamlet's trouble. Who wouldn't be disturbed with *that* for a mother? This Gertrude jumps into Claudius' bed with greater alacrity and enthusiasm than any other I've seen, making Hamlet's disgust and the dated definition of incest come alive for modern audiences. Still, she measures her love out generously to the prince as well.

Mel Gibson does not play the contemplative bits very well - he seems kind of in awe of the verse - but he's excellent in anguish, humor, anger, and charisma, and really makes the prince his own. He even makes us laugh in the best duel scene by far.

The biggest offence in the cutting is that so little of Horatio is left. Fortinbras is gone and unmissed; the other major parts are all excellently filled. This was the first Hamlet I saw, and whether from that natural advantage or their own merit, this Gertrude, Ophelia, and Polonius are the definitive standards for me. Claudius and Hamlet are great, but there's no definitive here. C'mon, Derek Jacobi played both roles! And Branagh's done Hamlet, though his mannered treatment is not as engrossing.