Criterion #82

Shakespeare has always been a troubling author for me. In my more stupid youth, I would read, barely comprehend and then proclaim so that every person knew how dumb i was "Shakespeare's not even good!" Very silly, I know. I soon realized the error of my ways, and though I have not read nearly all, I have read and enjoyed many of his works. Unfortunately I still don't hold some of his plays as high as others do. I love King Lear, even as it descends into barely comprehensible madness at the end, but Julius Caesar kind of bores me. Much Ado About Nothing makes me down right giddy, but A Midsummer Night's Dream tends to annoy me. But most importantly, while I believe Macbeth is truly one of history's greatest tragedies, Hamlet has never done much for me. I should also be quick to add that I know how important an influence this has on a great many works of art that have come since. Akira Kurosawa's semi adaptation, The Bad Sleep Well, is definitely one of my favorite films from the master. And Jesus, The Lion King has 29 credited writers listed on its IMDB page. Apparently they each only read one scene of Hamlet and made each character a lion. I fucking love The Lion King.

Criterion #82 is, of course, Laurence Olivier's 1948 adaptation of Hamlet. I (like the rest of the planet) consider Laurence Olivier to be one of cinema's greatest actors, and his work as the titular Danish prince really is spectacular. His melancholy is palpable, and his possible madness much more subtle than, say, Mel Gibson's future take on the role in the 1990s.

But it's not Olivier the actor I really care about here; it's Olivier the director. Every visual aspect of this film is so meticulously calculated and aesthetically moving. From the Escher-like, gigantic sets to the extremely hard (and sometimes unnerving) lighting. The frames are filled with glorious details, and the command over the constantly changing depth of field could be orchestrated by no less than a master. Their are great slow pans, a great many beautiful scene transitions. His shot angles work in a wonderfully harmonious manner. I also love the decision to internalize some of the monologues, proving that this stage-born actor really knew what translated into a great film. I believe Olivier deserved the directing Oscar he lost to John Huston that year. (Really, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger earned it for the magical The Red Shoes, but were not even nominated.)

Of course, even with all these compliments, I still don't love this film. Olivier seems to do everything right. All the characters are perfectly cast and acted. I loved Jean SImmons as Ophelia. I just cannot get into this story. Why couldn't Shakespeare have actually written it with lions in mind? Adaptations can work, but Olivier uses only Shakespeare's dialogue, and that's apparently what doesn't do it for me. (Just writing this, I feel like I should be shot by every other intelligent or well-read individual on the planet.) What's wrong with me?

Hamlet (1948): 7.9/10


I watched this on Netflix Instant, so obviously I had no special features to watch. This disc doesn't have any anyway. The picture quality was excellent. The film was a joy to look at.


The Plan:

I have the Criterion films set up in my queue so that I receive one from the early releases in the catalog, and then one from the more recently released end. I have them ordered like that until they meet in the middle, with future releases being tacked on at the end. This order is not set in stone. If I suddenly want to watch one low in my queue, I'll move it to the top. I also have gotten back in the habit of checking out films from my local library which are often Criterion releases. I'm using a checklist website to chart how many Criterion films I've seen in my slow pursuit to finally have them all under my belt. (I've seen 62% already)

Disclaimer:

I don't just love every film Criterion release. There have been a great many I've not cared for, and a few I've flat out loathed. I seek out the Criterion label because they put so much care and time into putting together these discs, and the unequaled quality really shows it. They also do a great job introducing American audiences to directors and films that have never been released on home video here, sometimes films that have never been released theatrically (Pedro Costa's trilogy, for example). How else could I find Akira Kurowsawa's pre-WWII films? or John Lurie's surrealist television program Fishing With John? Criterion releases films from foreign masters from a vast array of countries, films from the Golden Age of American Cinema, more challenging or barely released recent films, cult and camp classics from all over the time line, and even a couple of Michael Bay films. They show a love for all films.