| There
is Something Rotten in Almereyda's Hamlet
Written
by Tanya Marsh (http://www.the-buzz.com)
Cast:
Ethan Hawke (Hamlet), Kyle MacLaughlan (Claudius), Julia
Stiles (Ophelia), Liev Shreiber (Laertes), Diane Verona
(Gertrude)
|
Premise:
HAMLET is a contemporary adaptation of the classic
play set in New York City, circa 2000 -- a world
of laptops and limousines. The President of the
Denmark Corporation is dead, and already his wife
is remarried to the man suspected of the murder.
Nobody is more troubled than her son Hamlet (Ethan
Hawke). Now, after this hostile takeover, trust
is impossible, passion is on the rise and revenge
is in the air. |
Overall
Rating:
Rated R
for violence
"What
a piece of work is man," the depressed Prince of
Denmark muses. My thought exactly as I departed the
theatre following a screening of Michael Almereyda's
new adaptation of Hamlet, set in New York City in the
year 2000. Just four years ago we were treated to a
lush, invigorating complete Hamlet by the modern master
of Shakespearean cinema, Kenneth Branagh. What did Ethan
Hawke and company think could be added by cutting out
half of the play, moving the story across the Atlantic
and throwing in a few hip, young American actors? I'm
afraid the answer is that Hollywood thinks America is
too stupid and cynical for a traditional adaptation
of Shakespeare. No, we need rapid fire editing, jarring
camera angles and a greasy-haired Gen-Xer in the lead
before we will be coerced into sitting through what
is (in my humble opinion) the greatest play ever written
in the English language. God help us if the studios
are right and if Michael Almereyda's Hamlet is the future
of Shakespeare in American cinema.
I
may be slightly overreacting, but I am angry because
I believe that in their attempt to be ultra-modern,
they ripped the heart out of Hamlet. The most famous
soliloquy, Hamlet's "to be or not to be" consideration
of suicide, takes place in a Blockbuster. A BLOCKBUSTER.
In fact the words "to be or not to be" are
replayed by Ethan Hawke's ragtag Hamlet on a digital
video camera like an old outtake of Max Headroom.
The
play to catch the conscience of the king? We don't need
no stinking Player King in the millenial version of
Hamlet - our spoiled little prince will simply whip
up a home movie to compel his uncle's confession.
There
are several moments in the film where the difficulties
of adapting a play written in the early 1600s to Manhattan
in the year 2000 become apparent. In the sword fight
between Laertes and Hamlet, for instance, Hamlet is
supposed to be pricked with Laertes' poisoned sabre
and then Laertes is mistakenly cut and exposed to the
same poison. In the hip version, Hamlet and Laertes
begin with a fencing match, but after Gertrude abruptly
(and knowingly) drinks from the poisoned cup, Laertes
shoots Hamlet, somehow shoots himself and then Hamlet
shoots the king (who is actually not a king but the
President of the Denmark Corporation). The death scene
is written as a long affair as all involved die agonizing
deaths from all the poison and there are many wonderful
little speeches as they all die. In Branagh's full version,
the scene takes at least twenty minutes. I suppose they
decided that Americans don't have long enough attention
spans for the original, so the Michael Almereyda's version
kills all the main players in about five minutes.
I
must interrupt my diatribe for a moment to point out
the only redeeming quality in the entire movie was Liev
Schreiber's performance as Laertes. I thought Kyle MacLachlan
(he'll always be Agent Cooper to me) was fine and Sam
Shepard was an interesting choice for the ghost, but
Schreiber was clearly the most talented actor in the
entire bunch. I would like to see him in a competent
production of one of the Bard's works.
I
am not such a purist that I frown upon all adaptations
which take place in the modern day. I had the privilege
of seeing Ralph Fiennes perform as Hamlet on Broadway
in the mid-1990s in a version which took place in the
Victorian Era, with all dressed in long swooping black
coats. I traveled 1000 miles to see that play, and it
was well worth the effort. But the Broadway production
never allowed the setting to overshadow the language,
instead, it allowed the staging and the play to inform
one another and enrich the complete experience.
In
the same way, Baz Luhrmann's energetic adaptation of
Romeo + Juliet in 1996 with Claire Danes and Leonardo
Di Caprio was inspired because the change from early
modern Venice to post-modern Venice Beach added a layer
of complexity to the story which made it all the more
intriguing and entertaining.
If
only this new version of Hamlet had done the same. Instead,
the language is subservient to the setting and when
the great speeches are stripped away, we are left only
with a simple story of incest and murder, of suicide
and loyalty. A titillating story to be sure, one worthy
of at least two episodes of Jerry Springer, but not
a vehicle for better understanding the human spirit.
Goodnight
sweet prince. You deserved so much better.
Visit
Tanya's website at http://www.the-buzz.com
|
