Rating: 
Summary: Looking to Buy Hamlet (With Sir Lawrence Olivier)
Review: Can you find me a copy please ? I live in Edmonton,Alberta,Canada. Thank-you Jimi seadoo4499@hotmail.com please reply !!!...
Rating:
Summary: A searching essay on one of the world's greatest plays
Review: Sir Laurence originally entitled this masterpiece "An Essay on Hamlet" to emphasize his intent to deeply explore only certain psychological and Freudian aspects of a work of endless complexity and mystery. Thus liberated, he could look unblinkingly at successive levels of the mind for which the stairways and halls of Elsinore castle become metaphors... touch the phallic symbolism of its furniture...rouse the Oedipal with the mother Queen...and also be free to unabashedly borrow the stunning funeral-on-the-battlements from an earlier Russian production. This was one of a very few theater experiences in my memory after which the audience was speechless. [Be prepared that not all of this can translate to the small screen. Its cinematography was intended to fully exploit a much larger projection.] Following his London and New York stage triumphs --which transformed classical and Shakespearean dialogue by their energy and realism--Olivier gave us here a ground-breaking and unforgettable document. More recent versions have only learned to compete with this one.
Rating:
Summary: A Searching Essay on Perhaps the World's Greatest Play
Review: Sir Laurence originally titled this masterpiece--a second film paean to the Bard of English language after his miraculous HENRY V--"An Essay on Hamlet" to emphasize that he intended to deeply explore only certain aspects of a work of endless complexity and mystery...in this case the psychological and specifically Freudian. Thus liberated, he could look unblinkingly at successive levels of the psyche for which the castle stairways and spaces of Elsinore became metaphors...touch the phallic symbolism of its furniture...rouse the Oedipal with the mother Queen...and also be free to unabashedly borrow the stunning funeral on the battlements from an earlier Russian production. This was the first of a very few theatre experiences in my memory after which the audience was almost unable to speak. [Be prepared that not all of this can translate to the small screen. Its cinematography was intended to fully exploit a much larger space.] Following his London and New York stage triumphs which transformed classical and Shakespearean dialogue by their energy and realism, Olivier gave us here a ground-breaking and unforgettable document. More recent productions have only learned to compete with this one.
Rating:
Summary: The definitive film -- a Masterpiece!
Review: If the only thing Sir Lawrence Oliver did in his film career was to produce and star in this film -- that alone would guarantee his immortality. I am certain more people have learned Hamlet by viewing this film, than ever read a single line of the play. With all the recent success of Shakespeare on film the timing is right for a re-release. I still prefer this to the more recent efforts by Zepherelli and Branaugh.
Rating:
Summary: A classic masterpiece
Review: This production is perhaps the greatest Hamlet every filmed. Far superior to most modern versions, this ultra-dark tale of revenge simply ripples with barely-restrained passion. Olivier is brilliant as both actor and director, and although half the play has been cut out, this is still a magnificent version.
Rating:
Summary: Essay, Laurence Olivier's Hamlet in comparison to BBC Versio
Review: 11th Grade English Essay
Phillips Academy, Andover
Grade Received: A-
Many critics have viewed the Lawrence Olivier version of Hamlet to be the best among the 43 film adaptations of Hamlet. The film won four Academy Awards, and Lawrence Olivier amazingly gained two Academy Awards for both directing and acting. The Jacobi Hamlet, on the other hand, was a BBC TV film put together in a short time with a small budget during the late 70s. (As a side note, Jacobi was actually introduced into Shakespearean acting by Olivier.) Despite this difference in prestige, the films presented two equally valid interpretations of Hamlet. The central issue was if Hamlet was mad, and through manipulations of voices and the degree and timing of Hamlet's violent actions, the audience was faced with two emotionally upset Hamlets, one who had more madness and the other who had more control.
Both Hamlets were emotional in their voices and had bursts of anger, but Olivier was more rational and controlled in his voice then Jacobi, who seemed truly mad. At first, Olivier's voice was calm and determined. There were deep thoughts behind everything that he was saying, and one could sense love in those tender sounds. His voice gradually became more menacing during the "honesty" speech, but it was still well paced and contrived. After the line "get thee to a nunnery ", the voice intensified, yet it was more suggestive than contemptuous. One could at the same time sense a growing tone of disappointment. After questioning the whereabouts of Ophelia's father, Olivier suddenly flooded out a stream loud, angry and disdainful words against Ophelia's virginity and women in general. It might be that Olivier noticed the presence of the King and Polonius, and increased his voice only to trick them. The emotions, however, were deep and real. The scene ended with Hamlet uttering "to a nunnery go" close to Ophelia in a soft and tender manner, and this brought Hamlet back to his previous rational state.
Jacobi's voice was drastically different than Olivier's. Instead of moving gradually from calmness to anger, Jacobi was dramatic throughout. In his utterance, there was from the very beginning a deep sense of yearning, despair and mockery combined with a viciousness that made a lion quiet. At the beginning, he mocked Ophelia's returning of his scarf in a drunken ignorance. Then his voice became a most dark and menacing whisper as he got closer to Ophelia. That same voice grew angrier and louder as he started looking for the King and Polonius. He wanted the King to hear what he was saying in an act of defiance. After questioning the whereabouts of Ophelia's father, this crazy man screamed far and close to her, and the voice reached a climax in speed and freakiness. At this climax, Jacobi's voice suddenly surprisingly melted into a stream of greater sorrow as he cried against Ophelia. Then as if depleted of his emotions, he walked away without much energy left in his voice. A person's mind is only as clear as his words. Jacobi's voice was the most sorrowful and sad, and their extremity made one wonder if he had lost control over himself. In comparison, though Olivier had his burst also, one saw much more elegance and control in him overall.
The two Hamlets were both violent in their actions, but Olivier acted violently with much less regularity and degree in comparison to Jacobi, whose actions were a combination of sexual harassment, pure hitting, and deep love. In Olivier, Hamlet first pushed Ophelia's book down in a pretty forceful manner. As their eyes met at that instant, Ophelia confusion about what to do seemed obvious. In this first encounter, one could sense that even if their love was a broken one, there were still remnants of passion that either could ignore. There was an overall ease. Olivier stood straight and walked fashionably, and despite tensions, there was politeness in the air. Ophelia tried to not look at Olivier, but Olivier walked from her side to side, encroaching closer and closer with a determined calmness combined with a growing menace. Then, after asking where her Dad was, and looking around alarmingly, Olivier suddenly started to strut wildly about the room. Without warnings, he jumped up the stairs, and pushed Ophelia down so hard that she fell unto the ground crying. This time, contrary to before, there was not a bit of love and care in Olivier's eyes. At the end, he kissed her scarf in a loving fashion. This left the audience wondering if he was faking the violence before. Olivier was certainly suffering. Ophelia might have ignited two opposite emotions for him. He loved Ophelia, but at the same time hated woman in general. This confusion contributed to his change in behaviors.
If Olivier's actions were mercurial, Jacobi's actions made one feel as if he had 5 minds fighting against each other at once. His face was not calm like Olivier's; it squinted and sneered most unpleasantly throughout. Near the beginning, he bonded that gift scarf to Ophelia's neck, and than tried to grab her groin. Ophelia looked horrified, and her sufferance was conspicuous through her bewildered and tearful eyes. His actions were so vehement that it would not seem strange for him to pull out a knife at any instance. After asking the whereabouts of Ophelia's father, he went into an even higher level of frenzy. This man rushed toward Ophelia, pushed her down, and accused her of the foulest things, but just as the audience expected more violence, he strangely hugged her tightly with the most ardent passion. With that hug, one could not doubt that he loved her, but then why was he so violent to her before? The only conclusion is that he was suffering under such a heavy burden of revenge, and was so disappointed at his incapability at taking any actions, that he really was becoming crazy.
These two movies interpreted the tones and actions of the Hamlet differently. The king and Polonius were looking for signs of Hamlet's craziness, and they would have collected totally different evidence from the two. The Olivier Hamlet was a struggling prince with a fairly confused mind, but he was mostly in control of himself. Even when he became wild, there was more melancholy than madness in his anger. On the other hand, the Jacobi Hamlet really freaked one out. This Hamlet was certainly in deep pain, but his often too visible sorrow and violence left the audience feeling more horrified than sympathetic. The original title of the Olivier's Oscar winning Hamlet was "An essay on Hamlet", because he directed the movie to show his personal estimations and interpretations of Hamlet. Jacobi himself summed the disparities between Hamlets in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor in 1980, he said,
Really, it is the personality of the actor playing the role which is the determining factor. You don't actually have to play the character, you play the situation in which Hamlet finds himself and your own personality, your own outlook takes over. That's why the part is played differently by so many different actors, all doing perfectly valid interpretations. Hamlet is a universal man, he is all of us.
One can prefer one Hamlet to the other, but no Hamlet is better than another. Shakespeare certainly had his own thoughts about who Hamlet really was, but he also left the question to us, so that we could see which Hamlet we truly are.
Rating:
Summary: The DEFINITIVE Film Version Of A Classic Tragedy
Review: Sir Laurence Olivier won Oscars for Best Picture (he also edited the text [though he wasn't credited with it], produced and directed the film) and Best Actor for this movie, which I think was well deserved. Jean Simmons was PERFECTLY cast as Ophelia (she was nominated for Best Actress). Basil Sydney, Eileen Herile and the rest of the cast were no slouches either. They gave excellent, believable performances, notably Anthony Quayle as Marcellus. The film, though, gave much more attention to Hamlet himself. Olivier cut several characters (most notably Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who end up dead at the end of the play, anyway) and a bunch of lines from the film (most notably "O, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown," "O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I", "What a piece of work is man", "There is a method to my madness" and "How all occasions do inform against me"), which is understandable, as the film would drag on too long (for some viewers) if he'd used EVERY SINGLE line. Kenneth Branagh did a SPECTACULAR job of that in his 1996, 3 hour, star-studded adaptation. GREAT movie. Olivier's "Hamlet" remains the definitive version of William Shakespeare's timeless tale of murder and revenge. A haunting score by William Walton and flawless camera work by Desmond Dickenson(which has the camera focusing on nothing for a while "Before finding the pitiful human characters and fixing them with an eerily detached gaze, as if we were watching this classic melodrama unfold before our eyes through the unrepentant eyes of God"; see the collectible booklet) make this version of William Shakespeare's immortal tragedy "Of a man who could not make up his mind" the more compelling to watch. Watch this one BEFORE you see Mr. Branagh's version or Franco Zefferelli's production starring Mel Gibson (director, co-screenwriter and producer of "The Passion Of The Christ" and "Braveheart" [Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director, 1995]). In his day, Olivier and Shaskespeare were synonymous with each other. This version proves it VERY WELL. However, I STRONGLY recommend that you READ THE PLAY BEFORE SEEING ANY movie version of "Hamlet." Otherwise, you won't understand what the hell's going on. This version is Not Rated.
Rating:
Summary: Exemplary portrayal of Shakespearal tragedy
Review: I have watched three versions of Hamlet, none of them have the class depicted in Olivier's depiction. While Branagh's is a darker one, his does not come through as crisply. The interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia are much better in this version. While some of the important monologues are missed, and Olivier is older than the person who plays his mother, it still shines beautifully. The soliloquies are very well done as are the parts with Opelia.
While the story is well known, I do not agree with some of the other reviewers that the surrounding cast is not good. Jean Simmons plays a very good Ophelia. It also has Anthony Quayle and others like Ophelia's father who do a good job. The part that tears the viewers are the interactions between the former lovers. Hamlet saying to Ophelia:
"Get thee to a nunnery. Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?" I cannot think of a single actor now that can say it in the two tones that he uses, one accusing and the other pleading. Though the movie is outstanding, Criterion does not have any special features. They have unfortunately not matured from a laserdisc producing company to a DVD manufacturing one. Despite this, this movie is worth it. I disagree with the other reviewers that the Kenneth Branagh one is better, his version is not quite as well done as this one is.
Rating:
Summary: Who's there?
Review: Hamlet : one of the most complex dramas of William Shakespeare . Laurence Olivier won the Academy Award for this play giving a towering role .
Hamlet is a real challenge for any actor . His character and moods are of a wide range and in his disturbed mind , he knows , he's clear about what has to be done , but in this inner conflict he has too many obstacles , he lacks of force , he is convinced about the blame of his uncle and his mother but his introspective mood and his infinite sadness for your father's death was a simply murder made with all the greed , ambition and merciless . Since his uncle was the murderer agent , he got two objectives , to marry with his brother in law and to assume the power .
Hamlet thinks but in the first three acts he doesn ' t act . And his inner thoughts have become in an authentical object of continue analysis for all we love Shakespeare works .
The revenge in Shakespeare is born from an organical need , the greek catharsis in his purest expression.
And to translate this spirit in a film was not easy . However Olivier made it .
Don't ever doubt just a second to acquire this film .
Rating:
Summary: Olivier is fantastic!
Review: A film by Laurence OlivierThe word "masterpiece" is thrown around far too often these days, but for years I have heard that this version of "Hamlet" is Olivier's masterpiece. Recently I had the opportunity to see this masterpiece and for the first time I saw Olivier at work. I was impressed with what I saw. To the modern ear, Shakespearean language can sound awkward and archaic, but with Olivier, much of the dialogue sounded like easy conversation. I once heard "Hamlet" described as the most structurally perfect play, that every action stems directly from something else in the play and that every action happened in that particular way because it had to, that there was no other way for the actions to work out. I am not enough of a Shakespeare scholar to be able to really speak to this, but I do know that when done well, "Hamlet" is a fascinating play, and a fascinating film. Olivier succeeded at doing this play well. The story is one that is well known. Hamlet (Laurence Olivier) is a prince of Denmark. His father had died a month prior, and Queen Gertrude (Eileen Herlie) married the dead king's brother, Claudius (Basil Sydney). Hamlet has been brooding, unable to accept either his father's death or his mother's rather quick remarriage. This continues until Hamlet sees the ghost of his father, who tells him that he was murdered, and that the murderer is now sitting on the throne of Denmark. As a character said early in the film, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Hamlet must avenge his father, but in such a way that he can get away with it. As he begins to plot, he pretends to be mad (crazy), so that his excesses can be excused away. So begins the story. This is an impressive movie, from the acting to the set design. The castle has a dark, gloomy atmosphere and it feels (and looks) real rather than looking hokey (the movie is more than 50 years old, after all). I was most impressed with Olivier, and rather less so with Jean Simmons, as Ophelia. The character (and her motivations) just didn't feel real to me this time. Excellent movie and highly recommended for classic film buffs.
|
