Hamlet

Rating:
Summary: Burton disappointing
Review: I had heard that Richard Burton offered the definitive Hamlet in this production. I was, however, disappointed.

I found Burton to be far too intense in the opening scenes. Here, Hamlet is supposed to be melancholic, but Burton shouts the words "seems, madam? Nay, it is" almost angrily, despite the dialogue's obvious suggestion of Hamlet's brooding mood. Perhaps this angry and overly intense interpretation is rooted in the intensity of the 60s, but overall, I found it to be flawed and ignorant of Hamlet's character. The rest of Burton's performance is equally abrasive.

Furthermore, I found the performances of the rest of the cast to be generally uninspired and unengaging.

There are, however, some exceptional elements to the production. Gielgud's stage direction and his treatment of the ghost come to mind, but, despite this, I cannot recommend this production because of Burton's performance.

Rating:
Summary: This `Hamlet' IS Hamlet
Review: I have seen every filmed version of `Hamlet' there is and untold stage perfomances and never - never - have I been so thoroughly convinced of the reality of the drama as I am with this version. Taped during a live stage performance in `64, directed by Gielgud (who first interpreted the role realistically), this film offers brilliant work by Hume Cronyn, Alfred Drake and Linda Marsh - but most of all by Richard Burton who delivers the lines as though they are being spoken for the first time. The entire production has that same quality though - it's the first `Hamlet' I've ever seen where I genuinely felt sorry when Polonius is killed and where I've laughed at the `fishmonger' scene. In black & white, it is certainly not as `showy' as some other filmed versions - but I don't believe there is one better.

Rating:
Summary: Stale, flat, and unprofitable
Review: I thought this was a very poor Hamlet. Polonious was the best performance in it. Claudius was passable. Gertrude was dreadfully dull. The staging was utterly unimaginative. Up front, I do not like Burton in much of anything, except for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe. I think he's an egotistical, self-serving actor, and this performance is a prime example of that. His performance all facade and showy vocals, with no heart whatsoever. He's only minimally aware of the other actors performing with him. I even perfer Mel Gibson's honest if failed attempt to this showboating. The best Hamlets I've seen are Kevin Kline's uneven but brilliant performance and the classic Olivier. Buy one of those.

Rating:
Summary: I enjoyed this adaptation
Review: I was a freshman in high school in 1964. The English Department purchased a bunch of tickets and we all went to see this. As it happened, the freshman class was studying Hamlet at the time.
I have not seen the video, but I thoroughly enjoyed the original performance. It was just as the video reviews say - dark lighting, few closeups, etc. As I recall, there were only a couple of cameras positioned in or near the first row, so it we saw it as if we were in the audience. Quite different than anything else I have ever experienced. I also seem to recall that what we saw was live and without an audience. Richard Burton was a great Hamlet.

Rating:
Summary: A boring rendition
Review: I was terribly disappointed with this. I just can't sit through the entire piece!!

Rating:
Summary: Performace ***** Technical Presentation *
Review: I was very excited when this release was announced. It is a fine performance though curious with a Welsh Hamlet against a backdrop of American supporting actors. It is much more complete than either Olivier or Gibson. A fascinating historical document of a Broadway event.

The video and sound, alas, are very disappointing. The interview hypes "Electronovision" as some new technology for presenting Broadway to the masses, but it looks and sounds more like an old kinescope. Don't know what Evision was supposed to do for it. There was a Columbia (CBS, Sony) stereo audio recording (nla) made at the time...had it been of this specific performance (which it wasn't) then they might have synced it to greatly improve the sound.

Meanwhile we must be satisfied to have a flawed (B&W) shadow of a marvelous night at the theater.

Rating:
Summary: A Lost Masterpiece that Should Have Stayed Lost
Review: My parents saw Burton in Hamlet on Broadway in '64, from which this original taping derives, and I was excited to see that this was available. But no amount of appreciation of Richard Bruton's incredible acting or Sir John Gielgud's perfect directing can salvage this DVD. I have a large collection of early cinema on DVD (and am used to blotchy film & lousy sound) but the quality of this is so poor as to make enjoyment impossible. Forget any nonsense you have heard about "theater in the raw" or "Hamlet stripped to the bare bones". This is unwatchable as the picture is so bad. The best you can do with this is turn the screen off & just listen to the dialogue. It will give you an inkling of the brilliance of Burton "live". For a great DVD version of Hamlet, look for the BBC Shakespeare Hamlet series with Sir Derek Jacobi as Hamlet. Expensive but worth the money.

Rating:
Summary: A Lost Masterpiece that Should Have Stayed Lost
Review: My parents saw Burton in Hamlet on Broadway in '64, from which this original taping derives, and I was excited to see that this was available. But no amount of appreciation of Richard Bruton's incredible acting or Sir John Gielgud's perfect directing can salvage this DVD. I have a large collection of early cinema on DVD (and am used to blotchy film & lousy sound) but the quality of this is so poor as to make enjoyment impossible. Forget any nonsense you have heard about "theater in the raw" or "Hamlet stripped to the bare bones". This is unwatchable as the picture is so bad. The best you can do with this is turn the screen off & just listen to the dialogue. It will give you an inkling of the brilliance of Burton "live". For a great DVD version of Hamlet, look for the BBC Shakespeare Hamlet series with Sir Derek Jacobi as Hamlet. Expensive but worth the money.

Rating:
Summary: Low Tech, High Value
Review: On one hand, this disc could be viewed as suffering from a number of problems: it's visually limited to the point of almost not being a movie, the sound is over-reverberant, making he ghost in particular, difficult to understand. At the same time, like Mitropoulos' Mahler Third, the virtues of the performance supercede all other considerations, and and this is the one 'Hamlet' that has come to be 'HAMLET' for me. Burton practically sings the role, as well as endowing it with an energetic, and at times tortured, physicality. The supporting cast is up to his level all the way. The modern dress minimalist staging starkly puts the primal drama where it belongs, out front. And the liveness feeds the whole proceding with an energy unknown in other filmed versions. And back to the ghost, the fact that we never see him, but only his larger-than-life shadow, and that his disembodied voice comes from nowhere and everywhere, makes his presence eerily pre-eminent. The performance is uncut, and riveting for every one of the 191 minutes. Burton is the prince of Hamlets!

Rating:
Summary: Time Capsule
Review: This is a trip back in time to an extraordinary set of performances. Burton is fascinating, but I particularly enjoyed the Polonius of Hume Cronyn. Somewhat of a curiousity is the Laertes of John Collum, 8 years before he co-starred in 1776. The production was shot over two days, during actual performances, back in 1964. The video quality shows why this did not become a standard practice (uneven lighting and sound). Nonetheless this is nothing less than a step back to a Broadway dramatic event of 1964, perhaps the premier dramatic event of that year in New York.