I saw this production at the Round House in London, when Nicol Willianson (who destroyed his career by his undisciplined waywardness) was a hot property. The film of that production cuts Shakespeare's original by more than half, yet what survives IS 'Hamlet'. Williamson is a sardonic Prince, masochistically ready to condemn his irresolution, but his performance has a breathtaking urgency. Judy Parfitt's Gertrude and Mark Dignam's Polonius could hardly be bettered and Gordon Jackson's bespectacled Horatio is to my mind his best performance. Marianne Faithful is an endearingly vulnerable Ophelia, Michael Pennington an impassioned Laertes, and though far too young Anthony Hopkins has many fine moments as Claudius. Roger Livesey does a lovely double act as the First Player and Gravedigger, there never were a creepier Rosencrantz and Guidenstern than Ben Aris and Clive Graham and Peter Gale is a splendidly camp Osric. Tony Richardson races through the play with considerable intelligence and ingenuity. 'A hit - a palpable hit'!
28 Reviews
Not the best Hamlet, but it's still a very good one
TheLittleSongbird1 June 2014
While for my liking there were too many close-ups where it could have been much more expansive and the final scene being too underplayed with need of more tension- some of the small roles also don't really distinguish themselves and feel like window dressing- this is still a very good Hamlet. For me it's not definitive, the excellent Kenneth Branagh film is more ideal in terms of completeness. But personal favourite is Laurence Olivier's, also abridged but it's brilliantly written, astonishingly well made and Olivier in one of his finest performances. Wasn't completely crazy about Mel Gibson's version. Coming back to this Hamlet, while very minimalist and fairly sparsely set it is lit in a way that has shades of expressionism which did make the production somewhat striking. While cut down a lot, the story is still atmospheric- almost claustrophobic- and coherent though it would have made much more sense with the confessional scene being left in. The script is remarkably literate and what is left of the prose does have a Shakespearean vibe and the impact that the lines have isn't lost either. The soliloquies like in the Olivier version is both thoughtfully written and delivered and the comic banter between Hamlet and Polonius is inventively done. Tony Richardson's stage direction is very meticulous from the smallest detail to the largest with little hint of stodginess while keeping the pace deliberate. He manages to solve the potential issue with the ghost(something that people may not agree with), which when not done well could be hokey, using a bright light. Nicol Williamson's Hamlet might not be for all tastes, it is a booming and forthright performance that may cry out for more subtlety for some. That wasn't a problem for me, because Williamson was incredibly commanding in the role with Hamlet's madness genuinely intense and he also brings nuance and thoughtfulness, which couldn't be more apparent in the soliloquies(if there was anything that wasn't quite right personally it was that he does have a tendency to speak too quickly). Anthony Hopkins is too young for Claudius but is regal and genuinely gluttonous and his scheming is genuinely evil. Judy Parfitt is an elegant Gertrude and Marianne Faithful is beautiful and affecting as Orphelia. Roger Livesey is a real bright spot here in dual roles, and Rosencratz and Guildenstern have rarely been more chilling than in this version. All in all, a very good Hamlet and perhaps the most underrated one but personally not definitive. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox
Hamlet (Review)
eparis26 September 2022
Tony Richardson's film started as a stage production in London, and it still has much of the ambience of London's Roundhouse Theatre and the second half of the 1960s.
Nicol Williamson's Hamlet is edgy, frenetic, and sometimes downright peculiar. This is Hamlet as an angry young man, except that Williamson does not look at all that young in comparison to Anthony Hopkins as Claudius and Judy Parfitt as Gertrude. Williamson's unusual appearance, strange energy, and North country accent mark him as a rebel who means to bring down the establishment.
Hopkins and Parfitt as the morally, politically, and sexually corrupt Claudius and Gertrude provide a sufficiently wicked establishment to justify any amount of self-righteous rebellion.
Nicol Williamson's Hamlet is edgy, frenetic, and sometimes downright peculiar. This is Hamlet as an angry young man, except that Williamson does not look at all that young in comparison to Anthony Hopkins as Claudius and Judy Parfitt as Gertrude. Williamson's unusual appearance, strange energy, and North country accent mark him as a rebel who means to bring down the establishment.
Hopkins and Parfitt as the morally, politically, and sexually corrupt Claudius and Gertrude provide a sufficiently wicked establishment to justify any amount of self-righteous rebellion.
Breath-taking shifts and lighting reminiscent of Rembrandt
BozMan-212 December 1999
Yes, I'll concede that Kenneth Branaugh's uncut version of Shakespeare's text (never played on the Elizabethan stage, in all likelihood) is a benchmark for cinematic *Hamlet*s, but Williamson's performance (particularly his voice-over soliloquies) is still highly thought-provoking thirty years later. The film is like a moving Rembrandt painting (*The Night Watch* comes to mind) with its restless, shifting light and dissolves. It took great courage, for example, for Richardson not to show the Ghost, but rather to reveal him as a burning white light whose impact we feel by the responses of Horatio and the guards. Big budget and big screen it's not, but Richardson's direction has meticulously thought out many significant production details. This is definitely a cerebral *Hamlet* that gives the view
Thrift, thrift
feelinglistless30 March 2005
The opening moments in any production of Hamlet are critical because the audience, assuming they know the play fairly well, will already be asking the 'How are they going to do...' question. It's the ghost. Hamlet senior. What is he going to look like? In a film, it's an even bigger challenge, because some people watching might expect a special effect. The approach here is a shot of bright light across the young Dane's face and his voice echoing through the frame. The style of the film is already crystallised. It's not about the surroundings or set dressing. It's about the emotion of the piece, the words. In this key moment we are looking in his eyes as he hear's his fathers words, and that's a device used throughout the piece.
On first appearance, Nicol Williamson might seem a bit old for the part. Certainly, I've seen Claudius's who look younger. But that does a disservice to his performance, which commands every scene he appears in. His Hamlet is far from mad; he's using a bluff technique to search for the why's of his father's death and how he's reacting to it. Unusually. in the intimate moments, during the soliloquy's he's at his most vulnerable, as though he's unable to come to terms with these feelings, and only really comes to life when there a peers to relate to.
A very young looking Anthony Hopkins makes a compelling Claudius, who with his gluttony seems like a man who could do wrong. Equally Judy Parfitt passes the test of being attractive enough for a man to kill for even if her skin is worryingly grey. Although not at grey as Ophelia, played by Marianne Faithful who in some shots looks positively black and white, almost as though the trickery of the film 'Pleasantville' had been used. Which is a shame because it detracts from rather a good performance.
The production was filmed at The Roundhouse Theatre which explains that use of extreme close up and the complete lack of establishing shots. The lighting absolutely picks up the actors faces, making what settings there are perfunctory. It mustn't have been a very easy shoot -- most of the speeches and scenes are played out in one shots -- there is very little editing in places, which allows the text the breath. I've seen the play many times and it was a joy on this occasion to hear how much of our language found a basis here.
The main oddity this time are the supporting actors. This is the only Hamlet you'd expect to find Michael Elphick and Angelica Houston standing around in the background, along with Roger Lloyd-Pack popularly known as Trigger in 'Only Fools and Horses'. The latter is particularly distracting because his face is so familiar and he appears, not only as Ronaldo, but also as a player, one of Laertes friends and a miscellaneous bystander in the duel at the end. One man should not have that many different beards. Also worth noting is the approach to the credits at the end, which are spoken, in a style similar to Truffaut's 'Farenheit 451' over a shot of Hamlet.
On first appearance, Nicol Williamson might seem a bit old for the part. Certainly, I've seen Claudius's who look younger. But that does a disservice to his performance, which commands every scene he appears in. His Hamlet is far from mad; he's using a bluff technique to search for the why's of his father's death and how he's reacting to it. Unusually. in the intimate moments, during the soliloquy's he's at his most vulnerable, as though he's unable to come to terms with these feelings, and only really comes to life when there a peers to relate to.
A very young looking Anthony Hopkins makes a compelling Claudius, who with his gluttony seems like a man who could do wrong. Equally Judy Parfitt passes the test of being attractive enough for a man to kill for even if her skin is worryingly grey. Although not at grey as Ophelia, played by Marianne Faithful who in some shots looks positively black and white, almost as though the trickery of the film 'Pleasantville' had been used. Which is a shame because it detracts from rather a good performance.
The production was filmed at The Roundhouse Theatre which explains that use of extreme close up and the complete lack of establishing shots. The lighting absolutely picks up the actors faces, making what settings there are perfunctory. It mustn't have been a very easy shoot -- most of the speeches and scenes are played out in one shots -- there is very little editing in places, which allows the text the breath. I've seen the play many times and it was a joy on this occasion to hear how much of our language found a basis here.
The main oddity this time are the supporting actors. This is the only Hamlet you'd expect to find Michael Elphick and Angelica Houston standing around in the background, along with Roger Lloyd-Pack popularly known as Trigger in 'Only Fools and Horses'. The latter is particularly distracting because his face is so familiar and he appears, not only as Ronaldo, but also as a player, one of Laertes friends and a miscellaneous bystander in the duel at the end. One man should not have that many different beards. Also worth noting is the approach to the credits at the end, which are spoken, in a style similar to Truffaut's 'Farenheit 451' over a shot of Hamlet.
Something Rotten in Denmark
RodReels-230 June 2000
This is a passable re-telling of Shakespeare's great tragedy, but here's the rotten thing in Denmark. Not only does Nicol Williamson not fit the concept of a young Prince Hamlet. He actually looks a good many years older than both his mother and his stepfather (Judy Parfitt and a young Anthony Hopkins).
One fine actor
gypsycaine2 September 2001
I was switching channels one Saturday evening when my dial stopped--Nicol was on the screen, and there was no mistaking him. I didn't recognize the role at first, until he spoke a few words; then the play came to me like a flash. Hamlet. I stayed, and finished out the play as much as I could (I was suffering insomia and just channel-surfing to fall asleep by) before cursed sleep took over. (Sleep that knits the raveled sleep of care, oh, wait. That's another of his movies!)
In all seriousness, I was intrigued by his portray of the mad-Prince. The mood changes were all down perfectly--you could see the insanity truly right below the eyes. Now, either Nicol's a brillant actor (natch!) or he's a bit touched himself! Every little thing he did onscreen, ever muscle twitch in his facial expressions--you really believed that he was insane, and it was perfect. I had never seen any of the other Hamlet plays, just local-type ones by amateurs, and he blew my socks off.
I HIGHLY recommend this movie. Now, if you get a copy, you'd better tell me where--I've been looking for footage since that night! I even opened the TV-Guide, tore out the little paragraph that was in there about it, and stashed it so I could have all the particulars.
Never found a copy yet (video stores and libraries), but I haven't given up home.
Do check out this movie if you see it's coming on cable again--it's very worth the few hours!
:)
Dee
In all seriousness, I was intrigued by his portray of the mad-Prince. The mood changes were all down perfectly--you could see the insanity truly right below the eyes. Now, either Nicol's a brillant actor (natch!) or he's a bit touched himself! Every little thing he did onscreen, ever muscle twitch in his facial expressions--you really believed that he was insane, and it was perfect. I had never seen any of the other Hamlet plays, just local-type ones by amateurs, and he blew my socks off.
I HIGHLY recommend this movie. Now, if you get a copy, you'd better tell me where--I've been looking for footage since that night! I even opened the TV-Guide, tore out the little paragraph that was in there about it, and stashed it so I could have all the particulars.
Never found a copy yet (video stores and libraries), but I haven't given up home.
Do check out this movie if you see it's coming on cable again--it's very worth the few hours!
:)
Dee
Too little money
André-722 March 1999
Although shot on film with an excellent cast, this film bears too much resemblance to all those dreary 1980's BBC television versions of the Bard's plays. All are well acted and directed with professional British casts, but all lack the necessary budgets (and daring) to make the grade as great cinema. At best they are documents of each cast or director's vision of the material. Here we have Richardson shooting his cast in tight, tight close ups in a darkened studio for lack of sets and decor. It makes for claustrophobic watching. Give me a Polanski or a Zeffirelli any day of the week for cinematic chutzpah.
Review of Hamlet (1969)
davidfoley-455-97211023 August 2012
Portrayals of Hamlet always seem to provoke a personal response that stimulates vocabulary and reflection, without addressing the central dilemma of the tragedy; a reflection perhaps of the powerful influence of the central character who imposes his contemplative posturing on his reviewers as he does on stage and in film.
Widely regarded as the greatest play of the greatest writer in the English language, it is easy to understand why Hollywood stars turn to Hamlet for proof of their status as serious actors. Yet, to be a success in a film or television version requires so much more than the boyish good looks of a Richard Chamberlain (1970), the Max Max certainty of Mel Gibson (1990) or even the studied intensity of Laurence Olivier (1948).
In Nicol Williamson we find a temperamental, anti-establishment, questioning actor who is at his very best in Hamlet (1969). Perhaps he understood more than any other actor of the modern era why Hamlet says what he says, doesn't do what he doesn't do and finally does what he does.
No English play has produced so many commentaries or provoked so much analysis as Hamlet. Like the Mona Lisa's smile, there is an essential attraction in the enigma which defies casual analysis. As a child, it took me a long time to appreciate my father's gentle humour in passing the twin verdicts that "It wasn't written by Shakespeare but by someone else with the same name" and "Hamlet is alright, but it is full of quotes".
Nicol Williamson's genius is evident not only in the set-piece soliloquies that illustrate countless anthologies, but in the minor gestures and less-well-known asides that give such depth and perspective on Hamlet. Just as you might check a new dictionary to see if the definition of "rant" is superior to Dr Johnson's "high sounding language unsupported by dignity of thought" (1755), you might see a performance of Hamlet and note how the actor handles the intonation of "except my life, except my life, except my life". Not even the sweet steam radio voice of John Gielgud (1948) or the majestic splendour of Richard Burton (1964) can match the intoned pathos of Nicol Williamson.
Team GB's recent successes in achieving 7 of the 10 gold medals available for track cycling at the London 2012 Olympics have been ascribed to coach Dave Brailsford's obsession with successive minor improvements in what has become known as a "doctrine of marginal gains". When comparing Nicol Williamson's performance to his predecessors, we find that our Scottish-born actor from Birmingham demonstrates a marked marginal gain in almost every scene.
If Tony Richardson's direction is unduly restrictive in putting Nicol Williamson in sharp close up lying down in bed for most of the "To be or not to be" speech, he surely cannot be faulted further for bringing out fine performances from Gordon Jackson, Anthony Hopkins, Roger Liversy and Marianne Faithful.
The reviews expressed on this website vary from the "Absolutely Horrific" of 20 March 2000 from "Movie Fan from Tennessee" to "highly recommend this movie" of 2 September 2001 from "Denise from Ohio". Every viewer will have a personal response and quite rightly so; but for me, this is the best ever film version of Hamlet. It preserves the mystery, illustrates the history, vivifies the comedy and reveals magnificently the Tragedy of Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark.
Widely regarded as the greatest play of the greatest writer in the English language, it is easy to understand why Hollywood stars turn to Hamlet for proof of their status as serious actors. Yet, to be a success in a film or television version requires so much more than the boyish good looks of a Richard Chamberlain (1970), the Max Max certainty of Mel Gibson (1990) or even the studied intensity of Laurence Olivier (1948).
In Nicol Williamson we find a temperamental, anti-establishment, questioning actor who is at his very best in Hamlet (1969). Perhaps he understood more than any other actor of the modern era why Hamlet says what he says, doesn't do what he doesn't do and finally does what he does.
No English play has produced so many commentaries or provoked so much analysis as Hamlet. Like the Mona Lisa's smile, there is an essential attraction in the enigma which defies casual analysis. As a child, it took me a long time to appreciate my father's gentle humour in passing the twin verdicts that "It wasn't written by Shakespeare but by someone else with the same name" and "Hamlet is alright, but it is full of quotes".
Nicol Williamson's genius is evident not only in the set-piece soliloquies that illustrate countless anthologies, but in the minor gestures and less-well-known asides that give such depth and perspective on Hamlet. Just as you might check a new dictionary to see if the definition of "rant" is superior to Dr Johnson's "high sounding language unsupported by dignity of thought" (1755), you might see a performance of Hamlet and note how the actor handles the intonation of "except my life, except my life, except my life". Not even the sweet steam radio voice of John Gielgud (1948) or the majestic splendour of Richard Burton (1964) can match the intoned pathos of Nicol Williamson.
Team GB's recent successes in achieving 7 of the 10 gold medals available for track cycling at the London 2012 Olympics have been ascribed to coach Dave Brailsford's obsession with successive minor improvements in what has become known as a "doctrine of marginal gains". When comparing Nicol Williamson's performance to his predecessors, we find that our Scottish-born actor from Birmingham demonstrates a marked marginal gain in almost every scene.
If Tony Richardson's direction is unduly restrictive in putting Nicol Williamson in sharp close up lying down in bed for most of the "To be or not to be" speech, he surely cannot be faulted further for bringing out fine performances from Gordon Jackson, Anthony Hopkins, Roger Liversy and Marianne Faithful.
The reviews expressed on this website vary from the "Absolutely Horrific" of 20 March 2000 from "Movie Fan from Tennessee" to "highly recommend this movie" of 2 September 2001 from "Denise from Ohio". Every viewer will have a personal response and quite rightly so; but for me, this is the best ever film version of Hamlet. It preserves the mystery, illustrates the history, vivifies the comedy and reveals magnificently the Tragedy of Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark.
substance mostly without style
betsywetsy3 December 2003
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!
There are much better versions of Hamlet available
The-Sarkologist12 August 2012
I must admit that I wasn't really all that impressed with this version of Hamlet, though a gut feeling tells me that it is probably the version that most high school students watch, though these days there is probably a much wider collection. The main reason that I wasn't impressed was not so much that they left some things out of the play (such as the very important scene were Hamlet is in the confessional and hears Claudius spill his guts) but that the person playing Hamlet simply seemed too old. Granted, we are given no clues as to Hamlet's age in the play though he appears to be old enough to assume the throne.
Stoppard suggests that Hamlet's problem is that Claudius stole the throne that was rightfully his, but watching this version I noted that Claudius had accepted that the throne was going to be Hamlet's anyway. The issue is not so much that Claudius stole the throne, but that while his father's corpse was still warm, Claudius married his mother. He had no idea that Claudius had killed his father until he was told so by the ghost.
When one makes a movie out of one of Shakespeare's plays I generally do not accept the minimalist approach. While I do like the minimalist approach in the theatre, I have tried to watch the BBC productions and I just did not seem to warm to them. When they are made for the silver screen, there are so much more possibilities. This is clear with a number of American productions which work the play to make it more palpable to the big screen. It did not seem to be the case with this version of Hamlet. Granted, it was made in 1969, but so was the Richard Burton version of Taming of the Shrew, and this was a colourful extravaganza.
I will always prefer a stage acted Shakespearian play, but the screen does allow much more creativity (such as the version of Richard III set in 1930's England, or the Macbeth set in the Melbourne underworld). It did not seem that this film explored the possibilities that the screen allows all too much, and as such I feel that this movie simply falls flat.
Stoppard suggests that Hamlet's problem is that Claudius stole the throne that was rightfully his, but watching this version I noted that Claudius had accepted that the throne was going to be Hamlet's anyway. The issue is not so much that Claudius stole the throne, but that while his father's corpse was still warm, Claudius married his mother. He had no idea that Claudius had killed his father until he was told so by the ghost.
When one makes a movie out of one of Shakespeare's plays I generally do not accept the minimalist approach. While I do like the minimalist approach in the theatre, I have tried to watch the BBC productions and I just did not seem to warm to them. When they are made for the silver screen, there are so much more possibilities. This is clear with a number of American productions which work the play to make it more palpable to the big screen. It did not seem to be the case with this version of Hamlet. Granted, it was made in 1969, but so was the Richard Burton version of Taming of the Shrew, and this was a colourful extravaganza.
I will always prefer a stage acted Shakespearian play, but the screen does allow much more creativity (such as the version of Richard III set in 1930's England, or the Macbeth set in the Melbourne underworld). It did not seem that this film explored the possibilities that the screen allows all too much, and as such I feel that this movie simply falls flat.
Unique
chicontheman11 January 2004
Nicol Williamson is a unique actor. Maybe it's his choices or his level of commitment- but he seems to create a whole other world for whatever project he's working on. His may not be the definitive Hamlet (is there such a thing?) but it is certainly an involving interpretation. This version also features Anthony Hopkins... could you do better for Claudius?
Good but not the best
mgem120012 December 2022
Dialogue is fast but this helps keeps the pace moving. It does seem almost a bit rushed. As others have mentioned, due to the low production costs the film has almost all close and medium shots - almost as if it's meant to be seen on television rather than in a movie theater. One thing I found interesting were the very long takes. The actors are not stopped during scenes and stay all in view without cuts. The camera moves quite a bit to create energy so it does NOT feel like you're watched a fixed view of a stage or a filmed play. Hopkins is excellent of course considering he looks similar in age to Hamlet. Regardless, it's worth a view if you're curious.
Absolutely Horrific
Movie_Fan20 March 2000
I had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and unfortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no scenery shots and very little back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrible. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was gypped out of 114 minutes of my vacation. Not recommended by any stretch of the imagination.
An Excellent Condition!
Sylviastel7 December 2005
So far, the film version of Tony Richardson's adaptation has been more than satisfactory. This is a must for Shakespeare fans. Nicol Williamson who should have been knighted by now which bothers me more than anything else that he has not been quite rewarded is brilliant in his role as Hamlet. He even outshines Sir Anthony Hopkins C.B.E. who plays his uncle, Claudius. I know Nicol has some personal problems which makes him a very difficult actor to work aside but he is brilliant and talented actor. Maybe he has stayed away from acting rather than go insane or mad. The scenes where his Hamlet is going mad is better than Lord Laurence Olivier. You really believe it. Some people have preferred his Hamlet to other actors who have played the role in the past. I am sure Nicol Williamson deserves to be there somewhere in the top ten list of great Hamlets. Being an artist like an actor without going crazy, mad or insane is an amazing accomplishment. For Nicol, I think he was blessed and cursed with talent and yet with difficulty. I am not excusing his difficult behavior but he is one of the most talented actors and should be rewarded with knighthood like his peers who have taken on the role of Hamlet like Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Derek Jacobi, Sir John Gielgud, Lord Laurence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh (C.B.E. refused honor in 1996), and others. I hope people will also recognize Judy Parfitt as Queen Gertrude who is quite wonderful in the role. Marianne Faithful plays Ophelia but it is really Nicol's film and worth watching again.
intriguing
didi-525 July 2003
Tony Richardson's production, faithfully reconstructed from the stage version and filmed in situ at the Roundhouse, has some very odd casting: Nicol Williamson plays Hamlet, morose and black suited, spitting his lines at the screen like a malevolent spider; Anthony Hopkins (younger in real life) plays his stepfather and Royal usurper Claudius. Judy Parfitt (excellent) plays a seductive Gertrude, while Marianne Faithfull plays Ophelia (and actually does it quite well; I read she didn't have particularly good memories of the role but she comes closer to the character than a lot of the more accomplished actresses I've seen tackle it). Michael Pennington is wasted, really, as Laertes. Roger Livesey appears as Player King and is very good in one of his last film roles.
The play itself is shorn to minimalism, very short, very staccato. This works well for some of the scenes - the Ghost's appearance, for example; the scene with Hamlet and Ophelia when they are being observed; the 'words words words' bit; and Hamlet's visit to his mother's room before his dispatch to England. I'm not sure about the soliloquies to camera, or certainly whether they come across as well as they would have done in the theatre. But it is a fascinating record of an eccentric collection of performances.
The play itself is shorn to minimalism, very short, very staccato. This works well for some of the scenes - the Ghost's appearance, for example; the scene with Hamlet and Ophelia when they are being observed; the 'words words words' bit; and Hamlet's visit to his mother's room before his dispatch to England. I'm not sure about the soliloquies to camera, or certainly whether they come across as well as they would have done in the theatre. But it is a fascinating record of an eccentric collection of performances.
Watch this movie!
wryroy3 January 1999
This is an excellent version of the Bard's great tragedy, and it certainly deserves a lot more than 21 votes and one user review! I like this version more than the 1948 film starring Laurence Olivier, (which was a disappointment for me) but less than the 1996 "unabridged" version starring Kenneth Branagh. Being a Shakespeare buff, I have to like Branagh's excellent film more than this one because it contains the entire play. On the other hand, even though Branagh does a really good job of portraying the "Prince of Denmark" I do like Nichol Williamson's performance even more. I highly recommend this version to all fans of Shakespeare, Williamson, and great movies in general.
My Favorite Hamlet
MDDWhite14 December 2007
This Hamlet has always stuck with me as one of the most memorable because of Nicole Williamson's performance which is so different from any other I've seen. It really emphasizes Hamlet as an uncomfortable intellectual. I am surprised it doesn't get more attention. It has been decades since I have seen it last and I look forward to seeing it again.
As I recall the film came out after Nicole Williamson performed the role on Broadway. I remember Williamson racing through the lines (sometimes slowing a bit) in a feverish way concentrating on the meaning and avoiding any luxuriating in the sound of the language. He delivers the lines with nasal whine that sounded almost ugly. He seemed the most modern Hamlet I ever encountered. I just did a web search and I see that one or two comments that say this is a "bad" Hamlet, but I think those people are missing the point of the performance.
As I recall the film came out after Nicole Williamson performed the role on Broadway. I remember Williamson racing through the lines (sometimes slowing a bit) in a feverish way concentrating on the meaning and avoiding any luxuriating in the sound of the language. He delivers the lines with nasal whine that sounded almost ugly. He seemed the most modern Hamlet I ever encountered. I just did a web search and I see that one or two comments that say this is a "bad" Hamlet, but I think those people are missing the point of the performance.
Williamson a spoiler
tomcoolberth27 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Williamson's accent is tough to wade through. He speaks incredibly quickly, like he is in a rush to get through the lines. During the soliloquies he acts as if he is talking to someone, when he is supposed to be talking to himself. All that and his bald spot just annoyed me. He was just too old for this role. In reading other accounts of Williamson, maybe he got this role because he was mad and the director decided to do a bit of life-imitates-art or forced method acting. When the actors declare Hamlet mad you believe it! Marianne Faithful is a stunning beauty and could botch the role of Ophelia and still get a pass. The set is dark and foreboding but it does look as if shot in a real castle especially the scenes in the tunnels/corridors where the dead king shines as a great light in the sky.
Very fine
eyesour5 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
After revisiting Richardson's Charge of the Light Brigade a couple of days ago I put this on again. I found myself far more impressed than when I'd first watched it, two or three years ago. This was even though I'd always admired Nicol Williamson in whatever else I'd seen him in, such as The Bofors Gun, and Laughter in the Dark. Everything about this version now struck me as really excellent, especially the manner in which it had been shot, with the multiple facial close-ups. Shakespeare is words, not scenery. The backdrops only have to be suggested in a minimal manner. This allows the script to take over, as it should, and as Shakespeare wrote it. Words, words, words; the finest ever produced.
The ghost was imaginatively conceived. I formed the impression that its lines were actually spoken by Williamson himself, indicating that this apparition was largely a figment of his own thoughts and suspicions --- in spite of first being seen by the sentries. I may be mistaken in this casting.
Of course there are many anomalies in the play. It's never clear quite how long a time elapses between Old Hamlet's death and Gertrude's marriage to Claudius: Two months ? Ten days? Soon enough for the funeral food to be served up at the wedding? Similarly, Shakespeare never makes it clear exactly how old Hamlet really is. Complaints about the comparative ages of the actors playing Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude always seem to me quite irrelevant. The parts are being ACTED for heaven's sake. Shakespeare's stage had boys and men playing female parts; as well as white men playing black men. No actor is "really" a king, a prince, or a hero. It's a matter of the quality of the verse delivery, not the pursuit of some phony "realism". All art is fake, and total illusion anyway.
This production reveals much of the play's subtleties, especially the psychology of Hamlet's state of mind, in ways unlike Olivier's Hamlet, which I also admire. I've seen another production, set in modern New York, which I thought was a complete failure. Having compared Branagh's Henry V with Olivier's, I don't think I'll be bothering with the full-length Branagh Hamlet. Branagh did nothing for me as Henry, and performing the entire script end-to-end strikes me as quite pointless; I sincerely doubt that it was ever performed like that on the contemporary stage. The varied interpretations delivered by different directors means that the work is always fresh and renewable.
Watching this production by Richardson is a highly rewarding experience, and every part is played supremely well
The ghost was imaginatively conceived. I formed the impression that its lines were actually spoken by Williamson himself, indicating that this apparition was largely a figment of his own thoughts and suspicions --- in spite of first being seen by the sentries. I may be mistaken in this casting.
Of course there are many anomalies in the play. It's never clear quite how long a time elapses between Old Hamlet's death and Gertrude's marriage to Claudius: Two months ? Ten days? Soon enough for the funeral food to be served up at the wedding? Similarly, Shakespeare never makes it clear exactly how old Hamlet really is. Complaints about the comparative ages of the actors playing Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude always seem to me quite irrelevant. The parts are being ACTED for heaven's sake. Shakespeare's stage had boys and men playing female parts; as well as white men playing black men. No actor is "really" a king, a prince, or a hero. It's a matter of the quality of the verse delivery, not the pursuit of some phony "realism". All art is fake, and total illusion anyway.
This production reveals much of the play's subtleties, especially the psychology of Hamlet's state of mind, in ways unlike Olivier's Hamlet, which I also admire. I've seen another production, set in modern New York, which I thought was a complete failure. Having compared Branagh's Henry V with Olivier's, I don't think I'll be bothering with the full-length Branagh Hamlet. Branagh did nothing for me as Henry, and performing the entire script end-to-end strikes me as quite pointless; I sincerely doubt that it was ever performed like that on the contemporary stage. The varied interpretations delivered by different directors means that the work is always fresh and renewable.
Watching this production by Richardson is a highly rewarding experience, and every part is played supremely well
An..... Interesting Version of Hamlet
scxotty6 March 2005
As the front cover says "The hamlet of our time, for our time".
I had to study this filmed version of Hamlet directly after watching Keneth Branagh's version and it was truly a disappointing experience.
This version takes a different approach to several aspects of the play including sexuality; one very VERY homosexual Osric and an interesting interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. I think for the time (60's) this was a very well done version of Hamlet but cannot compare to Branagh's complete version.
just a note... I found the video at my local video store (in Australia) and I'm actually looking for a Keneth Branagh DVD to buy if such a thing even exists. If anyone knows of one please tell me.
I had to study this filmed version of Hamlet directly after watching Keneth Branagh's version and it was truly a disappointing experience.
This version takes a different approach to several aspects of the play including sexuality; one very VERY homosexual Osric and an interesting interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. I think for the time (60's) this was a very well done version of Hamlet but cannot compare to Branagh's complete version.
just a note... I found the video at my local video store (in Australia) and I'm actually looking for a Keneth Branagh DVD to buy if such a thing even exists. If anyone knows of one please tell me.
Williamson is the definitive Hamlet.
Cara-828 January 1999
For all its faults, this "Hamlet" has one thing above all the other versions: Nicol Williamson's amazing interpretation of Hamlet. He doesn't fit the image of young Prince Hamlet that we all have, but he'll win you over until you can't imagine anyone else in the role.
A HAMLET of the 60s, for the 60s
c532c10 January 2005
Released shortly after Zefferelli's ROMEO AND JULIET, this was advertised as "The Love Story of Hamlet and Ophelia." Well, HAMLET is about a lot of things, but it ain't about the love between Hamlet and Ophelia. More apt is the other tag line: A HAMLET of our time, for our time," because this HAMLET is very much rooted in the late 1960s counter-culture. The actors seem just about to make love in every scene, except for Williamson, who plays Hamlet like a pedantic grad student -- his first speech to Gertrude sounds like he's grading a freshman essay.
Despite this, and despite the fact that Williamson, though about the same age as Parfitt (Gertrude) and Hopkins (Claudius) looks older, there are some worthwhile readings here and there, a couple of good ideas, and I have never seen Rosecrantz and Guildenstern shown more obtrusively -- like obnoxious frat brothers at a wedding. For HAMLET completest, this is worth seeking out.
Despite this, and despite the fact that Williamson, though about the same age as Parfitt (Gertrude) and Hopkins (Claudius) looks older, there are some worthwhile readings here and there, a couple of good ideas, and I have never seen Rosecrantz and Guildenstern shown more obtrusively -- like obnoxious frat brothers at a wedding. For HAMLET completest, this is worth seeking out.
Surprising sexual innuendo
Dr_Coulardeau13 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A few things have been modified in the play, for example the concluding remarks by Fortinbras that have been dropped, or the fact that Osric is quite obviously a transvestite. But basically that does not change much in the content of the drama. A first crime, Claudius' incestuous killing of his own brother to seize his crown and his wife, makes it true that there is something rotten in this kingdom of Denmark. This disorder will have to be set back up properly in the traditional Skakespearian way. All protagonists will have to die. Claudius of course, but also Gertrude, the Queen, Polonius the King's counselor and the father of both Laertes and Ophelia. Then Ophelia, Laertes and Hamlet. And we mustn't forget Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Then and only then will Fortinbras be able to take over (though it is reduced to two allusions to him and his disembarking but not at the end of the play) and bring back some legitimacy, hence order in that disorder. We all know that plot by heart or nearly and we all enjoy the play in the play, the ghost, Yorick's skull, immortalized by Picasso, and so many scenes and situations. The distribution of flowers by Ophelia is one of these. Yet this film is different. I guess the editing of the DVD is closer to TV editing with a lot of close-up shots of faces. But what is the most original of this film is the sensual dimension added to it. Claudius and Gertrude in bed having some kind of breakfast with quite a lot of people around, Hamlet among them: an incestuous and adulterous situation that has to be a provocation for Hamlet both in his Oedipian frustration and the betrayal he will accuse his mother later on with. The long kiss of Laertes and Ophelia is more a kiss of lovers than sister and brother. The use of transvestites for the play in the play, which was normal under Shakespeare but may look bizarre today, even in 1969. But the transformation of Osric into one transvestite is more than surprising, since his business is not that of a woman, but definitely that of man, a courtier, a messenger of the King that reveals at the same time things he should not reveal, in other words a gossip but revealing a murderous plot against Hamlet, pointing out that this attitude is suspicious in many ways in feudal times and may reveal the homosexual dimension of Hamlet and the attitudes in that direction he may incite, voluntarily or not. That dimension of the play is quite obvious beyond the political approach of the action and the psychological characterization of the characters. But I find these added elements either not enough or too much. Too much if we stick to the text written by Shakespeare. Too little if we want to reveal the deeply erotic, Freudian and perverted situation created by the first murder. But is Hamlet a pornographic play? Some may think yes. Some may think no. But there is no in between in that field. Was Gertrude the prize of the crime or was she not? Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID
An underrated bizarre accurate hidden weird goofy oddity gem
srubinfilms6 June 2023
One of the best Shakespeare adaptions ever esp of Hamlet great casting costumes unique adaltion but in Shakespeare spirit no pretension à high achievement of impressive proportions appealing to more than most adaptions addicting makes ya proud to have done any Shakespeare 0r theatre not as hefty nor lofty as most but rather while impressively accurate also unique awhile ago but still modern yet ancient proof of whoever wrote it the entity of Shakespeare deserves its stil much longer to love and why demonstrated flesh love oh
Oh and overall Good timing fittingly to stumble into it one red rose.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
