To Enjoy, or Not To Enjoy

I am always excited to see new versions of Shakespeare movies, especially when they are done "with a twist," as the phrase goes. I enjoyed Romeo and Juliet for its MTV-style editing and its clever use of modern scenery for an old story (my favorite was the introduction of Rapier brand handguns, a clever way to get around the line, "Draw your rapier!") and Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet for its 18th century iconography and gorgeous scenery. The most recent version of Hamlet, starring Ethan Hawke as our depressed young prince, follows in the modernizing tradition, but fails on as many fronts as it succeeds.

The changes and twists of its adaptation were the first part about which I was ambiguous. The clever things include: the Denmark Corporation, complete with title of "CEO and King" for its leader; the Hotel Elsinore, where Hamlet stayed for much of the film; Hamlet's use of the limousine as an ambush for his uncle, only to be deterred; and finally, Hamlet's (a film student) production of his short film, "mouse trap" in lieu of the play. Each of the changes pulled surprised "ooh"s from my lips and made me glad to be seeing the film. However, several of the shifts to the modern did not work out nearly so well. Among them are: the entrapment of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, which was not explained very well at all (how could the CEO of a corporation order someone's head to be struck off?) and the final scene, which is quite difficult to construct without an actual sword fight.

The filmmakers of Hamlet seemed to have learned from Kenneth Branaugh's film that time necessitates cutting and some scenes are necessary to leave in, but again, their choices have left me ambivalent. For example, they have excluded one of the most famous scenes from the work, the gravedigger scene. Their choice for background in some of the scenes also left me undecided. For example, Ophelia's heartbreaking scene in the Guggenheim museum was fabulous, while the confrontation in the Laundromat and the anti-climactic "to be or not to be" speech at Blockbuster video were mild at best. Though these backgrounds themselves were interesting to see in the film, they didn't seem to add much to it.

Like the rest of the film, the acting was hit-and-miss. Though Hawke is one of Hollywood's more talented young actors, I would say his slacker-generation look and personality in this scene kept him from being a very sympathetic character. I did not see the madness in him, just the melancholy. A few of the supporting characters were priceless, on the other hand. I thought Bill Murray as Polonius was fabulous. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, my favorite characters in Hamlet (due mostly to Tom Stoppard), are brilliant and funny. Finally, Liev Shriber (sp?) put more hart into Laertes than I remember seeing in any other production.

In addition, Julia Stiles, who played Ophelia, did an outstanding job, wavering between her love for Hamlet and her duty to her father. This version, more than any other I've seen, has taken pains to show Ophelia's descent into madness, placing the blame squarely on Polonius' back. The placement of blame on Polonius is new for me - I'm used to seeing Hamlet as the one to blame for her madness. Nonetheless, the emphasis and strength of her character are welcome shifts from other versions of the film that I've seen.

I suppose this film has succeeded, on some level, in its introduction of ambivalence in me. After all, Hamlet is the epitome of ambivalence: love for his mother vs. love for his father, love for Ophelia vs. duty to his father, hatred for his uncle vs. his own cowardice to act on that hatred. Indeed, Hamlet is as undecided about what to do as I am about this film.