Hamlet (1964) dir. Grigori Kozintsev

This film is supposed to be a 'cinematic masterpiece', so I thought I would look into it, and really, I was disappointed. The first thing I noticed is how incredibly similar it is to the 1948 Olivier production, down to the replication of certain shots (such as Laertes telling Hamlet of Claudius's guilt, and the camera panning out at a strange angle to have a screwed, disorienting shot). It also follows Olivier in turning soliloquies into voice-overs, which looks pretty cliche today. It's a very gloomy Hamlet (again like the Olivier production), the stereotypical wandering-around-galleries-in-black-tights Hamlet. Seeing productions like these really makes me appreciate the life and humour that Brennagh's production brought back into the character and story in the 1995 production. The delivery is depressed and restrained to the point where Hamlet constantly seems not 'antic' and manic, but rude and very unlikable. When Claudius says that 'the people' like Hamlet, I couldn't help laughing because I would far prefer the evil Claudius to this version of Hamlet. At least he smiles. The production also cuts a huge amount of material, but instead of cutting scenes it cuts lines, so that it feels like Hamlet on fast-forward. Unless one is familiar with the play, it is very hard to understand Hamlet's motivations (they seem to be exclusively passive grief), since the revenge motif is maximally suppressed. This might be because revenge tragedy doesn't have the literary heritage in Russia that it does in England, so was judged to be too distant for Russian audiences. Presumably because Olivier was heavily criticised for dispensing with Rosencratz and Guildenstern, this production brings them back, but doesn't allow their interactions with Hamlet enough room. I also really disliked the translation, even though it is by Boris Pasternak. Perhaps because of censorship, almost all the bawdy humour is taken out, which is a huge shame, and also in such a way that the lines make little sense. For instance, when Hamlet says, 'there's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs', Pasternak translates it as 'it's a fair thought to lie at a maid's feet' which makes little sense, except that instead of putting his head in Ophelia's lap, Hamlet is sort of just lounging at her feet. I lot of the cinematic choices (camera work, location shots, closeups, staging) might have looked really original in 1964, but have really lost their power to interest over time, but I really didn't see much there that I hadn't seen in Orson Welles. And really, Hamlet not in English just doesn't work out.