One can see why 'Hamlet' is one of Shakespeare's best known and acclaimed plays with such memorable characters, some of the most deservedly famous in all literature, and text often quoted and referenced. It is long and not easy to perform at all (namely physchologically), but the characterisation, language and complex emotions and psychology have always riveted me and it has always been one of my favourites from Shakespeare.
While a pretty good production of 'Hamlet', this Stratford production was a little disappointing by their usual standards. Other filmed Shakespeare productions of theirs are a lot more appealing and cohesive visually, took more risks and had more depth. There are a lot of things done right, primarily a vast majority of the performances and the atmosphere. Just wish that the quality was more consistent, have actually noticed that a few of their best productions have been of the lesser known plays.
Am going to start with the good. Jonathan Goad is mostly very impressive as Hamlet, energetic and intense and he shows convincing enough growth as a character. He has very poignant chemistry with Adrienne Gould's moving and never passive Orphelia. Geraint Wyn Davis is an authoritative and sinister Claudius and Tom Rooney is a darkly complex and darkly funny Polonious. Tim Campbell's Horatio is suitably thoughtful. Not to mention the blistering fire that Mike Shara gives to Laertes. The acting in fact is the best thing.
Did find myself very impressed by the character interaction and chemistry, which had its fair share of tension, wit and emotion. There is some nice atmosphere in the foreboding lighting and the intimate filming, as well as the eerie use of sound. Shakespeare's dialogue shines brilliantly and comes to life in any scene where two or more characters are interacting together. Particularly good is the chemistries between Hamlet and Orphelia (where it is clear that they are in love) and between Claudius and Gertrude.
Having said that, there are things that could have been better. Was not crazy about the production values this time, the sets are too sparse and the costumes are a stylistic and period mishmash. There are Shakespeare plays that do lend themselves to different settings, dependent on the themes namely, 'Coriolanus' for example works modernised as it is still a thematic and politically relevant play. There are some where the settings are very specific and where anything different would jar too much with the text and character writing. 'As You Like It' is an example of this, and it tends to be the case with 'Hamlet', especially when the time and place is not discernible (at least the David Tennant version's setting was clear).
While the ensemble scenes are excellent on the whole, the production can lose momentum in the sollilloquies. Was disappointed in the famous "to be or not to be" speech, which didn't come over as melancholic enough and it would have helped if Goad deepened his interpretation earlier to make the lead up feel less sudden. While all the staging is well detailed and tasteful, there is not much here that feels original and it's a bit safe perhaps too. Seana McKenna's performance as Gertrude is uncharacteristically uneven, she's great with Davis and is suitably scheming but seemed bewildered in the aftermath of the Hamlet and Gertrude confrontation, didn't buy how quickly she goes from truly impassioned in guilt to like that big event had never happened.
Overall, a lot to admire but a little disappointing. 7/10.
