Unraveling the Artistry in Sean Mathias’s Hamlet Film with Ian McKellen
2b v ~ 2b
Imagine Sir Ian McKellen, an icon of the stage and screen, diving back into the turbulent waters of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. This isn’t just any adaptation; we’re talking about a cinematic spin on Sean Mathias’s groundbreaking 2021 production, where age is just a number, and McKellen’s Hamlet shatters expectations. This Hamlet film is a feast for the senses and a triumph of storytelling.
Now, I’m not just whistling Dixie here; as someone deeply entrenched in Shakespeare’s rich tapestry and perpetually on the edge of my seat for fresh adaptations, the buzz around this particular version of Hamlet has me all kinds of excited. With IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes ready to chart its journey, and echoes of David Tennant to Helena Bonham Carter reminding us of Hamlet’s storied cinematic past, Sir Ian’s version is primed to stand tall amidst the ghosts of Kenneth Branagh and the tragic echoes of Ophelia. This film isn’t just a recount of Denmark’s doomed prince; it’s a beacon for Shakespeare enthusiasts and cinema buffs alike.
Overview of the Film
Diving headfirst into the heart of this cinematic marvel, “Hamlet” with Ian McKellen at the helm, is like stepping into a Shakespearean whirlwind spun into the modern age. Directed by the visionary Sean Mathias, this film plants its roots in the historic Theatre Royal Windsor, UK, transforming every corner of this iconic space into the brooding world of Elsinore. The cast, oh, the cast! It’s a lineup that reads like a who’s who of the acting world – from Jonathan Hyde’s (Claudius) gravitas to Jenny Seagrove’s (Gertrude) elegance, and let’s not forget the powerhouse that is Alis Wyn Davies (Ophelia). This ensemble, including Ben Allen (Horatio), Ashley D Gayle (basically everyone not named already) and Emmanuella Cole (Laertes), navigates Shakespeare’s complex language with a finesse that’s downright enviable.
This isn’t just any adaptation; we’re talking about a cinematic spin on Sean Mathias’s groundbreaking 2021 production, where age is just a number. McKellen’s Hamlet shatters expectations. Jim Phoenix
Picture, if you will: the world’s been hit with the stillness of the 2020 COVID-19 shutdown, and amidst this, “Hamlet” emerges as a beacon of artistic resilience. It’s not just any adaptation; it’s a modern-dress treatment that speaks to the here and now, pared down to a gripping two hours. The production breathes life into the Theatre Royal Windsor, turning its abandoned nooks and crannies into the very heart of Elsinore. From the safety curtain to the theatre foyer, every scene unfolds with an intimacy that only enhances the drama.
This film isn’t just about showcasing stellar performances; it’s an exploration, a conversation between cinema and theatre. How does one enhance the other? Can the grandeur of theatre translate onto the silver screen? With Neil Oseman’s ingenious cinematography, every frame of this film attempts to answer these questions, offering viewers a Hamlet that’s both familiar and startlingly new. Set your tvs on stun as this version hits shelves and electrons on April 8 coming out on DVD, Blu-ray, and Digital Download, this film is a testament to the timeless allure of Shakespeare, reimagined for a world in pause.
Ian McKellen’s Performance
Let me tell you, seeing Sir Ian McKellen take on Hamlet again, especially at 84, is like watching a master painter revisit his masterpiece with new colors. This isn’t just any performance; it’s a nuanced, age-blind portrayal that flips the script on traditional casting, making it a must-see for anyone who’s even remotely intrigued by Shakespeare’s work.
- Age-Blind Brilliance: Let’s face it. Even my first thought was ‘how the hell is McKellen going to play Hamlet at 80??!’ Well, the answer is…brilliantly. McKellen’s casting in an age-blind production adds layers to Hamlet’s character, showcasing a blend of youthful energy with the wisdom of age. This duality brings a fresh perspective to the role, making it relatable across generations.
- A Masterclass in Delivery: His performance is a quiet storm. It’s meditative, focusing on the weight of Hamlet’s words rather than overt dramatics. McKellen’s command of the language, his ability to find new inflections in well-trodden speeches, is nothing short of a masterclass. Shakespeare aficionados will be hanging on every word, reveling in the masterful delivery of the bard’s intricate verse. For those struggling with the text of the play, this might be the most friendly adaptation to sink your teeth into. McKellen’s delivery hits all the high notes, but his wisdom in holding back where others might push helps newer audiences connect with the material.
- Physicality and Emotional Depth: Despite the quieter, more reflective approach, McKellen’s physicality and emotional depth do not wane. His portrayal is a testament to his skill, bringing a compelling prince to life who is both vulnerable and unpredictable. The scenes with the players, in particular, highlight his calculated madness, offering a glimpse into the prince’s tormented psyche.
Incorporating these elements into his portrayal, McKellen not only honors his past performances but also elevates this Hamlet film to new heights. It’s a celebration of Shakespeare’s timeless language and the psychological complexity of its characters, delivered by a cast led by a titan of the stage and screen.
Supporting Cast and Their Contributions
Alright, diving into the world of Elsinore beyond McKellen’s Hamlet, let’s talk about the squad that brings this Shakespearean drama to life. It’s like assembling a dream team where each player has their unique flair, but instead of dribbling basketballs, they’re slaying lines in iambic pentameter.
McKellen’s Hamlet is a feast for the senses and a triumph of storytelling. Jim Phoenix
- Jenny Seagrove as Gertrude: Seagrove’s take on the Queen is interesting. I’ve seen Gertrude played a lot of different ways. Mostly, the audience should find some sympathy with Gertrude (enough to make a real connection that she truly loves Hamlet and is, most likely, innocent in most things). There are times where Seagrove approaches this, but the royal mask stays tightly on. Some have suggested her performance as ‘wooden’, but I think they are missing the point. Seagrove does move to emotion when she must, but the excels at keeping the ‘Royal Mask’ intact. In the end, Queen Gertrude is exactly that–Queen. When was the last time you saw England’s former monarch express a lot of emotion in public? This doesn’t suggest either were incapable of emotion, but rather a master of theirs.
- Jonathan Hyde as Claudius and Emmanuella as Laertes: Hyde’s Claudius is the smooth villain you love to hate, capturing the complexity of the character with finesse. Cole steps into Laertes’ shoes and runs with them, delivering a performance that’s solid, given the big shoes she had to fill.
Mix in the age- and gender-blind casting, and you’ve got a recipe for a Hamlet that’s as fresh as it is classic. From modern-dress Polonius to a female Ghost stirring the pot, this cast turns Shakespeare on its head in the best way possible. And let’s not forget the costumes – or lack thereof, in terms of evocativeness. It’s like everyone decided to raid a very somber, very Shakespearean version of H&M. This works in the movie’s favor. It’s a zero-shits given version of Hamlet casting. They cast the best person for the role, gender, age, color be damned. It’s pretty refreshing to see this cast and they knock it out of the park.
Critical Reception and Audience Response
So, let’s dive into the sea of opinions swirling around this Hamlet film, shall we? I mean, it’s not every day you get to see Sir Ian McKellen give life to one of Shakespeare’s most tormented souls, right? The buzz was real, folks – from critics singing praises to some scratching their heads in puzzlement. Here’s the lowdown:
Let’s face it. Even my first thought was ‘how the hell is McKellen going to play Hamlet at 80??!’ Well, the answer is…brilliantly. Jim Phoenix
- Praise for McKellen and the Modern Twist:
- Critics and audiences were all about McKellen’s portrayal. The blend of youthful energy with the wisdom of age? Gorgeously done as we all knew he would.
- The contemporary take on this classic tragedy had folks intrigued. It’s like Shakespeare met 2024 and they decided to throw a party.
- But, Not All Was Rosy:
- The relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia felt like it was on a diet – underdeveloped and leaving us wanting more. I’m not sure where it goes ‘wrong’ here. The acting is spectactular for both Hamlet and Ophelia, but there isn’t a joint spark. Hamlet’s kiss to his mother was more romantic than anything happening between these two (and that kiss was a tad creepy).
- Production Woes and Wins:
- Experimental space and tone had its ups and downs. Some decisions had us scratching our heads, wondering if the chaos was part of the charm. This includes some setting (how many flights of stairs did Gertrude run down to nark on her son?) and sometimes the lines either cut or–oddly–added.
- With all that said, the good far outweigh the bad here. Even the wonky stair run works to show a level of Gertrude’s literal and metaphorical descent. It goes to show space in the madness–a madness that is quite contagious in this play.
Navigating through this mixed bag of reactions, it’s clear this Hamlet wasn’t just another adaptation. It was a conversation starter, a bold experiment in blending theatre with cinema, and a showcase for McKellen’s undiminished talent. As a Shakespeare enthusiast, it’s these daring takes that keep the bard’s work alive and kicking in our hearts.
For those new to Shakespeare…
I know someone who is currently teaching Hamlet in class. After seeing Sir Ian’s vision of Hamlet, we both agreed: This might be the bridge for younger adults to get a greater understanding of Shakespeare. The run time, the choice of words and scenery, and the stellar cast all form a ‘relatable’ version of Hamlet. There are some food for thought with this version that we discussed earlier (e.g., age and gender blind casting; some of the text is from elsewhere, etc), but if you’re new to Shakespeare and want to tip-toe in–this is your jam. Even better–if you love Hamlet and thought you saw it all–this is also your jam.
Conclusion
Through this detailed exploration of the Hamlet film starring Ian McKellen, we’ve navigated the complexities and novelties introduced by a profoundly compelling adaptation. The artistic innovation that underpins this rendition extends from its age-blind casting to the incorporation of modern dress, illustrating Shakespeare’s enduring relevance. McKellen’s portrayal of Hamlet, enriched by his depth of experience and fresh perspectives, alongside a robust supporting cast, fortifies the film’s appeal not only to Shakespeare veterans but also to those who are newly discovering the intricacies of the Bard’s masterpieces. This narrative fervor aligns harmoniously with an audience that is simultaneously well-versed in Shakespearean lore and eager to witness this unique adaptation unfold.
As I conclude, the significance of this adaptation transcends mere entertainment, heralding a vibrant dialogue between traditional theatre and contemporary cinema. The anticipation surrounding its release is a testament to the lasting impact of Shakespeare’s work, ingeniously reimagined for today’s audience. For enthusiasts and scholars alike, the film promises to be a captivating experience, merging the old with the new in a celebration of Shakespearean drama that is not to be missed.
To ensure you don’t miss out on this cinematic feat, make sure to go buy it from Kaleidoscope Home Entertainment when it comes out on Blu-ray, DVD, and streaming April 8. This adaptation not only redefines the parameters of classical theatre in the modern age but also beckons us to revisit the timeless questions and emotions that Shakespeare so masterfully encapsulated.
Final Rating
(4.5 / 5)
Short Synopsis: McKellen reprises his lead role as Hamlet, a man who descends into madness as he seeks vengeance against his uncle for the alleged murder of his father. A tale of revenge that has stood the test of time, Shakespeare’s classic tragedy is reimagined for the modern day as a gripping psychological thriller. Kaleidoscope Home Entertainment
To a lot of fans, this is the film that killed the franchise. It says a lot that the next installment is yet another retcon. Halloween VI: The Curse of Michael Myers attempts to explain Michael’s unrelenting evil, which lead to mixed opinions from longtime fans. There are two cuts of the film, theatrical vs producer’s. For a lot of people, the latter is the only one worth mentioning. Aiming to be as accurate as possible, I will be talking about the producer’s cut. Let’s begin!
Plot
We start Halloween VI with a six-year time jump from part five. Jamie is now barefoot and recently pregnant, running away from Michael as he wants her baby. While she manages to hide the little one away, Michael finally gets his hunger satiated by killing her. The moment is one of the most brutal ways in the franchise up until that point. Rest in peace, Jamie, you held your ground for as long as you could, the sequels were just too relentless.
The movie then cuts to a whole different scene going on. We have a new family living in the Myers house and their youngest child is hearing voices telling him to kill his loved ones. Tommy Lloyd is watching the family, played by none other than Paul Rudd in his first-ever theatrical role. Tommy still carries trauma from the events all those years ago when Laurie Strode was babysitting him. So when he finds Jamie’s baby, his part in the story becomes even more essential.
Dr Loomis also stars in what was Donald Pleasance’s final role before his passing. He and Tommy try to stop Michael once and for all before the cycle can repeat itself. As it turns out, Michael is a victim of a druid cult which makes him want to kill his family members every Halloween. Thorn, the cult in question, thinks they can control Michael and make him do their bidding. This results in catastrophe and Michael goes berzerk and kills all the cult members. Once again, it’s one of the most gruesome montages for the franchise up until that point.
Tommy and Kara are left to face Michael on their own which they manage to do with some corrosive liquid and good luck. However, nothing stays dead in this franchise as it’s soon revealed Michael somehow escaped and this time Dr Loomis might not be so lucky…
Overall thoughts
I would say for me personally Halloween VI definitely ranks somewhere near the bottom. The whole point of Michael is that there is no rhyme or reason to his killings and this film tries to go against that. I am glad the mistake was rectified by the upcoming installment. There were still some good things about it, such as Paul Rudd’s acting that reveals some raw talent as far as I’m concerned, as well as some direction choices and musical score. However, I also think it absolutely deserves all the criticism that it gets.
(2.5 / 5)
We’ve reached the final episode of American Horror Stories, season three. After the ups and downs of the season, I didn’t know what to expect. I felt that we were due a big finish, Killer Queens. But I feared we were in for a big letdown.
As it turns out, The Thing Under The Bed was neither.
The story
We begin our story with a little girl named Mary, who is scared of something under her bed. She sneaks out of her room, only to be caught by her father and sent back to sleep. And of course, there is something horrible waiting for her under her bed.
This scene cuts away to a woman named Jillian. She has strange dreams, including one about Mary. But her husband, Mark, doesn’t want to hear about it. He’s only interested in a little lovemaking because he wants a baby. Jillian doesn’t, which makes total sense because she’s already married to one. But her irritation with her childish husband goes away when he goes away. And by goes away, I mean he’s sloppily devoured by something vicious under their bed.
What worked
In short, this episode just worked. The acting was professional and believable. The cinematography and lighting work were wonderful, adding spooky effects and startling moments without impairing visibility.
Best of all, the story was solid. There were no plotholes to be found. Our main character, Jillian, was relatable and sympathetic.
This was maybe my favorite part of the story. I thought Jillian was a remarkably sympathetic character. She was dealt a hand she never asked for, having her husband slaughtered in their bedroom. I don’t think she missed him, so much as she was afraid of the legal ramifications of being caught with literal blood on her hands.
Then, when it would have been safest for her to just lay low and save up for a good defense attorney, she instead goes into unlikely hero mode. She does her best to save people, putting herself in legal and physical danger. It’s hard not to root for her.
It’s also a little hard not to root for the antagonist, too. I don’t want to ruin the twist for you, so I’m going to tread lightly here. But it’s great when you have an antagonist who might be off their rocker, but also maybe has a point.
What didn’t work
I can only really think of one complaint with this episode. And that is how frequently one character says the word Chickadee. And if you’ve seen the episode, you know what I am talking about.
I get it, he has a pet name for his daughter. It’s adorable. It’s meant to convey that the two of them have a healthy loving relationship and I get it. We all get it. Blind monks get it. But the fact remains that no parent on Earth calls their kid by their pet name every single time they speak an individual sentence to them. It was just too damn much.
All in all, this was a good episode. It was a classic story, turned on its head, told by professionals from start to finish. And I hope that if there is another season, we see more stories like this one. But after the efforts put into this season at large, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the last we see of American Horror Stories.
(4 / 5)
If you’ve watched enough short-form horror anthology shows, you’ll notice that some stories are mainstays. Each show seems to put on the same sort of episodes, with the occasional surprising storyline that we’ve never (or at least rarely) seen before.
Leprechaun was an example of a repeated story—the story of a greedy thief whose punishment far outweighs the crime.
The story
We begin our story in 1841, with a drunk man leaving the bar one late night. He’s distracted by something glowing at the end of the well. When he reaches down for the glowing thing, he falls in. Moments later, he screams.
We then cut to the modern day. The well is still there, and now it’s surrounded by a dying town. In this town lives a young man named Colin. He’s married, his wife is pregnant, and he’s out of work. Like many of his friends.
Desperate for cash, Colin and his friends decide to rob a bank. They put together an Equate version of Ocean’s Eleven, and break in one night. But, of course, they find that the gold is nothing more than bait. And the creature waiting for them is something they never expected.
What worked
The first thing I want to point out is how real this episode felt. At least to anyone currently living in the same small town they grew up in. These characters felt like guys I went to school with. Guys I would see at the bar.
I appreciated the real anger and frustration these characters are feeling. Especially Colin. He’s bitter, and maybe he has a right to be. He did exactly what he was supposed to do to succeed. He went to school and invested in his career, and yet now he’s out of work and struggling to support his family. I probably don’t need to tell you how that feels. Because of this, we can all kind of understand why he was tempted to rob a bank.
I also want to talk about the fact that this was, as I said, an often-explored story. That can be a bad thing, but it can also be a good thing. This story is told over and over because it’s a good story. A relatable story. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
What didn’t work
That being said, this version didn’t try to do much to break out of the mold.
Because we have seen this story so many times, most of us could tell the story themselves. I would have expected something new, or some twist. But, in the end, the story didn’t bring anything new to the discussion.
Maybe because of this, the ending left a lot to be desired. Trapped in the basement of the bank, everyone just sort of stares at everyone else, until the thieves give up. And that’s it. The ending wasn’t scary, shocking, or funny. It was just sad, on multiple levels.
Overall, this was an okay story. It was entertaining, if not surprising. I would compare this episode to homemade macaroni and cheese. Everyone’s got their own version, they’re all pretty good, and none of them are exciting.
There’s just one episode left in this season of American Horror Stories. Let’s hope they’ve saved the best for last.
(3.5 / 5)
-
Breaking News3 days ago🎃 Unleash the Terror: Epic Black Friday 2024 Deals for Horror Fans on Amazon! 🧟♂️
-
Movies n TV5 days ago
American Horror Stories, The Thing Under The Bed
-
Original Creations7 days ago
Religious Icons Revisited for the Second Second Coming
-
Movies n TV7 days ago
American Horror Stories, Leprechaun
