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
Episode two of Dexter, Original Sin, was just as wonderful as the first. As a long-time Dexter fan, I find it added so much to the background of the story. And if you’re a new fan, I promise you won’t feel left behind.
The story
At the start of our episode, Dexter is learning the ropes of his new internship at Miami Metro. He’s getting a little hazing but is learning how to fit in.
Especially when he starts digging into the old files and finding new playmates for his Dark Passenger.
Meanwhile, Deb is struggling. She feels underappreciated and ignored at home. So, she decides to steal some jewelry from around the house for some quick spending money. Having little in the house in the way of jewelry, she happens upon a pair of earrings in Dexter’s room.
Nurse Mary’s earrings, to be specific.
And finally, in what will probably be the storyline for the series, a little boy is kidnapped. While he looks like a victim from the first episode of Dexter, or at least dressed in the same school uniforms, we soon find out that he’s the son of a judge. And his kidnapping might have something to do with the death of Dexter’s biological mother.
What worked
I’ve often complained about slow episodes in a TV season or mini-series. The episodes that just don’t have anything going for them. The episodes that are needed to set up the story, but otherwise are kind of dull.
This is an example of that sort of episode done well. It is true that there were no murders in this episode. There was only one dead body, and it was already dead when we got there.
But that didn’t mean the episode was uninteresting. There was character development. There was comedy. And most importantly, it had a storyline that had a satisfying conclusion. Specifically, Deb stealing Dexter’s trophy earrings and trying to sell them.
This little storyline worked on so many levels. One, it heightens tension because we know those earrings can lead the police to Dexter for the murder of Nurse Mary. Two, it shows how frustrated Deb is with her life and how far she will go to have a little fun. Three, it shows how far she won’t go when she refuses to sell her mother’s pearls. And four, it gives us a satisfying beginning, middle, and end of a story while we’re doing the necessary work of laying a foundation for the rest of the series. This was a masterclass in subplots.
I also want to point out that, so far, this series works by itself as much as it works as a prequel. I would watch Dexter Original Sin if I’d never heard the name Dexter Morgan before. And while it certainly benefits from its predecessors, it isn’t only relying on that.
What didn’t work
All that being said, I’m afraid there is still one glaring issue with this series. I hate Gellar’s character.
Yes, I am biased. But hear me out.
Tanya is supposed to be Dexter’s mentor. She got him the job as a paid intern. It would stand to reason that she did that because she wanted to take him under her wing. And yes, I am aware that a certain kind of teacher likes to knock their students down a peg or two. But she seems more interested in proving what a Strong Female she is to this college student than actually teaching him.
And frankly, this is some of the most sexist stuff I’ve ever seen on Dexter. This show has a long history of being pretty good about gender relations. It passes the Bechdel test. All of the female characters have flaws, strengths, and personalities. It’s almost like they’re, gasp, real people. None of them have been the girl hero with no personality other than being the Strong Female until Tanya was introduced. And given how similar she is to Buffy, and how unlike the rest of the cast this character is, I sense some meddling from Gellar herself.
Do better.
I am so pumped for the rest of this mini series. It is clear that everyone working on this series, except Gellar, are huge fans of the original show. Everyone is going a great job, the story is great, and I cannot wait to see what happens next.
(4 / 5)
Movies n TV
Heretic: ‘It’s a simple choice that should not be made simply: Belief or Disbelief?’
‘It’s a simple choice that should not be made simply: Belief or Disbelief?’
A24‘s chilling religious horror film, Heretic, arrived in theatres this November, forcing viewers to confront the unsettling line between faith and doubt. Directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, this edge-of-your-seat thriller will leave audiences deeply disturbed as Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East) pass over the threshold of Mr. Reed’s (Hugh Grant) home where they undergo a terrifying experience that shatters their beliefs.
The Plot.
Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton are Mormon missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As the opening scenes roll they are visiting houses in an unnamed, rural Colorado town. These houses are from a list of people who have shown interest in joining the church. After being rejected and ignored several times, they arrive at the door on Mr. Reed, a pleasant gentleman who invites them in the discuss the church, promising his wife is home in the kitchen to put the Sister’s minds at ease.
Welcoming the women to sit in his living room, Mr. Reed initiates what amounts to be an awkward conversation, questioning the faith of the missionaries. Sensing that something is amiss, with Mr. Reed’s wife still not coming to meet them and a storm brewing outside, the women decide it is time to leave. Sneaking to the front door when Mr. Reed leaves the room they find the front door locked, and the only way out is to go deeper into the strange house.
Highlights.
I have never really understood the appeal of Hugh Grant. I found him lackluster in Love Actually and just plain annoying in Bridget Jones’s Diary. After watching Heretic though I think the problem is that his career focus has been on the wrong genre. Hugh Grant is terrifying, but not in the conventional sense, in the creepy religious uncle that you only see on Boxing Day sense. It might be in the jerky way Mr. Reed walks, or the near-whispered dialogue throughout the movie. Also, whoever put Mr. Reed in those glasses is a genius, they give chilling Jeffrey Dahmer vibes.
I must also note the intense monologues that Hugh Grant delivers in Heretic. It is hard to take your eyes off him. The ideas and theories that are presented are not unknown and rather convincing. I was surprised to find myself nodding in agreement with an obviously deranged and hostile character.
Drawbacks.
It is hard to explain the main drawback of this movie without spoiling the ending, but let me try. The explanation and big reveal at the end of Heretic was a bit… on the nose. I just couldn’t hitch myself to that wagon. I understand what the writer was trying to say. That there are people who have such strong faith that they are willing to give up their lives to prove the belief true. It is the way this is presented in the plot however… I didn’t like it and wonder if there might have been another way to present this idea.
The Final Take.
Ahh, how I loved this movie. Never mind National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, Krampus or Die Hard, Heretic is my new favorite Christmas film. There is nothing more to be said.
(5 / 5)
Movies n TV
Returning to the Soothing World of Evil with “The Demon of Death”
“The Demon of Death” is the season 3 premiere of the supernatural drama Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King.
“The Demon of Death” is the season 3 premiere of the supernatural drama Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate the weight of a soul. Father Frank Ignatius (Wallace Shawn) agrees to participate in this test despite his growing disillusionment. David (Mike Colter) and Kristen (Katja Herbers) deal with the ramifications of their confessions. Kristen’s girls go on the warpath with Leland (Michael Emerson). Andy (Patrick Brammall) signs his death warrant.
What I Like about “The Demon of Death”
As season 2 ended with a cliffhanger, “The Demon of Death” picks back up with an interesting addition. The episode provides a more obvious stopping point that Season 2 should have taken advantage of. It dumbfounds me because this addition makes for a more interesting and darker cliffhanger. The added context would have made the cliffhanger more palatable. However, it’s a nice twist for the episode.
Dr. Boggs (Kurt Fuller) and Sister Andrea (Andrea Martin) make an interesting pair that adds complexity to both. We even explore some of Sister Andrea’s character flaws, best displayed by her interaction with Kristen in the next scene. Few wise sage characters that display flaws, making this addition appreciated.
Father Ignatius’ introduction adds layers of interest for a character who will play a recurring role, tying into Monsignor Korecki directly. The yet-to-be-explored relationship between Father Ignatius and Monsignor Korecki (Boris McGiver) evokes an interest.
While “The Demon of Death” isn’t a haunting episode, but explores the mysteries and terror of death through science to provide an interesting environment for an episode. It introduces a new character that adds to the cast.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
There’s not much to report here that particularly crosses the line and what teeters on the line holds a dark comedic tone.
Perhaps Sister Andrea’s flaw might rub some the wrong way, as it deals with her overwhelming faith. However, it’s a minor point at the moment. Again, I lean on liking some complexity for the wise sage archetype.
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Death”
“The Demon of Death” still plays it safe with its supernatural elements, but that does seem to be Evil’s standard. At this point of the series, it seems a strange restraint. However, the new normal remains functionally paranormal.
While the premiere starts with an interesting procedural plot, it doesn’t direct the season like prior premieres. This episode doesn’t deliver a massive refocus as season 2’s premiere, but that’s because its conclusion doesn’t deliver as focused of a direction. Regardless, “The Demon of Death” is still an episode that slips away despite its premiere status.
Ben (Aasif Mandvi) seems needlessly hostile as they investigate a soul’s potential weight. The study delivers a thorough scientific process, which makes his resistance linger on the “angry atheist” archetype.
The demon shown on screen certainly isn’t the demon of death the title suggests. While the plot revolves around the mystery of death, there is a demon with a more carnal domain. As future episodes dive into their respective demons, it does seem to be an inaccurate title. However, the demon of the episode will get further focus in a different episode.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Death” doesn’t stand out as a premiere but provides an interesting procedural episode. As Father Ignatius will become another key character in the series, giving him an entire episode to introduce him is a nice strategy. While it’s not a haunting episode, it still provides a level of camp with interesting characters to pull it off.
(3 / 5)
-
Original Series2 days agoNightmarish Nature: Starvation Diet
-
Movies n TV7 days ago
Christmas Crime Story, A Nonsensical Holiday Romp
-
Movies n TV4 days ago
Returning to the Soothing World of Evil with “The Demon of Death”
-
Movies n TV1 day ago
Heretic: ‘It’s a simple choice that should not be made simply: Belief or Disbelief?’
