This version has not done any major surgery in the adaptation, a little bit of lines have been deleted, and the to be or not to be has been advanced. Overall, it is quite faithful to the original adaptation.
Let's talk about this version first.
Because the starring David Tennant was still starring in the British folk drama Doctor Who in 2008, the media attention on this version is very high, and there are many people waiting to see jokes. As a result, the critic came out quite well at the media day. After the RSC home performance, it moved to London to continue its reputation. DT also won the 2009 Critics' Circle Theatre Award-Best Shakespearean Performance.
Critic who like this version hold this version quite high, and some say it is one of the best Hamlet versions of the new century (Simon Russell Beale, Ben Whishaw, Rory Kinnear are a few other versions that are more often mentioned) , and even declared DT to be the best Hamlet "of our generation". Not only the Lude Law edition (2009) and the John Simm edition (2010) that followed were compared with this edition, but in 2015, many Benedict Cumberbatch edition critics still took the DT edition as a reference.
In short, this version is impressive, and most critics love DT's performance.
The look and feel of the BBC filming is quite magical to me.
This version is one of the first two fully performed Hamlet I've seen. Before watching it, I only read the script as a child. Because of the high reviews, I was quite looking forward to watching it for the first time. As a result, I don't understand the good point at all, but I understand some reviews that express dislike and critic's criticism points (such as lack of philosophical depth and so on).
As for why it can't be accepted, simply put, it feels like Hamlet is not like this. When I read the script when I was young, I had my own imagination in my mind, and I felt that this Danish prince should be a noble, melancholy, and struggling teenager. As a result, DT's performance is 180 degrees opposite to my understanding. He's not aristocratic per se (unlike bc), and totally contemporary clothes are a disservice. He is almost a thousand miles away from melancholy and profound, and his expression of emotions is completely outspoken. To say that it is similar, it is probably the same emotional struggle and youthful feeling. Plus, I had just finished watching the three seasons of Doctor Who, and I was a bit ignorant of his talent for acting insane, quick and fluid emotional transitions, and unstable boyishness. As a result, the first general impression is that this version is the story of a doctor who went crazy and became a master.
But it is very magical. After about four months, I watched the 8th edition of Hamlet by various coincidences. During the process of watching, I recalled some performances of DT from time to time. In contrast, I felt more and more that some places were handled by DT. Seems better, this version might be really good. So in order to determine whether it is a memory beautification or an unfair evaluation of it when I watched it for the first time, by the way, I will pay attention to how some paragraphs DT that I think are particularly difficult to perform are handled by Hamlet. A few days ago, I put this version Flip it out and read it again.
After being baptized by a digitally deep, tear-filled or adrenaline roaring three-hour Hamlet, this version is simply sensual. And in the past few months, I have watched a lot of DT's films. I no longer watch everything like a doctor, and some even can't remember what Xiao Shi was like, so I can watch his performances relatively without presets.
After reading it this time, I was amazed.
DT's Hamlet is a thousand miles away from the dullness that the show's traditions can easily produce. It can be said to be dramatic, full of tension, and rich and varied. His performances are modern and rich in body language. The traditional Hamlet's way of acting is to stand there almost motionless, and take two steps at most. The movie can only give close-ups or, like the Ethan Hawke version, a monologue and an empty mirror. DT's Hamlet ran almost all over the stage, rolling on the ground when nothing happened, and occasionally falling off a chair, full of energy (speaking of DT's emergency hospitalization for back surgery in December 2008, and several reviews after his comeback in January mentioned that Relatively much less body language). It can be said that this version rarely needs special design of stage/camera or other unexpected details to attract people. The performance of the actors and the tension of the story itself are enough to make it easy to focus for three hours, and the more it goes on. Getting better.
At the same time, although it is not a classical performance, DT's performance is very delicate, and even does not lose the performance of the legendary Sir Derek Jacobi in terms of detail and level. This version starts from the second act and onwards, just find a large monologue and compare it with other relatively modern actors, you can feel that the emotional level of his performance is amazing, almost every sentence is in accordance with the opposite sentence The understanding of the characters changes accordingly, and the characters switch quickly and naturally in the innocence of madness, sadness, pain, and innocence. Since I mentioned Sir, by the way, I would like to say a few words about DT and Sir. DT is a big fan of Lord Sir. On many occasions, when it comes to Lord Sir, there is a lot of reverence. I feel that he may be influenced by Sir Sir. version of). Compared with others, DT's version of the interpretation is actually very similar to the Lord's treatment in some places (his understanding of Richard II is almost the same as that of the Lord). But his acting crazy is too easy (I worry from time to time whether the prince is really crazy and will not come back), and the aura of acting in anger is also one of the talent points, plus his performance has a juvenile innocence. Willful is somewhat narcissistic and frivolous, so although he lost to the lord in sadness and depth, but because the madness of the lord made me very present, it seems that DT's performance is more enjoyable to me as a whole.
And, although the DT version has a lot of laughs (called the most intelligent and humorous Hamlet by critic), the emotions are also surprisingly strong. I rewatched this version after watching version 8, and I still felt some kind of emotional shock at the end, which is what this version and Ethan Hawke's film did (and Ethan Hawke's version was Arranged by a detail that surprises the audience).
Personally, I feel that this version of DT will have some influence on the performance of Hamlets who are more modern in acting. At least the two versions of the stage in 2015 seem to be relatively open to the body language of the actors, and they are not good at the point of "humor". Less Kung Fu (including various careers that carry forward the art of beauty).
Of course, this version of DT's performance is not without problems.
I don't know why, although I never felt it when watching TV dramas, but when DT played sadness and love on stage, it was almost something. Both Hamlet and Richard II feel a little lacking in emotional expression in this regard. Because of this, I personally feel that his opening of this version is quite bad. The important monologue after the banquet is almost exaggerated, and the first half hour is not very attractive. It feels like he doesn't officially enter the state until he sees the ghosts and starts to pretend to be crazy.
And, to speak of the philosophical level of contemplative struggle, this edition does not have it (but to be fair, I personally see only three Sir Lawrence Oliver, Jacobi and Kenny who feel the depth of the philosophical level).
This edition of photography is also completely unhelpful (or disserviceable) in terms of so-called philosophical depth. Although I can understand that the artistic director of RSC (the director of this film) is in the line of "I can actually make a TV series, I use the lens to express the feeling of being constantly monitored", but the language of the lens is really immature. Moreover, the actor's acting method completely copied the stage. It couldn't be more stupid to see an adult man crying and crawling on the ground from the angle of the monitor. Personally, I think that in fact, this version does not need to be superfluous and try to do something different to distract attention (so I want to watch the stage version, alas).
In addition, the art director also said in the interview that he personally doesn't like Hamlet very much, and the lines are too familiar to everyone (for the people of the UK), almost every sentence is like a quote, so he has been afraid to touch it before. He felt that DT should be able to make the play interesting, and be able to play every line like what the characters said in the play, so he decided to start the play. As well as his personal understanding, Hamlet should be a thriller, and he hopes that people who go to the theater for the first time to see this play can really believe that he will do it in the place where Hamlet wants to kill his uncle for the first time (hence his stage version is unprecedented. Putting the intermission here, although I doubt anyone who actually went to the theater to see Hamlet would not know that the uncle died at halftime...).
Personally, I think DT did what the art director wanted, and I personally think that DT's shortcomings are the things that the art director doesn't pay attention to (or what Hamlet touched me but not him). So in fact, the way DT interprets, although there is no doubt that it has his own style, but at least the preference is somewhat supervised choice, which is actually an interesting thing.
In addition, this drama is definitely not a solo show of DT, or even the opposite. This version is probably the version with the most average performance of the actors of all the versions I have seen. Almost all the characters have a certain sense of existence and are not reduced to storytelling. The passerby's armor. I personally think that the actors in this version are all good except Ophelia, which I don't quite understand. Especially the uncle played by Professor X, who plays the wily villain is simply superb. The TV series can also capture subtle facial expressions, which is amazing. There is also the minister of Oliver Ford Davies, the kind of long-winded and stupid that can't be said to be harmless or not. He and DT are responsible for the comedy, and the effect is quite good (speaking of this grandfather's performance in the 13-year version of Richard II is also quite good) .
As for Ophelia, she actually has a sense of existence, but her madness is comparable to that of DT. She took off her clothes after yelling at the queen, which really scared me (the Ophelia in my reading imagination is She is like a soft and beautiful girl like water. Although there are a few resolute Ophelias in the 8th edition I have read, I still don’t quite understand the interpretation of the almost crazy and stubborn Ophelia in this edition.) .
Overall, this version is a very different Hamlet. Whether you can appreciate it depends on your personal understanding and aesthetics on the one hand, and your familiarity with the show on the other hand.
Completely unfamiliar, new audiences who think Shakespeare and Hamlet are boring, may like this version (there is a group of young audiences who started watching Shakespeare or watching the stage because of this show), and they are familiar with this show and have seen a lot of them Older viewers with the Hamlet version and with different interpretations may also like the show (a lot of theatergoers and critics like it).
However, if you originally liked Hamlet and had a clear image of Hamlet in your heart, and you haven't been tired of seeing Hamlet's interpretation in your mind, this version may be a strange existence that is difficult to digest.
**Addition**
After reminding me, there is a gossip worth remembering. This version of Yorick's skull is a real human skull. A composer in Poland donated his skull to RSC for a stage performance and expressed hope that it could be used to play Hamlet. After his death in 1982, the skull stayed at RSC for so many years, but because actors and directors felt a little intimidated by using a real skull, it was only occasionally used during rehearsal, and was never actually used in the performance. It wasn't until the DT version that it was used on stage for the first time. The matter was reported by the media during RSC's home performance, so the company claimed that it would no longer use real skulls at the London show, so as not to distract the audience too much. In the end, in the end, all the scenes of that version of Hamlet were still using real human skulls, and the real human skulls were still used in the shooting of this version of the BBC (you can pay attention when watching, other skulls were thrown around, only Yorick's was carefully taken by DT gone). The art director said that he thought the real skull was a very important part of this version, and DT himself said that he felt that holding the real skull to play the famous passage next to the tomb helped him feel the overly famous line.
Also, the reason why the art director wanted to find DT to line up Hamlet has something to do with the skull. DT appeared on a show called Who do you think you are in 2006. This show is to help people trace their roots and find their ancestors. DT searched for his ancestors to find the Scottish Highlands, and traced to an abandoned church where the floor of the pulpit was lifted and there were many human bones underneath. He was wearing a black trench coat at the time, and picked up one of the skulls and looked at it (later realized that it should not be touched with bare hands), this scene was seen by the art director, and he immediately thought it would be good for him to play Hamlet idea. It is said that when the show aired, the art director sent a message to DT saying, I just saw your Hamlet audition tape on TV. Although DT was also chosen to play Barty Crouch Jr. in Harry Potter because he was favored by the stage play Lobby man, he was directly invited to play ten doctors because he played Casanova. This should still be the case. One of his most amazing unexpected "auditions".
View more about Hamlet reviews
