watched the 1948 laurence olivier hamlet (again?). nice that it won an oscar and i have to believe that pauline kael was right in saying that despite "the omissions, the mutilations, the mistakes" (which are plentiful) "the rest of the play (had) been done so well." i could believe that at the time it was "the most exciting and most alive production of hamlet ... on screen" but she was overly generous in continuing with "[that] you will ever see" and quite wrong to say "it's never dull". rosencrantz and guildenstern are worse than dead, they're inexistent. hamlet is deeply in love with his mother, and who can quite blame him since she's eleven years his junior. and ophelia has no talent for acting though fairly enough for over-acting. nor did laertes whom i suspect was given the role by a lover. felix aylmer as polonious was actually pretty good though, and since c. recommended becket (1964), it appears i'll be seeing him again soon. but even olivier's acting i found less than impressive, partly because of his interpretation choices, but even in terms of chops.
jones_casey) wrote, 
