University of Virginia Library

Film Review

'Hamlet': Directorial Claustrophobia

By Carl Erickson
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

From the opening shot of
Francisco to the final freeze shot of
the dead Hamlet, Tony Richardson's
interpretation of Shakespeare's
play is an exercise in claustrophobic
tedium which can only cause
English professors to shudder.

Mr. Richardson has some rather
odd ideas on how to transfer a play
on to the screen and they prove to
be disastrous from the start. He has
added no visual meaning to Shakespeare's
admittedly beautiful words
and has instead decided to confine
his cameras to the close scrutinization
of the characters' faces as if
he were afraid that the audience
would not hear the lines should he
show them a medium shot. Such a
presumption is obviously false and
its falseness is evidenced by such
cinematic interpretations of Shakespeare
as Orson Welles' "Othello"
and "Falstaff" and Zeffirelli's "The
Taming of the Shrew" and "Romeo
and Juliet." Although the last
received an inproportionate amount
of acclaim, it was an intelligent
interpretation which added beauty
to the script and Zeffirelli did not
resort to an unbearable amount of
close-ups. His shots of the lovers'
hands were memorably effective
and certainly did not detract from
the lyrical dialogue. Welles' use of
deep focus with elaborately staged
mise en scenes and his upward
angled cameras translated "Othello"
and "Falstaff" into visually
stunning works of filmic art which
at the same time adding a new sense
of dignity and magnificence to
Shakespeare's verse.

Facial Close-Ups

If Richardson made no such
assumption about his audience's
attentiveness and understanding,
then perhaps his cramped viewpoints
can be explained in another
way. Could it be that, having
recognized "Hamlet" as a psychological
study (which it is), Richardson
then made the assumption that the
means by which such a study could
be best rendered on the screen
entailed a multitude of facial
close-ups? There are too many
examples to cite which prove quite
the opposite. Such a belief is as far
from the truth as one which states
that by viewing the innermost cells
in the brain we can see a person's
thoughts.

The possibility still exists that
Richardson, through the use of
close-ups and the rejection of
spacial relationships wished to express
the timelessness of the play.
The fact is for a better part of the
film we do not know where we are.
This is emphasized by the scantily
furnished sets, the noticeable lack
of props, and the concentrated use
of lighting, as well as by the
ever-present close-up. If this be the
case, Richardson has succeeded for
the most part, but at the high price
of boredom and, at times, confusion.

Emotional Energy

Leaving Richardson for a moment,
let us turn to Nicol Williamson,
the man whom many critics
are vociferously applauding as the
greatest British actor of our time.
Williamson's Hamlet certainly is a
new variation of an old character.
Williamson has refused to suffer
with dignity and solemn eloquence.
Rather, he chooses to inject
emotional energy into Hamlet while
trying at the same time to emphasize
Shakespeare's elegant verse.
The task is a difficult one and
Williamson at times falls to bring
the two factors together, but quite
often his failure results from

Richardson's inadequate direction.
Williamson's face goes through
many violent contortions in his
vivid interpretation, but under the
uptight scrutiny of Richardson's
cameras such emotional contractions
are denigrated into embarrassingly
self-conscious histrionics
which more often than not arouse
titters from the audience. Williamson's
paranoiac movements are
totally lost in Richardson's bewildering
insistence on the close-up.
Williamson is much like the proverbial
bull in a china shop except the
viewer is only allowed to see the
horns.

Add Amendment

So it seems that the hapless
Richardson has his hands in practically
all of the film's major
failures. I wonder if "Cahiers du
Cinema" will add an amendment to
its "politique des auteurs," one
which will deal with the habitually
poor director. Tony Richardson
could head the list.

(Now at the University)