Michael Almereyda’s modernized interpretation of Hamlet (2000) manages to retain the essence of Shakespeare’s play while still creating a new work that could stand alone without more in-depth knowledge.
The film’s references to the play fit well and rather than seeming out of place, added to the whole movie. The references include naming the hotel after Elsinore Castle and turning the country of Denmark into the Denmark Corporation. Ophelia balancing over the fountain in the Guggenheim museum foreshadows her later death but seems innocuous enough if the audience were to not know to what it refers.
In the play, exposition done with the guards describing their surroundings, in order to give a more vivid idea of what the scenery should look like. It’s done for practical purposes, since lighting and complex sets were not available during Shakespeare’s time. In the movie, it is done with text on-screen that describes some of Hamlet’s backstory. Text exposition seems lazy to me in film, but I guess they couldn’t really make a six-hour movie and expect people to sit through it, so I’ll allow it.
Since the movie was only two hours long, it couldn’t encompass the entire script. I didn’t feel that the excluded parts detracted from the experience, nor did their absence enhance it. There were several script changes which I found interesting. One was in Act III, Scene I, when Hamlet tells Ophelia to go herself to a nunnery; I didn’t like how he said so many awful things to her without knowing about her microphone. I much prefer the interpretation that he is only saying these things for Polonius’ benefit, since that makes Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship seem much sweeter.
In Act V, Scene II, Gertrude’s death seems much more intentional on her part and on Claudius’. He doesn’t really try to stop her from drinking the poisoned wine, and she knows exactly what she has done, as evidenced by her apology immediately afterwards. Her apology can be interpreted in three ways. Firstly, that she is apologizing simply for drinking the wine. However, she seems to be apologizing for more than that, which brings us to option two: she is apologizing for killing herself. There is a third option, that she is also apologizing not to Claudius, but instead to Hamlet (though not directly to him, as he does not hear her). She might be apologizing for marrying Claudius, or for ignoring the evidence pointing towards Old Hamlet’s murder. If the last interpretation is taken as fact, this redeems her actions throughout the film and makes her a much more three-dimensional character than in Shakespeare originally wrote her to be. Three-dimensional female characters? I love it.
Another obvious discrepancy between the two mediums is the time period in which they were made and set. While the play was written during the Elizabethan era, it is set in the medieval period. The language used in both is Early Modern English, so that is not any different in either version. However, the modernization succeeds more in dating the film than making it seem more contemporary. I cannot speak for the time when it came out, since I was an infant, but I do know that now, it seems much less timeless than it did when read in play form. The technology is outdated, the tv screens are pixelated, and Hamlet carries around a Polaroid camera. However, (and I realize that this sounds like such a Millennial thing to say, forgive me) the early 20th century costumes were such an aesthetic and visually, it was a fun movie to watch.
And now, to address the acting. There were several very talented actors in the movie. Bill Murray’s Polonius was suitably irritating but lovable. Ethan Hawke’s Hamlet was just as moody as Shakespeare’s, and the character development of Diane Venora’s Gertrude aided the story when it got slow. The other performances had their entertaining moments, but were ultimately not very memorable.
The one actress who was not forgettable was Julia Stiles, though the movie might have been improved had she been. Her Ophelia was somehow both boring and overdramatic. Her “mad” scene was cringe-worthily bad. I had to pause the movie and pace around for a few minutes to cleanse myself of second-hand embarrassment.
Any form of entertainment will have its pros and cons, and this movie is no exception. In some ways, it surpassed Shakespeare’s play. Gertrude was much easier to relate to, visually it was nice to watch, and the humorous moments were made funnier by seeing them acted out. And in other ways, the movie was woefully lacking. All in all, I felt that the movie did not live up to the play, though it was still entertaining and some parts were enhanced by the directorial choices. I’d give it a C. Not bad, but certainly not good either.