"Hamlet" is basically Shakespeare's most adapted play. One of the basic reasons for this is the fact that its themes make adaptation somewhat controversial: a major theme of Hamlet is indecisiveness and ambiguity, which makes fleshing it out for any stage or screen a struggle for its adapter. Laurence Olivier was not very happy with this adaptation, nor were many critics at the time.
But how does this movie stand out? For one thing, Olivier has enough sense of the rhythms and dialog of Shakespeare to make it's more archaic delivery mostly seamless and logical. Secondly, he uses the set-design to emphasize isolation of the castle and claustrophobia of the characters in order to remove the staginess, or at least expectation for staginess, in the film. And thirdly, his camera roves around at a subjective level, sometimes literally detaching from the action to focus on empty sets in order to create a Phantasmagoria in the film. These three devices flow together to create drama that manages well to keep focused and emotionally compelling. Most importantly, the adaptation is quite logical.
Unfortunately, even though I've read Hamlet I'm by no means a Shakespeare scholar and I do not remember every detail it: as I understand, Olivier made some pretty controversial cuts in the script, especially two of Hamlet's soliloquys. It's understandable. At it's extant length, Olivier's Hamlet stays just within it's welcome, and the two soliloquys that he does keep show his difficulty in figuring out just exactly how he wanted to present them.
--PolarisDiB
But how does this movie stand out? For one thing, Olivier has enough sense of the rhythms and dialog of Shakespeare to make it's more archaic delivery mostly seamless and logical. Secondly, he uses the set-design to emphasize isolation of the castle and claustrophobia of the characters in order to remove the staginess, or at least expectation for staginess, in the film. And thirdly, his camera roves around at a subjective level, sometimes literally detaching from the action to focus on empty sets in order to create a Phantasmagoria in the film. These three devices flow together to create drama that manages well to keep focused and emotionally compelling. Most importantly, the adaptation is quite logical.
Unfortunately, even though I've read Hamlet I'm by no means a Shakespeare scholar and I do not remember every detail it: as I understand, Olivier made some pretty controversial cuts in the script, especially two of Hamlet's soliloquys. It's understandable. At it's extant length, Olivier's Hamlet stays just within it's welcome, and the two soliloquys that he does keep show his difficulty in figuring out just exactly how he wanted to present them.
--PolarisDiB