Live streaming of Hamlet

[Mo3]

Posted: 10/15/15 at 11:32pm

Just got back from the live streaming of Hamlet, which I also saw in London when it first opened.

If anything it plays better on screen, but Cumberbatch is, as far as I'm concerned, absolutely amazing. Emotional, athletic, dynamic, tons of charisma.  His soliloquies are to die for.  I don't like the way it's cut any better than I did in London, but some of the director's faults were covered up by the streaming.

I've seen Hamlets at Stratford, saw one at the Old Globe, I saw Kinnear, Simon Russell Beale, and David Tennant.  This was not my favorite production by any stretch, but Cumberbatch is my favorite.  Every Hamlet brings something special to the role - Cumberbatch brought his voice and incredible emotion to the role.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 10/15/15 at 11:38pm

Looking forward to seeing a re-screening this Tuesday! Is it really as long as it says on Fandango? 4 hours? I know Hamlet is a long play, but usually it's trimmed significantly. Were there intermissions? 

[Mo3]

Posted: 10/15/15 at 11:42pm

3-1/2 hours which includes one 20-minute intermission. Interested to know what you think. I know some people hate Cumberbatch on principle, but I also know some people who loathed him who are fans after seeing this. So I guess it depends. On what, I'm not sure, but enjoy it.

[ggersten]

Posted: 10/16/15 at 12:15am

I'm also just back from the "live" streaming.  Well filmed live.  

This was not my favorite Hamlet.  But, it wasn't my least favorite.  I thought the cinema direction was subpar.  Too many close-ups that actually worked to not get me involved in the story - and to lose the sense of the play itself.  (And a few microphone issues for poor Laertes).  The final fencing match leading up to dead bodies everywhere felt clumsy to me.  The close-ups didn't allow for the frenetic aspect of that sequence - and does Gertrude really drink to Hamlet after it appears he has slain Laertes (in that filmic slo-motion)?  I also found the play to be not only lit darkly and but also directed to be dark.  The comedy was rarely funny because of the overriding sense of dread from the outset.  Even the Gravedigger sequence was only mildly amusing to me.  The set also was dark and overpowering in its crushing of the human spirit.  The Barbican has a large stage but I didn't get the sense of the theatre through the direction.  I saw David Tennant in Richard II at that theatre - and that production was electrifying in person.

I thought Cumberbatch did a good job - it was certainly a different Hamlet.  He was anguished and angry from the get-go, playing his depressing records.  But, his madness played as someone playing at madness, but in a much too obvious way. I found many of his outbursts to be over the top as if he was trying to rise to the words and some image of the words, rather than have the words do the work.  That said, I particualrly liked where he is trying to decide whether to kill Claudius as Claudius prays.  The close-ups also hurt this production because Hamlet looked older than I think of the character.  

 

To me, the best job was done by Ciaran Hinds as Claudius.  My least favorite was Sian Brooke's Ophelia.  She was so anguished and distraught from the get-go, that even her "mad" scene didn't feel that far from how Ophelia had been.  Also, I was confused because Hamlet and Ophelia are kissing and then break and seemingly have nice words with each other, before Ophelia's first scene.  It made it appear that Hamlet's plan of madness was divulged to Ophelia - but that idea quickly dissipated.  

I thought the Hamlet-Gertrude scene after Polonius is slain to be awkward - as both actors seemed to just forget that Polonius is lying there dead on the floor.

I also enjoyed Leo Bill's Horatio. Kobna Holdbrook-Smith had his moments as Laertes, but his "anger" was too overwhelming in his scenes with Claudius.

If I had never seen Hamlet before, I think this was probably a good production or introduction.

The presentation started at 7 - but Hamlet itself didn't start until 7:15 and ended around 10:25 - with the 20 minute interval.  There was extra material at the beginning - an interview with Cumberbatch and a trip to a school - but nothing during the interval.

 

 

Updated On: 10/16/15 at 12:15 AM

[nicnyc]

Posted: 10/16/15 at 1:48am

I also saw it tonight. Didn't love the production choices/directing - but Cumberbatch was absolutely wonderful.  Like the previous poster said - not my favorite production by any stretch, but Cumberbatch is my favorite Hamlet - (and I've seen a ton of them).  He is a master of the poetic language - and instills each moment with unbelievable specificity.  His commitment, authenticity and emotion is unparalleled. I loved about 80% of what he did (also agree with previous poster that one of his best moments was when he was agonizing over the decision of whether or not to kill the praying Claudius. I also particularly loved his aside to the audience during the first scene with Claudius & Gertrude). I thought his weakest scene was "Get thee to a nunnery" - though I think the directing choices and his scene partner were a lot to have to overcome.  I also really enjoyed Ciaran Hinds' Claudius - and Anastasia Hille's Gertrude (she made an amazing emotional moment out of the often problematic imagery-rich speech telling Laertes of Ophelia's death.) Jim Norton's Polonius and Sian Brooke's Ophelia were real weak spots for me (I never saw a production where I wanted to drown Ophelia myself lol). The last duel scene was particularly bad from a directing/production standpoint - missing or not giving proper weight to some of the key moments (Gertrude deciding to drink the glass that Claudius poisoned, Claudius looking on in horror, etc - and it was all a clumsy mess.)  I would highly recommend seeing it for Cumberbatch's performance alone.

[Mo3]

Posted: 10/16/15 at 1:48am

If you saw it in London, you would have appreciated the filming. I didn't feel taken out of the play by the closeups, but I can understand that. And yes, the last part was too dark. I loved the humor, as did the audience I was with tonight. But again, different strokes.  

I felt at first -- and maybe I'm the crazy one -- that Cumberbatch's Hamlet did put on the craziness -- yes, he was depressed and grief-stricken, and it ultimately drove him bonkers. But I really felt like in that soldier bit he was putting it on. As far as it being over the top, not in the theater, and I loved the way he spoke the language.

I think in the streaming you're less aware of how the set and staging just ate the second part up and how unfocused that direction was in parts.  And as far as your other comments - some of that is due to the cuts, of which there were too many. DIdn't like the slo-mo.  Some critic said it was a five-star Hamlet in a three-star production.  I think that was correct. I mean, let's face it, you don't need all those bells and whistles for Hamlet. A stage and a table and a couple of chairs will do.

Cumberbatch's age didn't bother me. The first Hamlet was about 38 - I know Hamlet is 30, but look how old Barrymore was, and he certainly looked older than he was even from the stage. And Paul Giamatti just did it - he is such a wonderful actor, but I'm sure that was a very different Hamlet.

Ciaran Hinds - in the theater, his words come out as swallowed, and you can't get a lot of what he's saying. He is a powerful actor, certainly.

I appreciate all of your comments - it's always interesting to get people's takes.  

[Mo3]

Posted: 10/16/15 at 1:56am

Definitely on most counts. Frankly it wasn't that well directed, and I think the cuts hurt some of the roles.

It's so funny that you and the previous poster mentioned the part where Hamlet considers killing Claudius, because that was the one thing brought up by one of the critics - she thought it was stupid because Hamlet was too far away and couldn't have killed him.

I'm glad Ciaran Hinds came off so well, but in the theater, his voice is not good - you just can't get what he's saying. I got so much more tonight.

It's just fascinating how differently things come out when seeing the film. You're the first person I've spoken to or corresponded with that thought Gertrude was anything, and people seemed to like Polonius. In the papers, Ophelia got good reviews. I thought she seemed like an off-stage voice. This director wasn't big on interactions.

[Sam2]

Posted: 10/16/15 at 2:08am

I'm a little shocked by the amount of negative reviews on Sian Brooke's performance as Ophelia. I really thought she was amazing and it's been a while since I was so blown away by an actress in that particular role. Off course, Benedict Cumberbatch is a genius and I loved most of his scenes. I keep wondering if seeing the show live would have had an effect on my opinion, because I did feel like some of his acting was a little over the top, but I tolerated it because I felt like it was just an awkward transition from a live theatre to a screen. An incredible piece of theatre, though. 

[Mo3]

Posted: 10/16/15 at 5:00am

Yes, it's true, not many people liked her. I would blame the direction. I know Hamlet to see it and I knew some of the cuts but not all - that could have affected her too.

Also you are right in my opinion, Cumberbatch gave a stage performance. He didn't temper it for the screen. It did not come off overdone at all in the theater.

In all honesty, the last part of the play, direction-wise, was all over the place. Though on film it was too dark, it worked better with the camera focus.