Hamlet is a take on William Shakespeare's classic play that Sir Laurence Olivier directed and starred in. The film won Sir Laurence Olivier two Oscars- one for his acting and one for best picture due to his producing role in the production of the film. Olivier also appeared in an earlier best picture winner, 1940's Rebecca directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Hamlet was the second film that Olivier directed and his second Shakespearean adaptation. Olivier is considered one of the greatest actors of the 20th century and this version of Hamlet is considered his seminal work. Olivier was the first film actor to be elevated to peerage (knighted) for his work in film by the queen. While Olivier obtained four Oscars during his long and prolific career, Hamlet is the only film for which he won a best actor award. Olivier's other Oscars besides the two for Hamlet, came from a special award for his work on his first film, Henry V, and a lifetime achievement award given to the knighted actor in 1978. Hamlet is also the first film that we have reviewed where the director was also the leading actor in the film. While Olivier did not win the directing award, his achievement of directing a best picture where he also won best actor clearly solidifies his place in the annuls of Oscar history. While the previous two films we have viewed from the 1940's dealt with the post-war malaise in American culture and the despicable rise of anti-Semitism in America in the 1940's, Hamlet pivots away from reality and takes a stab at the escapist entertainment of the golden age of Hollywood. This import marked the first non-American film to win best picture and was the first film version of Hamlet to include sound. There have been seven post-war versions of Hamlet including this 1948 version, "Grigori Kozintsev's 1964 Russian adaptation; a film of the John Gielgud-directed 1964 Broadway production, Richard Burton's Hamlet, which played limited engagements that same year; Tony Richardson's 1969 version (the first in color), Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 version starring Mel Gibson; Kenneth Branagh's full-text 1996 version; and Michael Almereyda's 2000 modernization starring Ethan Hawke". While I had seen a few of the other aforementioned adaptations, this was my first time watching this 1948 version. While many of the shots in this depiction of Hamlet seem staged like the theatrical production, it takes the introduction of phantasmagoria to become more abstract. Using close-up angles and fog, Olivier symbolizes the arrival of Hamlet's father's ghost. The special effects in the film held up well to modern standards in most scenes, with only the shots of the entire castle suffering from a lack of CGI or expensive budget. On a somewhat related note, the voice of his father's ghost coming from the helmet of his armor reminded me of how George Lucas styled Darth Vader in Star Wars. Perhaps Lucas drew inspiration from this Olivier film.Without writing too much of a book report on Hamlet, whose plot and subject matter is some of the most well-known in the entire cannon of English literature, I will instead focus on the cinematic elements. This cerebral story, with many soliloquies and internal dialogue, has a tendency to drag a bit. With limited action for periods of time, the movie is largely saved by the peaks of action including flashes of violence and emotion. The acting is superb at parts, but does show flourishes of melodrama typical of earlier films. Additionally, the sometimes dragging moments are disrupted by the hits of the Shakespearean dialogue with a performance of the "To Be or Not to Be" Monologue delivered with Olivier's incredible acting chops. Besides Olivier, the real star of this film is the soundtrack. Between the brilliant score played by the orchestra, the sound effects in the form of heartbeats and gusty corridors add tremendously to moments of introspection and eeriness. Overall, I found Hamlet to be a very traditional yet innovative portrayal of Shakespeare's source material. While the play was cut down to deliver a film 2.5 hours long, it still captured the major action and dialogue for which Hamlet is known. In full honesty, Shakespearean English is not my favorite and watching this film was a little bit of a chore. Fortunately, there were sword fights and murder to break up the dense dialogue. Unfortunately, the film ceases to cross the line from cinema to entertainment for my particular tastes. Olivier's performance and direction breathed life into the already dramatic story and the themes of betrayal and loss are timeless motifs that will remain relevant for all time. With that said, in order to truly enjoy this film you really need to commit with both of your love of literature as well as the melodramatic style of 1940's cinema.

Heresy as it may be for someone like me, with a Masters degree in English, to admit, I've decided that I just don't care for Shakespeare. I can appreciate his supreme place in the annals of literature, and can acknowledge that just about every aspect of modern literature owes some debt to him, but I'm fairly bored silly when trying to actually watch any of his plays on screen.This adaptation of "Hamlet" is thought to be by many one of the best, but I found it to be a bit of a plodding snoozer. Laurence Olivier directed himself to a Best Actor Oscar for his performance as the brooding Dane, and he brought a satisfyingly stark and chilly look to the film that fits its tone and themes, but despite his immense efforts to prove otherwise, the film more than anything proves that Shakespeare belongs more on stage than it does on screen. The suspension of disbelief and the acceptance of certain plot contrivances that work fine in the illusion of theater can't survive under the minute scrutiny of the movie camera. I don't know that a newbie to "Hamlet" would be able to make any sense of the play or the main character's motivations, let alone his dilemma, from this version."Hamlet" ushered in a period of backlash against foreign influences in Hollywood when it won the Best Picture Oscar in 1948, piquing those in the industry who felt only home-grown products should win the big prize. It also won Oscars for its black and white art direction and black and white costume design in the first year that the latter category existed. Olivier was not able to turn his Best Director nomination into a win (no one has ever won both Best Director and Best Actor for the same film), nor were Best Supporting Actress nominees Jean Simmons (as the doomed Ophelia) or William Walton, who provided the film its score.Grade: B

It can't get better than Hamlet. Maybe the most-quoted English piece of all time, Hamlet is a delicate piece that needs to be done right. In his 1948, black and white, Best Picture-winning Hamlet, Olivier delivered an adaptation that hung close to the letter and spirit of the original source, but didn't dare to fly free. It certainly grasped the mood Shakespeare wanted, but it doesn't take filming freedoms where the text allowed. Certainly, he achieved the most freedom from the stage through the cinematography, most noticeably the unique camera movements imitating the sound of a heartbeat that plays when the dead king's ghost is observed in anyway in the story.Hamlet feels more like a filmed version of the play rather than an adaptation. But at that, it is amazing. The dark presence and tragic undertones grow through Olivier's Oscar-winning lead performance and Jean Simmons's crazed Ophelia. As the narrator states in the beginning of film, "This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind." In the play and film, Hamlet is visited by his father's (the former king of Denmark) ghost, stating that his uncle, now the king, had murdered him. However, Hamlet is unsure what action to follow, for if he murders his uncle, it would be repaying evil with evil. Unfortunately, a mistake causes Hamlet to be exiled to England, but he doesn't give up there, and the story builds up to a climatic ending.Like the play itself, Hamlet offers many questions but doesn't give any straightforward answers. The questions dive deep, and along with Shakespeare's old English, younger viewers might not understand. As with the play, an undercurrent topic of incest plays out, mostly through Hamlet's complaints against his uncle taking his father's widow as his wife. Furthermore, the ending is dramatic and sad – with a lot of dead people.Olivier, who has the skill to drop any obscure line of Shakespeare in a beat, manages to work a scarcely worthy adaptation of the play, despite having to cut many monologues and soliloquies in order to run under 160 minutes. One of the weak points of the film is Olivier's recitation of the famous soliloquy, "To be or not to be." To my disappointment, Olivier rushes through it with melancholy and something short of fake that it doesn't have much dramatic and emotional impact. The play did not have any rule or details that restricted it from emotional freedom, especially as a film. Olivier seems to restrict himself to rules that Shakespeare didn't put or intend. But otherwise, Olivier's Hamlet is extraordinary in its own right. He portrays it in the way Shakespeare might have imagined it – the non-extravagant set pieces, simply choreographed and bloodless duels, and few, select locations for different scenes. For the sources and educational material, Olivier's Hamlet is worth watching, but only for the artistic value of the spirit and letter of Shakespeare.

Of the three Shakespearean plays adapted for the screen by Laurence Olivier, this is the one with which I am the most familiar. It's been quite some time since I've read it or seen it performed but I would guess that Olivier cut a good third, if not more, of the play for this film version. Most significantly, he entirely cut out the major characters of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Fortinbras as well as quite a few minor ones. In spite of this, however, the story retains its general thrust - if not all the specifics - and the film is still magnificent as Olivier once again utterly excels as both an actor and a director. This was the first British or non-American film to win the Best Picture Actor and Olivier became the first actor to win the Best Actor Oscar for a film that he directed himself. The only other person to accomplish this feat was Roberto Benigni in "La vita è bella" 49 years later. Although Olivier was nominated for twelve Oscars (nine for Best Actor, one for Best Supporting Actor and two for Best Picture), this film was the only one for which he won any Academy Award.As the melancholy Dane, Olivier is absolutely wonderful. While the cuts to "Henry V" meant that the title character was shown in a very positive light, he did not hesitate - as either actor or director - here to emphasise his character's less desirable qualities such as his egotistical behaviour and his utter callousness when it comes to unintentionally killing Polonius. And yet Olivier's performance also draws attention to the character's psychological vulnerability after the murder of his father, thus eliciting sympathy. His lust for revenge has cut him off from his emotions, something which is also seen in his brutal rejection of Ophelia. Olivier also plays the ghost of Hamlet's father in the film and does a fantastic job in that role too.Speaking of Ophelia, the 18-year-old Jean Simmons is excellent, playing the role with a remarkable level of subtlety for someone of her age and comparatively limited acting experience. In spite of playing Hamlet's mother Gertrude, Eileen Herlie was almost eleven years younger than Olivier. While she unsurprisingly looks much younger than him, her very strong performance and great voice meant that I forgot this rather odd age gap existed almost as soon as she opened her mouth. Felix Aylmer, who played the Archbishop of Canterbury in "Henry V", has a far larger role in this film as Polonius and was certainly up to the task. He's just fantastic. Basil Sydney isn't as strong as I would have liked as Claudius but he is still very good. However, I don't think that there is anyone in the film who gives a bad performance. Olivier had such a great eye for casting that it's a shame that he directed a mere five films. I wish that an artist - not usually a word that I use when referring to actors - of his calibre had been more prolific behind the camera. Aside from those actors that I have already mentioned, I would like to single out Esmond Knight (who unfortunately has a far smaller role than in "Henry V"), John Laurie, Terence Morgan, Anthony Quayle and Stanley Holloway. In his first British film, Peter Cushing - one of my favourite actors who, like Olivier, played Van Helsing years later - is good in the small supporting role of the foppish Osric but his performance isn't on the same level as most of his later ones. I have to say that I have never paid so much attention to the extras in a film as in this one! This is because three actors who became very well known in later years made uncredited appearances in the film: Christopher Lee, Desmond Llewelyn and Patrick Macnee. In only his third film, Lee makes two "blink and you'll miss them" appearances just before the duel between Hamlet and Laertes. In the first instance, he appears behind his future best friend and frequent on screen nemesis Peter Cushing in what was their first of 24 films together. Llewelyn was far easier to spot as he appears quite prominently in the background of several scenes. He actually has slightly more screen time than the credited Patrick Troughton, who portrays the small but pivotal role of the Player King but doesn't have any lines. While I was on a constant lookout for Lee and Macnee (the film's only two surviving cast members), I didn't manage to spot the future John Steed. Acting aside, the film looks fantastic. In contrast to the vibrant Technicolor of "Henry V", the film was shot in black and white. Apparently, this was done more for financial than artistic reasons but the black and white cinematography adds to the sense of foreboding. The use of deep focus - probably inspired by "Citizen Kane" - is superlative. As with Orson Welles, Olivier demonstrated that he was a master of not one but two crafts in a single film. Incidentally, Olivier had hoped to make "Macbeth" after "Henry V" but the fact that Welles was working on his own version put paid to that idea. "Macbeth" has always been my favourite Shakespearean play so the fact that Olivier never got to make his version of it for the big screen is hugely disappointing, particularly since it was considered one of his best roles - and that's really saying something - and it would have starred his then wife Vivien Leigh as Lady Macbeth.Overall, the film is a masterpiece in spite of the fact that it cuts significant portions of the play. One of my Top 30 to 35 films of all time.