has anyone seen campbell scott's version of hamlet?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet : One Thread

I'd like to get some opinions of Scott's interpretation of Hamlet, if I could. I think the movie was made for TV in 2000. I thought it was good. Personally. And...don't hurt me, but...better than Branagh's. Or at least more interesting. Anyhow. :D Anybody?

-- Chantal (punchxdrunk@hotmail.com), December 05, 2004


Well, yeah, there are quite a few problems with Branagh's, so I'm not gonna hurt you. But regrettably, I haven't had an opportunity to see Campell Scott's.

-- catherine england (catherine.england@arts.usyd.edu.au), December 06, 2004.

It was remarkably good! And I have to agree with you on that overall, it was better than Branagh's.

Before anyone else gets up in arms over my disparaging the now holier than thou Branagh, let me explain. Yes, it was commendable of Branagh to film the play without any cuts, I love him for that as well. But let's not forget Hamlet is about Hamlet. Despite the rather low production value of Scott's version, his portrayal of Hamlet was the most dead on interpretation of Hamlet EVER!

We ask, is Hamlet Mad? Why does he delay in killing Claudius? Why is he suicidal? It is fear and confusion. Hamlet is essentially a gentle scholar and a man of reason, who had the perfect life with a wonderful loving family and all the safety that his position as prince affords him. Yet overnight, the world as he knows it crumbles. Faced with the Ghost of his father and the truth of his death, the ugliness of life storms into Hamlet's already vulnerable state. Coupled with this injustice of life, the afterlife in the form of the ghost will have thrown all of reason as Hamlet understands out the door. Campbell is able to bring this alive. No one else has. Branagh's Hamlet is much too commanding and sure of himself. Why would such a man be suicidal or delay his revenge? With Campbell's confused, vulnerable, and often weak Hamlet, the play makes sense! As I was watching his performance I was able to really see into Hamlet and why he does what he does.

Okay, so there are some weak points. I could name several dozen, but Hamlet is what makes Hamlet and Campbell Scott is the best committed to film.

-- Hlee (Hlee@scrippscol.edu), December 09, 2004.

I agree with the several folks who have praised Campbell Scott's Hamlet as among the best--if not THE best--they've seen. HLee has articulated several of the reasons for this. I've seen pretty much all the filmed versions (and I LIKED Mel Gibson's--as un-p.c. as that might be considered), and none was as compelling as Scott's. I'd like to add, though, that another reason I think I found it compelling is that Scott does an excellent job at delivering Sh's language in American English. (Stephen Holden points this out as well in his very positive review in the NYT.) Scott's Hamlet is, then, both accessible and profoundly moving. In addition to Scott, Roscoe Lee Brown is excellent as Polonius--again, in large measure because of his powerful delivery of Sh's language. Has anyone seen any extended critical analysis or thoughtful reviews, other than Holden's?

-- Douglas W. Richards (drichard@mail.keuka.edu), January 11, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ