hamnet review
Do we ever wonder why we still use Shakespeare's work?
I mean there were other writers at the time, why do we not hold them to the same level of honor?
Just a thought I had before watching “Hamnet’, I myself questioned that very thing back in the day, back when I was first professionally training in acting. I’ve learned since then that we still use his plays because there is intention in every word. His brilliance was in creating something that was more than just text, it was that next level thing.
While watching this movie, a question I usually ask when I teach workshops came up.
So I’ll ask it here.
A cat and an actor are on stage. Why does the audience watch the cat?? Why is the cat more interesting??
Now jumping in, I feel like Paul Mescal’s issue in this is that I feel he is not personally connected to what he is doing, his performance feels kind of empty. I think he could’ve taken more time to respond, he doesn’t respond with his body. He is very good when he talks about the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Before, he is asked to tell a story that moved him. I feel even then he could’ve technically done a lot there with his body. So he tells the story. He talked without thinking, he let the scene and his objective speak for him. I wish he acted like that in the rest of the film. He talks about this story and you really feel the depth, I feel like he would be really good at procedural work. His performance in this leaves me with many questions unfortunately. I feel like his approach is inconsistent. When he (the character) breaks down, again it feels empty in a way. Whatever his approach was, it left him empty and it made for that moment lacking a sense of chargedness. When he is watching her when the hawk dies, he has a focus that is good.
I find him anticipating a lot, he is almost jumping the gun rather than trusting the work and fully being grounded. When he sees Hamnet’s body after he is dead he anticipates that. I feel he could have taken more time.
When he is in the rehearsal space working on Hamlet he is almost empty, in a way that he wasn’t really thinking anything.
See when you study acting, you learn acting is doing. I am watching this section and I am left with so many questions.
He does have a release but I feel as though he was anticipating the breakthrough so he is playing empty as an opposite rather than fully just being in the moment.
I feel like the more this goes on the more I understand his approach is correct, but his moment before and his inner monologue is wrong.
Okay so when he goes to the docks and says the to be or not to be lines, I feel like he has found the correct desperation in his voice but not in his body.
When he is performing as the ghost, he is very good. It is sad because he is inconsistent in this role, he has some moments that definitely could’ve used another few takes, and he has moments where he is right on.
Jessie Buckley’s portrayal is incredible because she lets the words and the circumstances make contact. She waits and responds. Technically, her point of focus (focal point for those of us who are not giant acting nerds) is incredible because she uses it to make her portrayal more honest and genuine. By holding your eyeline somewhere it naturally makes a person uncomfortable. The direct and deliberate with her eyes the more it feeds her intention and her humanity.
She remained patient and she stayed grounded and honest.
She was messy and imperfect, which made her portrayal relatable.
She used her insecurities as a secondary motivator which drives her performance.
I will say either the direction or her and Paul’s personal choice to have her kind of empty when he leaves to london is kind of strange.
When her child is still born, she reacts honestly. When she talks to William about the fall and the children becoming ill, there is a sense of relaxation and ease in her voice, she uses her toolkit in a very effective way.
She is acting in a selfish way to play the character, her focal point when Hamnet is dying is driving her desperation and her choice of pace is heartbreaking, but unfortunately that is what makes it human and relatable. Her choice to not care about how she looks and to just be honest for the character is remarkable.
You can tell she did her prep work and her grounding before every take.
When she is watching the show you can tell that she is curious, she has extreme technical precision and accuracy, you can tell that she is only reacting when things naturally occur.
Her honesty while watching is incredible.
The actor who plays the brother is good, not incredible but good. He really waits and listens. He is a good example of playing a role selfishly, while still being a good support for the other characters in the show.
The child actors also play good supports for the leads to work off of. I don’t want to critique kids because they are kids and still growing, learning, and changing. I will say they do an incredible job serving their purpose in the film.
I do wanna say the use of color in this film is genius. The importance of nature in the film and how it is used is a kind of another character in a way. I know this is from the book, but the use of the actual words from Hamlet is incredible and you see a lot of parallels from the film and the original Shakespearian play. I have studied and directed that show so I am quite familiar with the script.
In conclusion, I will say Chloe Zhao did an incredible job. The story and the way it was told were incredibly touching. Yes, there were some inconsistencies with Paul Mescal, he had some extremely touching moments. Jessie Buckley was a performance that is hard to put into words, she was raw, messy, and emotional. I understand why she swept at award season. The side characters were amazing, the choice of color and music and set were amazing.
A thoroughly enjoyable watch and one I will definitely come back to.
We watch the cat because the cat is just being a cat, the person is trying to do something because there are people watching. Just being open and honest makes for amazing and relatable stories.