William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” is one of the most famous pieces of literature — and one of the most adapted into film. From looser adaptations like “The Lion King” to Kenneth Branagh’s four-hour long adaptation ripped straight from the tragic play’s pages, it’s hard to imagine an original interpretation of the Bard’s beloved play. Yet, director Aneil Karia’s rendition of “Hamlet” finds a way.
Released in theaters April 10, “Hamlet,” starring Riz Ahmed in the titular role, is unlike many of its predecessors. To begin, most portrayals of Hamlet have been blonde-haired, blue-eyed men. Ahmed is a South Asian man, and the screenplay is altered to better represent his culture.
The film’s first scene shows the preparation of the King’s dead body in the Hindu religious tradition, including dressing the King in all white, cleansing his body and finally, cremating him.
The most eye-catching choice is the substitution of the wedding play for a traditional Indian wedding dance. The story remains the same — the dance is used as a ploy to force Hamlet’s uncle Claudius into admitting he murdered the King so he could marry Hamlet’s mother Gertrude. The dance was choreographed by choreographer and dancer Akram Khan, who is known for blending Western dance techniques with Kathak, a traditional Indian dance.
The dance was my favorite scene of the movie. It was visually captivating, emotionally frightening and wholly immersive, making me feel like I was present at the wedding. The dancers wordlessly portrayed the same sentiments as the play-within-a-play in the original text, but it was far more masterful and dramatic than most depictions of the play that I have seen.
Another departure from tradition is the setting. Most “Hamlet” adaptations are set in the late Middle Ages, akin to the play. In this rendition, the story takes place in modern-day London, merging traditional Shakespearean verse with present day dialect. While it initially caught me off guard, I found this blending of the past and present to be symbolic of the longevity of the literature. The first performance of “Hamlet” was at the beginning of the 17th century, and much of it has remained the same throughout history.
The influence of modernity persists in one of the film’s most important scenes: Hamlet’s famous “To be, or not to be” soliloquy. On stage, this speech is often accompanied by darkness, forcing the audience to focus their attention on the actor alone. In “Hamlet,” however, it is delivered as Hamlet speeds down the highway in his BMW into oncoming traffic, overcome by the stages of grief he is experiencing simultaneously.
The absurdity of the setting is hard to look past, but Ahmed delivers one of the best executions of the speech. Every action, big or small, that has happened throughout “Hamlet” leads to this moment, and Ahmed carries this weight flawlessly. His performance was one of the highlights of a film plagued by its dense source material.
“Hamlet” runs between four to five hours on stage. As this runtime is almost never seen in film, it is impossible to include everything. Concessions must be made, but Karia makes some wrong ones. Aside from the famous soliloquy, I was most excited to see the final act’s swordfight between Hamlet and Laertes on screen. Unfortunately, my excitement was unwarranted, as this scene was cut from the film.
The role of Fortinbras, the Norwegian prince who takes over Hamlet’s kingdom at the end of the play, was also cut for time. In the film, Fortinbras was collectively portrayed by a community of unhoused people living on land taken by Elsinore, Hamlet’s family’s business. The introduction of the Fortinbras community tried to comment on large conglomerates’ encroachment on tent cities as well as expose Hamlet to the disdain people held towards his family’s corrupt actions. Yet, aside from a news clipping Hamlet finds and a minor interaction with the Fortinbras people during his brief banishment, the Fortinbras remain deep in the film’s background. Cutting “Hamlet” down to a nearly two-hour runtime is commendable, but the effort falls flat when important story aspects are omitted.
An adaptation of “Hamlet” that wasn’t a carbon copy of the Shakespearean classic was long overdue, and I appreciated Karia’s creative liberties. Still, the film would have benefited from a longer runtime to incorporate more of the original plot and greater commitment to intentional and valuable social commentary. The Bard would be glad to know that his play continues to live on, but this rendition is not the one I would recommend to him.
Email: [email protected]
Related Stories:
— Reel Thoughts: ‘Hamnet’ is a slow-paced, heartbreaking classic
— Reel Thoughts: ‘You, Me & Tuscany’ left a sour taste in our mouths
