Page 131 - Shakespeare in the Movie From the Silent Era to Shakespeare in Love
P. 131

120   I  Shakespeare  in  the  Movies


        repressed,  childhood trauma. Today that  era's strict  Freudianism (on
        film  as in  life)  seems  naive  due  to  its  insistence  that  a single prob-
        lem  rests  at  the  root  of  all  mental  illness.  At  the  time,  though,
        Olivier  was  as immersed  in  reading psychological  tracts  as he  was
        busily  watching  recent  film  noirs.  Not  surprisingly,  his  Hamlet
        emerged  as a representative work for the  postwar years.
           Before  embarking  on  the  $2 million  film's  six-month  gestation
        period,  Olivier  consulted  noted analyst-author Ernest Jones, who had
        written  extensively  about Hamlet  as suffering  from  an oedipal com-
        plex;  not  coincidentally,  Olivier  played  Oedipus  onstage  to  great
        acclaim  earlier that  same year. As Olivier  and Alan Dent  cut  Hamlet
        by one-third, Sir Laurence arrived at his  own conclusion:  "This," he
        announces   at  the  film's  beginning,  "is  the  tragedy of a  man  who
        could  not  make  up his mind." The movie  proceeded  from  that  con-
        ception  (or, if  you  will,  misconception);  general  audiences  wrongly
        assumed the  opening words were by the  Bard. The  mainstream  press
        responded  positively,  enjoying  the  castle's  horror-movie appearance
        as  well  as  the  accessibility  achieved  by  streamlining.  Academics,
        particularly in the literary  field,  complained that  Olivier  pandered to
        public  taste  and  misrepresented Shakespeare's  meaning  by provid-
        ing  a reductive  interpretation  which  removed  the  ambiguity  that
        makes  Hamlet  great.
           No  question  that  his  film  was,  as  Robert  Hatch  of  the  New
        Republic  wrote,  "overwhelmingly  visual—it  pours  out  images  and
        impressions  with  a  prodigal richness  you  would  suppose exceeded
        your  capacity to  assimilate."  Olivier  had  been  highly  impressed  by
        the  use  of deep focus  in  the  work  of Orson Welles, particularly Cit-
        izen  Kane.  By presenting  several visual  planes with  the  same  sharp
        clarity, he thereby brought a new realism  to the  screen. In fact,  Kane
        had, in  1941,  served as something  of a precursor to film  noir,  as had
        Alfred  Hitchcock's  Rebecca of the  previous year,  in  which  Olivier
        starred.  Those  directors  shared  a  fascination  with  long,  winding
        staircases,  which  separate  the  hero's  house  into  upper  and  lower
        levels,  suggesting  the  character's  own  higher  consciousness  and
        lower Freudian id.
           Likewise,  Olivier  transformed Hamlet's  Elsinore into  a  symbolic
        estate  on  the  order  of Kane's  Xanadu or  Max  de  Winter's  Mander-
        ley.  Olivier  opens with  a  dissolve  montage through  a  mist,  toward
        the  hero's  foreboding  home,-  shots  of  surf  crashing nearby  could  be
        outtakes  from  Hitchcock's  Rebecca,  Olivier's  hero,  a  cinematic
        second cousin to  Kane or Max, emerges as more confused  than com-
   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136