Hamlet (I) (1964) User Reviews

Richard Burton is amazing

[HotToastyRag · 9/10 · 21 July 2017]

I'm notorious for my dislike of Shakespeare. I've often said the only Shakespeare I like is 10 Things I Hate About You. When I watched Richard Burton's Hamlet, everything changed.

Burton's energy level is unbelievable. He practically bounces right out of the screen to personally tell each audience member his vision. It's incredible to watch, and incredible to know he gave that same performance every night for 137 nights on Broadway, a record. This taping of a live performance was stylistically filmed as a "rehearsal", so the sets are minimalistic, and everyone is wearing street clothes. Normally, I don't like when period pieces are modernized, but in this case, Richard Burton could have been wearing a clown costume and I still would have loved it.

Richard Burton is the first and only person in the world to make me understand Shakespearian language. I don't know how he does it. He embodies the meaning behind the confusing words and opens a whole new world for the audience. It's incredible.

If you like Shakespeare, watch it. If you like Richard Burton, watch it. And if you like the Hamlet story, regardless of how many other versions you've seen and which one you think is your favorite, watch it. It will become your new favorite. Frankly, it's the best.

A theatrical experience

[madbeast · 7/10 · 18 February 2004]

For those looking for a strictly cinematic version of "Hamlet" you should probably look elsewhere, but for a theatrical experience of the classic tale of the Melancholy Dane, you could do worse than pick up this version of the 1964 Broadway production starring Richard Burton.

Essentially a photographed performance of a stage production, this "Hamlet" was directed by John Gielgud with the concept of being a dress rehearsal (to pacify Richard Burton's dislike of wearing period costume) with actors in street clothes and bare bones set and props. The concept falls flat but Gielgud does a fine job of staging the action (the convention of showing the ghost as a massive shadow voiced by Gielgud works wonderfully well), making one wish that he'd used a more conventional look for the show. The cast is decidedly uneven, ranging from brilliant (Hume Cronyn in his Tony-winning role as Polonius) to incompetent (Alfred Drake as a rather hopeless Claudius). While Burton is hardly the definitive Hamlet, frequently resorting to vocal pyrotechnics which are ultimately meaningless, there is no doubting his intelligence or brooding charisma in the role. He may not have hit a bull's eye, but he is so far beyond such recent mediocre Hamlets as Ethan Hawke, Kenneth Branagh and Mel Gibson that his performance truly gives the viewer a splendid example of what a distinguished classical actor is capable of. His handling of the soliloquies (especially "Oh, what a rogue and peasant slave am I") are very effective indeed.

Those who quibble with the lack of close-ups or iffy cinematic qualities are missing the point of the experience: the faraway perspective makes the viewer fell like they are seated at an actual live performance at the Lunt Fontanne Theatre in 1964, and gives a much more uniquely theatrical experience than attempts to "cinemize" the play such as Branagh's vulgar and miscast film version or Olivier's celebrated bowdlerized adaptation (whose gutting of the text frequently plays like "Hamlet's Greatest Hits").

Not much thought was given to the Special Features of the DVDs: the listing of the awards won by Burton, Cronyn and Gielgud are laughably incomplete, and it seems to me that the producers missed an opportunity by not including observations by a living cast member on a second voice track (cast members William Refield and Richard L. Sterne each wrote books on the production, and it might have been rewarding to hear the remembrances of Hume Cronyn or John Cullum or Alfred Drake on this DVD).

But despite it's faults, this is a valuable little treasure for anyone with serious interest in Shakespeare's play and a unique opportunity to see a memorable theater production without leaving your living room.

Burn after reading

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 28 January 2023]

Filmed, or rather videotaped, performance of the Broadway production of Shakespeare's play. Richard Burton stars as the Danish prince who plots revenge against his mother and uncle for the murder of his father. Also featuring Hume Cronyn as Polonius, Alfred Drake as Claudius, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude, Linda Marsh as Ophelia, John Cullum as Laertes, George Voskovec as the Player King, William Redfield as Guildenstern, Clement Fowler as Rosencrantz, and Barnard Hughes as Marcellus. John Gielgud, who staged and directed the play, also provides the off-stage voice of the Ghost.

Running a cool 3 hours and 10 minutes, this presentation is the opposite of the Russian version I watched last night. This strips away the visual, and focuses completely on the text. It's presented as a sort of dress rehearsal, with the performers wearing street clothes, and the sets bare and virtually nonexistent. Burton is good, although he's said to have detested this recording, made over several days from several performances in front of live audiences, and then edited together seamlessly. I thought Hume Cronyn stole the show, and wasn't surprised to learn that he won the Tony that year for his performance. For some reason, there was a contractual stipulation that after the theatrical run, all prints and negatives of this were to be destroyed, and the film was thought lost for a long time, until a single copy was found in the possession of...Richard Burton.

IT WAS REALLY A DRESS REHEARSAL!

[the_captainjcs · 30 August 2002]

Whereas it is true that this version of "Hamlet" with Richard Burton in the title role was a hit on Broadway, that's just part of the story behind the video release.

Burton had become an immensely popular actor after his scandalous marriage to Elizabeth Taylor during the rigors of filming "Cleopatra," in which he played the love-crazed Mark Anthony. After that film's long-delayed release (late 1963), the pair became "Hollywood royalty" with a world-wide following.

Developers/producers of Electronovision capitalized on their phenomenal popularity by arranging the taping of a dress rehearsal. It was released theatrically during the course of the play's Broadway run.

Electronovision was another version of closed-circuit TV; hence, the master videotape is in black-and-white.

A later try with Electronovision was the 1965 closed-circuit, theatrical release of "Harlow," which starred Carol Lynley as 1930s movie actress Jean Harlow. It barely preceded the 1965 film of the same name (Carroll Baker in title role). Although that film was forced to rush through production, it didn't finish in time to be the "first."

Critics of that period, who were not all impressed with this "new medium," really lashed out at this one, which they claimed went "against all ethics."

To my recall, that controversy ended Electronovision.

If you are considering this, then you should see it

[bandw · 9/10 · 8 November 2007]

The fact that you are even thinking about watching this means that there is a high probability that you will like it, since you either like the play or like Burton or both. Any fan of Burton will delight in his performance and any lover of the play should appreciate the no-frills approach. The text is closely followed and not much is deleted. This is not really a movie, but the filming of an actual stage performance presented in front of an audience. By design the production is carried out as though it were a dress rehearsal, with minimal props and most actors appearing in street clothes.

The filming was done in "Electronovision" which appears to be an early method of filming directly from an electronic camera. Several of these cameras were used, providing scenes viewed from different angles and distances. The quality is much higher than the kinescopes of early TV (which were obtained by filming from a camera monitor) but markedly lower than black and white film of the period. Close-ups are good and actually have a quality that is reminiscent of certain contemporary independent films, but shots of the stage filmed at a distance are not as satisfactory. In any case, since Electronovision seems to have met an early death, you are not likely to see anything like this again.

Burton's Hamlet is not so melancholy, but rather angry, sardonic, and impish. He also brings a nimble athleticism to the role. The sword play is well done; it made me nervous watching it. It's hard to think of a contemporary actor who could pull this off. Hume Cronyn turns in a memorable performance as Polonius.

It is interesting to contrast this with Branagh's complete-text film which is in color and very much a movie and not the filming of a stage play. Burton's Hamlet is another example of how every production of this play is unique.

The DVD is available from Amazon.

Hard to find and too often overlooked!

[Reb9 · 9/10 · 9 September 1999]

Difficult to find since it is essentially a video taping of a Broadway performance, but this is a Hamlet not to be missed! Under the firm directorial hand of John Gielgud, Richard Burton creates one of the memorable Hamlets. He rivals Olivier in a very different interpretation. It is important to remember when watching this one that it is not a movie! Still, Burton vividly demonstrates that he could have been the first classical actor of his generation had he focused on that phase of his career. Gielgud appears as the Ghost of King Hamlet and is magnificent in the role. Hume Cronyn is perfection as Polonius. The remainder of the cast is good but not breathtaking. Trivia Buffs!! Who plays the Player Queen in this version (yes, Player Queen)-- a very young Christoper Culkin. Long before he shortened that first name to Kit and fathered MacCauley.

Burton had instructed that after a limited theatrical release all copies of this were to be destroyed. It is fortunate for those of us who love this play and love great classical acting that somewhere someone failed to follow instructions. If you can find a copy by all means rent it.

The play's the thing

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 11 August 2020]

When you do Hamlet like this, a barebones prodiction with the players in street clothes and no sets, you'd better have one good cast. the burden is on them 100% to carry the play text and emotions.

This is what Richard Burton did in the mid 60s on Broadway when he didHamlet in this fashion. Burton took he lead and his Hamlet had force and power to it even with the great soliloquys delivered on a vare stage Fortunate we are that someone taped one of the stage performances and we have it preserved for posterity.

In the supporting cast I particularly liked Hume Cronyn as Polonius and Eileen Herlie as Queen Gertrude. John Collum as he passionate Laertes has a lot going for his performance as well.

Still t's Burton's show and quite the show it is.

A Hit! A palpable hit!

[cwpnewpaltz · 10/10 · 12 September 2000]

Wondrous prose gloriously delivered by stellar actors at the peak of their form. Three hours of fast-spoken, fast paced, riveting action conceived in the mind's eye, not in a computer program. I saw this on restored DVD, and found it breathtaking. There is no point in my inveighing on the merits of the play, but to anyone who might have fixed ideas about the capabilities and limitations of certain well-known Broadway actors, it will be a revelation. That's entertainment!

An interesting experience.

[Movie-ManDan · 7/10 · 10 July 2014]

This is not a movie. It is a video-recording of a live Broadway version in the 1960s. The 60s was a decade of amazing films (Lawrence of Arabia, The Graduate, etc) and the century's best actors on stage. But due to the lack of money and technology, the overall film is not well- done. The camera is at a far distance and hardly ever changes shots. When it does change shots, those parts are great. With more money, more camera could have been used. But I know this was in the 60s. I had mixed feelings with Richard Burton. He is one of the greatest actors of all time whom, just below Peter O'Toole, has been robbed of more Oscars than anybody. I thought that the way he played Hamlet was spot-on. He is able to incorporate the right amount of anger, sadness, wit, craziness, philosophy, determination, and happiness that makes Hamlet the character he is. Hamlet is the hardest character to play, and Richard Burton conquers it. But I was expecting more from Burton's acting. Sure he got the portrayal down-pat, but I barely felt anything. What makes Hamlet is the he shows every kind of human emotion that he makes the audience feel with him. In my review of the 1996 Hamlet, I mentioned that Kenneth Branagh did not portray Hamlet well but was very convincing for what it was. Despite his Hamlet being negative, I felt everything and was very convinced. I can't say the same thing for Richard Burton. I did feel something, but it was canned and mechanical. I guess one of the reasons is because of the lack of good filming, with the majority being at a distance. I loved the soliloquies.

3/4

See The Power Of Shakespere!

[timdalton007 · 9/10 · 22 March 2007]

This is not a film of Hamlet in the traditional sense. It was not made especially for the screen. It is a filmed version of the famed 1964 Broadway production starring the late, great Richard Burton. This version was shown for four performances only on two days in 1964 and then was supposed to be destroyed and thus lost to future generations. But Burton had a copy and thanks to this we have this film. And we should be glad because we nearly lost one of the best versions of Hamlet ever to grace any screen.

Because of the fact it was filmed during a dress rehearsal, it does not have the lavish period sets, costumes, etc. of other versions. This is in fact a far different version in that regard. This version is down with the most minimal of sets and in modern (1960's), even casual clothing. This is not the film for those of you who think Shakespere means lavish costumes and sets. This is a film that focuses on the actors and the words of Shakespere. And that is what makes this film unique. Yet this is both a pro and con of the film. The props and costumes are minimal and this serves at times to distract from the performances which is a shame, since it really the only flaw of the filmed version of the production.

But this is a film that showcases the power of Shakespere. Richard Burton is at the height of his powers in the title role. He can be depresses, charming, loving, comedic, and threatening all in the same scene and never lose his ability to completely take in you as an audience member. His rendition of the "To be or not to be" speech is awe inspiring to see and hear. He never fails to capture the character and this is nothing short of a great performance.

The rest of the cast is terrific as well. Hume Cronyn is terrific as Polonius playing a bumbling and, at times, oxymoron version of the character (for which I do believe he won a Tony Award). Alfred Drake is well suited as Claudius, though he is a bit wooden at times. Eileen Herlie is virtually perfect as Gertrude. Linda Marsh is particularly impressive as the love struck Ophelia and has great chemistry with Burton making their relationship all the more believable. Add on other great actors and an appearance by George Voskovec as the Player King and even a cameo by the play's director Sir John Gielgud as the ghost of King Hamlet to the mix as well.

Overall despite the limitations of this stage version, this is a terrific version of Hamlet. It is carried not by the usual sets and costumes but by the sheer power of actors and some of the greatest words ever to be put to page. If you are going the different versions of Hamlet, this would be a good place to start. See not only a great play, but an acting legend at the height of his powers. These are the reasons to see this version of Hamlet.

Electronovision... Forgotten technique capturing Glory

[wobelix · 9/10 · 10 June 2002]

Looking at this stage performance on dvd (and thank goodness it is available !!!) you will probably start with thinking: well, this is a relic, and so it will be great. The start will confirm that. Lighting is crude, and camera-angles give purely the idea of being inside a theatre (which is marvelous !! why don't they do this more often ? Why not make more dvd's of glorious stage performances ?!) After a while though, the performance takes over. This is Shakespeare, but quick-paced and lucid, never heavy or dull. This is Shakespeare in the 60ies. And it is true magic. It is just what we need nowadays ! Magnificently acted and paced and just that touch of humor, openness and charm ... All what we are lacking today. Look around us !! We can do with another shot of the cocktail we call 60ies ! Look around us ! Within this HAMLET, so classical and so brilliantly played, breathes the 60ies. Only the undertone, yes. But is there. How refreshing.

No Frills Shakespeare

[StrictlyConfidential · 5/10 · 11 November 2018]

(*Hamlet quote*) - "To be, or not to be... That is the question."

Directed by John Gielgud - This 1964 production of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" took place at the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre in NYC.

At a 3-hour running time - This particular version of "Hamlet" is presented as if it were a full final rehearsal of the play where everything is played straight through without any costumes or scenery.

This adaptation of Shakespeare's famous period drama starred a 40-year-old Richard Burton in the title role. It was filmed in stark b&w.

Crude, black-and-white filming of a famous Broadway production: it feels like a shadow from the past

[J. Spurlin · 9 December 2006]

I didn't know a record of this famous production existed until I found it on DVD at the library. What a find! John Gielgud directed Richard Burton in "Hamlet," an acclaimed production in modern dress that was eventually recorded with a process called Electronovision and released in movie theaters. What's fascinating is that this is a record of an actual Broadway performance before an audience; the actors make no concession to the cameras and change nothing. The black-and-white process is crude, far inferior to that of recent stage shows presented on PBS. Yet I was amazed how compelling the show was anyway. Maybe the crudeness helped. It felt like a shadow retrieved from the past: I thought of the filmed dream from "Quatermass and the Pit."

Richard Burton makes a fine Hamlet, more virile and physical than most; his intellectual side is de-emphasized but far from lost; and he's funny. The rest of the cast is uniformly good, but Hume Cronyn stands out as Polonius. He's so good, so funny, so able to bring out both the wisdom and the foolishness of the character that until he's dispatched, the play feels like the "Hamlet and Polonius Show."

Happily a year ago, I found at a thrift store a book by Richard L. Sterne (one of the minor players in this production) called "John Gielgud Directs Richard Burton in Hamlet." It includes transcripts of Gielgud directing the cast, the prompt script Gielgud created, and Sterne's interviews with Burton and Gielgud. I've only looked into it, but I can highly recommend it based on what I've read. Anyone who finds this DVD may want to seek out the book as well.

The greatest vocalization Hamlet's pain and Shakespeare's words ever.

[GARYMARKBE · 10/10 · 3 November 2010]

A previous reviewer misleadingly said, "Because of the fact it was filmed during a dress rehearsal, it does not have the lavish period sets, costumes, etc. of other versions." This special Electonicvision tape was recorded during a live performance not a rehearsal. The play had been running many weeks when this recording was made. The play was staged as if it were done during a rehearsal, but not during a dress rehearsal, because a dress rehearsal would have had elaborate period costumes and not actors casual rehearsal clothes. Of course the actors "casual rehearsal clothes" were carefully selected to enhance and emphasize aspects of the character. Hamelet for example dressed in gloomy black.

The director John Gielgud saw this film and expressed disappointment that Burton had slipped back into his sloppy little boy egotistic expressions at the expense of subtlety. Many critics a the time said that Burton performed self indulgently, emphasizing every moment, ignoring the chances for subtle variation the role allowed;that Burton gave a reading, an indulgence of his virtuoso voice rather than nuanced acting. I saw this when it was first shown to the public in 1964 and I thought it was reading indulging his virtuoso voice and I loved it. Because I think that is exactly as Shakespeare wrote it, indulging his virtuoso voice as a writer. I love this Burton Hamlet more than I can say.

An Epiphany

[PED-2 · 10/10 · 1 February 2000]

I saw Burton do this on Broadway in June, 1964. The experience was a religious one. Certainly, this is not a particularly brilliant PRODUCTION of Hamlet, but Burton's performance - indeed his very presence - transformed me completely. I don't know that film or videotape can translate the effect of the live person of so dynamic an individual, but it can give a hint of what the experience must have been like.

When he died in 1984 (too soon!), the NY Times reviewer said that Burton didn't just belong on the stage, but that the stage was his by divine right. I know what this means. It was a divine epiphany.

By the way, there are a few other gems in this production (Hume Cronin, for example) - and a few clinkers (Alfred Drake). It's well worth the effort if you can find it.

not quite

[ten_inabed · 10/10 · 17 January 2007]

it is taken from the filming of two live performances, then edited together. the production itself was supposed to be more like a dress rehearsal so as to 'reveal the beauty of the language' as Gielgud put it. so it is pared back and is without elaborate costumes modern or ancient and only with the properties vital to the show. Richard Burton was already being touted as one the great Shakespearean actors by Olivier, Tynan and Geilgud among many others and this recording only gives a glimpse of that immense talent - and that is only because the medium of film is not a friend to the theatre; they are different art forms. well worth watching.

Gielgud adds soul to "Hamlet Production.

[peacham · 10/10 · 1 February 2002]

For many years I have tried to find a copy of this film. Having been familiar with the audio recording made with the Broadway cast I always wanted to see them in action. Along comes DVD and my prayers are answered. This stage version of "Hamlet' directed by the legendary Sir John Gielgud is well worth the wait. He sets the play as if we were watching a final run through before costumes and final props are added which really brings the play's themes to the front and center. Richard Burton manages well as Hamlet,however there are times (as this is a live performace that he does not quite seem "in the moment". his vocal inflections and movements ar all technically perfect,but what seems to be lacking is what is strong in the rest of the production...soul. The finest performance in the production is Hume Cronyn as Polonius.he fleshes out a role that could easily be played as(and has been) a stock character. Cronyn's Polonius is a shrewd politician whose age sometimes gets in the way of his reasoning. Also sharpe is Alfred Drake as Claudius. A fine stage actor,This is a rare opportunity to see him in his full glory. Other fine performances are turned in by George Rose as The Grave Digger, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude and a young John Cullum as a passionate Laertes. on the down side is Linda Marsh's Ophelia.Although she seems in character she does not have a strong command of the language. The sets and rehearsal clothes costumes add to the feel of the piece.

Overall this is a piece of theatre history to be cherished.

Just saw it on the big screen

[bonsaisamurai · 10/10 · 27 July 2008]

I just had the particular honour of seeing this with about a hundred others on the big screen at an old theatre in Western Australia - Burton's last wife, Sally, who had the film restored back in 1995, is part of a drama group - who write and perform plays with the elderly as there main audience (as a lot of the plays were from stories and war time letters of the older generations). - She decided to screen Hamlet one time only (since its initial 6 cinema, one weekend only run back in the 60's) to raise funds for the group to take a play to London.

It was absolutely brilliant. It didn't matter that the cast was mostly in 20th century suits etc. The delivery and presence of actors like Burton and Cronyn was so incredible it didn't matter. Truly one of the most brilliant performances I've ever seen.

provocative

[Kirpianuscus · 6 December 2023]

I suppose, provocative is the fair term to define it. For rehearsal, street clothes. For splendid acting of Richard Burton , deserving , no doubts, his Hamlet. For the high loyalty to text. For Hume Cronyn as impressive Polonius.

Sure, many adaptations, some more than ambitious.

Indeed, I see as the best Gamlet of Kuznetsov and the acting of Innokenti Smoktunovski remains, for me, the unique one to perfect. But this version has the precious gift of entire honesty , the wise perspective of Sir John Gielgud and a smart driven minimalism .

Each of them works in admirable manner and, in essence, this is the main virtue of it.

I wanted to comment on how the film was promoted

[rbixby · 9/10 · 29 November 2006]

The trailers for this film showed a lot of stills with flashing swords and dramatic poses. It touted the "electrovision" technique. In retrospect, this probably means they were using videotape or something, but at the time, they made it sound really revolutionary and many people thought the series of stills was actually what the movie would look like (I know I did). At the time, movie tickets were ridiculously inexpensive (still fighting for dominance with free television) and you could see a film for a couple of dollars with your best girl. My mom and dad went to see it. I could hardly wait to hear from them what in God's name Electrovision was. Disappointingly, they didn't know. It looked like any other movie to them. Except that a lot of the actors were not fully costumed. Some were in street clothes. Some were fully costumed, and others were wearing modern shirts with tights and pantaloons--a really odd and off-putting mix, according to them. How old was Hamlet supposed to be? He was away at college, right? Richard Burton was pushing middle age, or dragging it, one or the other. In fact, I've rarely seen a callow, melancholy Dane in the role. Alert to film school grads: consider making Hamlet with kids in the roles. Zefferelli did Romeo and Juliet with teenagers and it was unforgettable. So those are my memories of the movie--I never saw it, never had the urge to, but my parents saw it and that was their response. If you want to see someone do the dog out of Hamlet, get the Olivier version. Jean Simmons as Ophelia. Black and white, complete with the perfect lighting they knew how to use with that incredible medium. If you want to see something really unusual, see Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990). The only Richard Burton film I can heartily recommend is Candy, also written by Tom Stoppard. There's a great scene (filmed through the floor of a limo) of Sir Richard sucking scotch out of the carpet. The king in his greatest role.

Oh, and Hamlet ends with a swordfight in which Hamlet is skewered like a kabob.

Hamlet saved from the ashes

[Bernie4444 · 9/10 · 1 December 2023]

Hamlet is the prince of Denmark. His father has just died and before the funeral meats were cold his mother marries his uncle. His father's ghost returns to tell him of a murder most foul. Now hamlet must decide what to do about this, and how.

This version of the play is well done however Hamlet is up for interpretation and everyone has a favorite.

The DVD itself has very little goodies other than the play.

According to the pamphlet that comes with the DVD the prints of this film were contractually ordered to be destroyed. So, we are lucky to have this interpretation.

It is easy to see why ratings are all over the spectrum. First, this is a film of a play. Therefore, it is neither a film nor a play. Secondly, they use rehearsal clothes and minimum trappings (or distractions). Now if you enjoy the novelty of the presentation style, your next hurdle is trying to understand Richard Burton's speaking style for the first 20 minutes or so. What may appear to be a long viewing time is actually a pared-down version of Hamlet which leaves out many subtleties.

It is intriguing to see the actors in the play and see how far they came. If you do not take the time to analyze, then this really is a good version, and you will find yourself kibitzing.