Hamlet (2000) - Not That One, The Better One. The Version Produced By Hallmark.

Hallmark Made an Excellent Hamlet. Also, Some Opinions About Shakespeare Productions.

I have no idea how Shakespeare is handled in the UK (I get the feeling the plays are treated with slightly more reverence), but the thing about Shakespeare in America is that it’s almost never set in Elizabethan England. I recently saw a production of Shakespeare’s Cymbeline that was set in an 80s rock music atmosphere; a character played an electric guitar solo to help guide Cymbeline along during a pivotal moment. Spy Shakespeare, WWII Shakespeare, Space Shakespeare—the possibilities are endless.

The text is always the same, of course; producers and directors simply like to shift the atmosphere or setting. In 2000, Hallmark Entertainment decided that the best way to leave their mark on literary behemoth was to set Hamlet in post-Reconstruction era rural New York. This was before Hallmark shuffled entirely over to Christmas films. This was back when Hallmark was still experimenting.

Maybe you’re thinking, “Hang on, I’ve heard of this Hamlet. Didn’t Ethan Hawke play Hamlet in 2000? Wasn’t that set in modern day New York?” Yes, he did, but I cannot in good conscience endorse that film to anyone. In most Shakespeare adaptations, the aesthetic works around the story. It doesn’t always fit, but the director went out on a limb, and it coexists with rather than competes against the text. The best of these adaptations seamlessly blend their aesthetic into the story, producing a fully believable Shakespearean tale in whatever setting they provide. Hamlet 2000 was not one of those films. Ethan Hawke, monotone, narrates “To be or not to be” while walking down the world’s longest Blockbuster aisle. The “Get thee to a nunnery” plot is foiled when, mid-make-out session, Hamlet discovers Ophelia has been wearing a ridiculously obvious wiretap. The aesthetic diminishes the story’s validity.

The better version, the Hallmark version, is set in an era and location that are distinct from the original setting, but also aren’t too far of a leap from the ideas of grandeur necessary for the royal plot. It’s more of a setting than an aesthetic; something similar to Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet, which offered the story in 1800s Denmark. Hallmark does the same—just in turn-of-the-century 1900s New York.

Interestingly enough, few people seem to be aware of Hallmark’s version of Hamlet, even among Shakespeare enthusiasts and people who like to watch versions of Hamlet. If you have heard of this version, it’s probably specifically for one scene where Hamlet screams at a painting of his uncle and then the painting falls on top of him.

[Campbell Scott, playing Hamlet, gives one of his best soliloquies right before this moment.]

I should probably give criteria for what makes a ‘better’ Hamlet. When it comes to most Shakespeare plays, I’m not too invested, but Hamlet’s different. I enjoy the moral dilemmas and mind games and all the hard decisions being grappled with. A Hamlet has to exhibit emotion and intelligence and engage in varying levels of fake and real descent into madness. The play overall could have a terrible cast and I’d still seek it out if the portrayal of Hamlet works.

Campbell Scott’s Hamlet works. When he’s playing to his interpretation’s strengths, Scott is unparalleled, even if the Hallmark budget is scanty and certain members of the cast act distractingly.

[Hamlet has just finished speaking to the ghost of his father.]

My relationship with Shakespeare is pretty distant. I tolerate his plays, but I rarely watch them. I’ve found that in most cases, I enjoy imagining the characters and scenes more when reading them compared to the stiff or unnatural oration I end up hearing on the stage. It’s like watching a silent film where characters are expected to use specific stock reactions and emotions and positions to fill in for the lack of dialogue. I understand the intent, but that doesn’t make it an engaging performance, and it definitely doesn’t help the audience understand the finer details of what the characters are actually saying. When I read a Shakespeare play, I have the time to piece it out. When I watch Shakespeare, it almost comes with the expectation that I’ve already done that preparation, and I only need the wide stock gestures to follow along. I can follow along, but it’s not very engaging.

Scott doesn’t orate or narrate. He speaks quickly enough to break out of rhyme scheme, and he emphasizes and pauses like someone giving a modern monologue would. Even better, he’s supported by a cast that largely does the same. This was the first Shakespearean adaptation I’ve watched where I could understand not just what the actors were saying, but what they meant when they spoke. Like most Hamlet adaptations, there are some abridgements and shifting around of scenes, but there are also lines I thought were abridged and later found out weren’t—they were simply acted in a way that felt so natural I assumed they were modern.

To add on a second point to this reasoning, I want to bring in someone else. In 1962, the American poet Robert Fitzgerald published his translation of The Odyssey. When reviewing this translation, C.S. Lewis mentioned:¹

I know some Greek, but I know very little American.

Some of Mr Fitzgerald’s renderings seem to me, by English usage, unpardonable. With us ‘her ladyship Kalypso’ would imply a silly sneer. The statement that Zeus ‘made conversation’ would, with us, imply that the god really had nothing to say but wanted to tide over an awkward pause at the dinner table…But perhaps the overtones of all these expressions are different on the far side of the Atlantic.

Hallmark doesn’t change the lines, but the actors are American and express with American inflection. I don’t know if hearing Shakespeare performed with an American accent helped me understand it better, but there are so many quotes that I didn’t understand until I watched this version, and then it clicked. It was enough to make me wonder whether other Shakespeare plays would be easier to understand if they were presented in a similar fashion.

Hallmark also respected Ophelia like few other productions. Laertes in this is unfortunately hit or miss (he especially gives the impression in his first scene that he’s reading his lines), but Ophelia is—finally—interpreted as someone who has more of a mind than she lets on. So many Ophelia actresses play her as initially blindly following Polonius; LisaGay Hamilton plays Ophelia as someone who has to put up with Polonius’ bad advice because, unlike Laertes, she’s still living in the court.

Speaking of Polonius, he’s usually portrayed as a ridiculous, pompous character. He still is, but Roscoe Lee Browne adds the sense that he believes himself as more grounded and superior in a way that would be harder to notice if you were a random 1900s passerby. He uses a different angle to highlight the danger of a confident fool.

There are definitely non-ideal aspects to this production. Certain characters. The music. The nunnery scene. “To be or not to be.” Oh well. It’s a Hallmark budget; that excuses at least one of those things. The other detriments aren’t too bad to deal with considering the rest of the film.

Miscellaneous aspects to note:

Hamlet has a different costume in every major scene. It’s always fun when a designer takes advantage of the time period and helps to make different scenes look distinct. The castle that Hamlet takes place in is also beautiful.

This version of Hamlet made me feel the second-hand embarrassment I was supposed to when Hamlet attempts to direct a professional troupe of actors on a monologue that he wrote the night before.²

Hamlet isn’t the only unique and well-executed project to come out of Hallmark in 2000, either, but that’s for a different post. I’m not sure what made Hallmark so above-average in the year 2000, but I wish (just a little) it had stayed that way.

---

Thanks for reading!

If you have a Shakespeare adaptation recommendation, let me know in the comments! I’m also always interested in hearing about other people’s favorite Shakespeare play, so if you have one feel free to comment about it.

1. You can read C.S. Lewis’ full review, “Odysseus Sails Again,” here.

2. Act 3, scene 2.