With the risk of seeming ignorant, I've never had to much interest into Shakespeare, and in particular for the tragedies written in the XVI'th century English. Add to that a very poor opinion about "Nomadland", of an epic boredom IMHO, directed by the same Chloé Zhao as "Hamnet". Therefore, in brief, this seemed like the perfect recipe for a snoring episode at the cinema. Yet again, it seems lower expectations yields high results...
As I was to find out after watching it, the movie is an adaptation of a novel, which I think it explains the consistency it has. It's not something general yet, but for the latest years I noticed a significant drop in the number of original scripts that cross beyond a superficial threshold, even though I'm not near close to watching as many movies as I did like 4-5 years ago, and I'm considerably more selective (maybe that might be the issue...). Moving back, the novel, or in this case the movie, because I didn't read the book, speculates a variant of the Shakespeare's family life, spanning from the marriage of the writer until after the death of one of his children, his only son, Hamnet. The story assumes the well-known play connects to the boy's name and to the impact of the loss, integrating into this assumption the metaphors of "to be or not to be" and others. The idea of the respective association seemed forced to me initially, and as a light spoiler, in a very fine auto-irony, which passes unnoticed over an intense dramatic background, a scene towards the end of the movie suggests the same disbelief. The ghosts from Elsinore and the poisoned intrigues from the Shakespearian Denmark seem to a grieving mother too far from a tragic, but still common family misfortune, given the life expectancy during the time of the plague. At a quick search, the majority of the critics specialised in the literature of W.S. also disagrees with something further than a simple name coincidence, adding to this the unclear circumstances of the child's death, which got lost in time. And still...
Without revealing more, the movie is conducted slowly in a minimalist note, starting with a short lived romance for some initial intensity, brought quickly within a more realistic zone of family problems, and carried through a by-the-book slow burn towards the end. The end which gets you back to the hyperbole of associating Hamnet with Hamlet towards a metaphore that's somehow more credible, maybe also because is supported by exactly who criticised the initial one (paranthesis: the movie deserves watching at least for Jessie Buckley, which delivers an exceptional performance). Maybe it becomes credible again also because you have a construction that's gradually inserting metaphors from a hawk's death that you can relate to some other loss, to a red dress in a greyish environment, which you can relate to whatever you want in the context, from the simple pain to the color brought by a theatre play to folks caught within the daily tedious and worrysome living. But probably credible more than this, because the metaphore is not anymore connected to Hamnet exclusively, but more with what anybody can get from the finale and probably by the desire of the subconscious to give a positive sense to a drama - either by re-connecting two parents when they get that the loss is affecting both of them, either by providing some justification to compromises that sometimes make the life to move forward.
Or another variant :) - the movie may be that dull that makes your brain to create its own story to prevent falling asleep ;) even so, it worked. Or maybe it caught me in the right mood for this, albeit getting over the top in some parts. So, probably a quite subjective...
Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Posts
