By Conor Moore | Staff Writer
After the eternal misfire that was, well, “Eternals”, Chloe Zhao proves she is quite capable of achieving the visual magnetism required to be an Oscar-winning, “it” director.
Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of what can only be described as cinematic fondant.
While “Hamnet” is superficially moving and relishes in its simulacra of Shakespeare’s tragedy, it often ventures into the saccharine, somehow making something as painful and transcendent as parental loss into a frou-frou period piece better suited for an episode of Coronation Street.
“Hamnet” is an adaptation of Maggie O’Farrell’s novel of the same name, a work of historical fiction that connects the dots between Shakespeare’s 11-year-old son’s death – Hamnet himself – and one of the finest works of English fiction, “Hamlet”.
Co-written by Zhao and O’Farrell – and much-beloved by audiences on the film festival circuit – “Hamnet” seems quite comfortable posturing itself as a prestige historical drama, in no small part thanks to its stellar cast starring Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal as Agnes Hathaway and William Shakespeare, respectively.
In one sense, it achieves that. The film is breathtakingly aural, featuring wide, still, and sometimes even isometric shots of the forest and homes of the characters, emphasizing the simple and guileless lives they lead.
But in another, it comes off as unfocused and narratively tepid; Agnes is alleged to be the daughter of a witch, creating potions at home and having the camera spend unduly amounts of time looking up at the sky while the branches rustle.
And if being a medieval granola hippie wasn’t enough, she owns a pet falcon. Except none of these aspects are particularly important to her character, and if taken out, the narrative remains identical.
Shakespeare himself fares no better. This is not a subtle film, as hinted by the quote in the beginning mentioning the eponymous interchangeability between Hamnet and Hamlet.
His conversations with others are dotted with quotes from the Bard’s plays, and he is portrayed as a frustrated, nascent genius who, in one instance, slams his father against the wall after finally having had enough of his insolent berating.
Or, when he throws a writer’s block-induced fit working late into the night, waking Agnes and an infant Susanna. Agnes calms him down while Shakespeare fusses and moans, certainly securing a coveted Academy nomination for Mescal, but securing an eye roll from me, and other like-minded audience members.
Later in the film, they make Mescal recite some truly groanworthy dialogue, such as reciting the famous “To be or not to be” monologue as he looks over a pier into the dark currents of the Thames, treading dangerously close to sounding like something out of “Bohemian Rhapsody”.
But alas, a second Academy nomination for Buckley is in order, as well. When the young and titular Hamnet (Jacobi Jupe) decides to comfort his sick sister in the midst of a fierce bout of plague, he quickly contracts the disease and dies the next day in excruciating pain.
Buckley’s portrayal of a mother in distress is excellent. Despite the storytelling teetering on an uncanny sense of voyeurism, the insurmountable grief, anointed by Buckley’s shrieks and shrills as her boy dies, is heartbreaking.
Mescal offers an equally rewarding and no less devastating heartbreak as Shakespeare returns from London, only to encounter Hamnet’s cold body.
It’s a shame, as while it is all performed well, the writing is filled with so many over-the-top histrionics that take you out of the movie more often than not, relying on these fantastic actors to sell what is some of the stodgiest writing all year.
It seems impossible for this script to connect any dots, but even the one, Hamlet-sized dot that seems to be incredibly easy to pull off is marred by a slew of cheesy and downright manipulative storytelling moments.
At the climax of the film, upon catching word of Shakespeare’s new play, “Hamlet”, Agnes travels to London and catches a debut performance of the play.
There, she witnesses Shakespeare recite his lines as the ghost of Hamlet’s father, moving the Bard, the actor playing Hamlet, Agnes and the entire theater to tears, culminating in this hundred-plus audience extending their hands out toward the stage.
All the while, Max Richter’s “On the Nature of Daylight” is playing.
Really? The melodrama is so thick that I find the film impossible to take seriously in moments like these. They might as well have played “Where Is My Mind” by the Pixies.
The story offers little discussion on the connection between Hamnet and Hamlet despite surface-level associations, such as a brief fencing practice scene earlier between Shakespeare and Hamnet that is supposed to be the inspiration for Hamlet and Laertes’ duel at the end of the play.
I mean, sure, despite the duel being a recurring plot point in many of Shakespeare’s plays that often serves as a dramatic locus, it must all tie back to Hamnet somehow.
I understand the film’s conceit is supposed to be that the Shakespeare stuff takes a backseat to the drama, but neither the drama nor the Shakespeare bits are very good. And unfortunately, the thesis of the film, plus the connection between Hamnet and Hamlet, is hardly there.
Prosaic lines like “He’s traded places with him”, the ending, the score, it all feels so cheap.
It’s cheating. It pulls every trick in the book to get the audience to walk out with a box of Kleenex and indicates a severe lack of trust in them to come to their own emotional and intellectual conclusions about the film.
This lack of trust is a strong indicator that you’re not confident in your work, think your audience is stupid, or both.
“Hamnet” has much ado about nothing, insightful to elucidate or say about Shakespeare or Agnes. You’re better off watching “Shakespeare In Love” (RIP to the great Tom Stoppard) or any other, better, costumed historical drama.
As far as period pieces go, this is no Merchant-Ivory – really, it is even no Coronation Street.
About Post Author
