National Theatre Live: Hamlet

I suppose, each great actor deserves his Hamlet. Or his Claudius ( I admitt, I loved the performance of Ciaran Hinds ).

But , in this case, not only a good actor becomes the prince of Danemark . The name of Benedict Cumberbatch is enough for high expectations and for the desire to discover , in a form of other something too easy called as...originality.

And , indeed, he gives that in admirable manner.

But his Hamlet has the gift to be the precise piece of play mechanism, remembering the last moments near stuffs of lost ages, the loneliness - when the cast is in shadow- , the presumed introduction to play for young public, grace to impecable work with lines of Cumberbatch. It is a beautiful mechanism this version, provocative and proposing just fair work. And, I believe, exactly this detail makes more than interesting this version.

Because , from prop to light , all works in honest way to define not a story, too familiar for viewer, but the fair state . And this is a real virtue.

Once more a thrilling and intense performance from Cumberbatch. A perfect reincarnation of the master of theater, amazingly performed by an impressively convincing cast. A fantastic immersion from all the actors and for every audience. An absolute must-see for any amateur of Shakespeare.

Once upon a time people started to like theatre again. In our days we can see real theatre in cinemas. British spectaculars with famous actors. What could be better? Hamlet with Benedict Cumberbatch become new experience for me. Good old tragedy of Shakespeare is actualized by modern suits but original text is like in old times. There're a lot of decorations but stage lighting is too dark. Because of it spectacular makes feeling of a very minimalistic staging. It gives a chance to Benedict Cumberbatch to jump through a fire ring with "to be or not to be". And Cumberbatch is still most famous british actor of our days. Robin Lough in his spectacular uses minimalistic entourage very carefully with hard metaphores. Robin plays with Shakespeare in Time. Time is spending, books becames older but Wiiliam is eternity

Benedict Cumberbatch asked Lyndsey Turner to direct his "Hamlet," the most talked-about production of the London 2014-2015 season. A live performance was filmed and shows up in movie theaters as part of the National Theatre Live broadcasts.

This is its third time being shown in theaters across America; the reason for that is that it's the most successful of the series. 200,000 people saw the first showing. Cumberbatch in "Frankenstein" often returns as well. So we know who the draw is, and why it sold out in London even faster than Beyonce and JayZ.

There is no correct interpretation of Hamlet, there is only what you prefer. I have seen this production three times - once in London and twice in the Royal National streaming. I've seen Ralph Fiennes, Laurence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh, and Michael Benz all take on the Bard. Michael Benz appeared with five other people on a bare stage for one of the best Hamlet productions I've ever seen. It certainly mined all the tremendous humor, was devoid of angst, and had a very young Hamlet who saw getting the "conscience of a king" as an adventure.

If that production with Benz proved anything, it was that you can do Hamlet successfully with a chair rather than the huge, dark set used in the Barbican production.

To say that this Hamlet was overblown, badly cut, and poorly directed are all understatements. Why Cumberbatch asked for Turner is an unknown. The play was cut so that he was isolated from the rest of the cast most of the time, so, though he was brilliant, athletic, and passionate, we really didn't get to see much interplay with other characters. The result? We lost part of what would have been an even more phenomenal performance.

Someone here posted that Cumberbatch ran a close second to Richard Chamberlain, whom I also saw as Hamlet in another cut version. To me there is no comparison. My acting teacher used to say that you have to play a part and not become too generalized in your choices. Seeing Chamberlain on stage, though I like him and grew up watching him, he is too generic in his choices. Cumberbatch never generalizes; he is always on point with the character he is playing.

The other problem with the production was that it was hard to tell what the time period was - Hamlet always seemed modern, Gertrude like something out of the 1940s, and her husband (Ciaran Hinds) Edwardian. Horatio (Leo Bill) had tattoos on every part of his body.

Other than Cumberbatch, the acting was so-so. The actress playing Ophelia (Sian Brooke) was annoying, which probably had to do with the way the role was cut, and, in her hysteria, hard to understand. Jim Norton was a good Polonius, and Karl Johnson as Hamlet's father's ghost and the Gravedigger was excellent. Ciaran Hinds and Anastasia Hille as Claudius and Gertrude turned in good performances.

Seeing this on screen is actually better than seeing it in the play because while Turner had no idea where the focus was supposed to be on the stage, the cameraman did. And sorry, but whose idea was it during the tell-all play to have Claudius with his back to the audience? Great way to see his reaction.

Sadly, Morag Siller, who played Voltemand, died six months after the end of this production, at the age of 46.

If it comes to your neighborhood, definitely see it for Cumberbatch - to hear Hamlet spoken in that voice is a wonder indeed.

This is such an overwhelmingly physical production, and so totally enjoyable, that I am forced to give it a 9 rating despite its many lapses. First of all, I am so sick and tired of seeing plays and operas updated to make them more 'relevant' to their audiences. There is nothing in HAMLET that could possibly be 20th century in nature (except the characters' feelings, which are both universal and timeless), but we start out with Hamlet listening to "Nature Boy" on a small, portable phonograph. Oh, one thinks, this one is going to take place in 1950 in that most ancient of Danish cities, Cleveland. But, immediately, on come the other characters, and while Horatio is sporting a backpack indicating a later era (they weren't really much in general use in 1950, except in the military and with mountain climbers), the ladies in the cast seem to be wearing costumes right out of the 1890s, and when Claudius enters, he looks like he's wearing something between an Edwardian suit with a military sash across it and something the butler forgot to take to the cleaners that day. So when DOES it take place? And why not in approximately 1100AD? Answer: Because then you wouldn't be able to play "Nature Boy" on the toy phonograph. I just don't get it. (Later on, the Gravedigger is mouthing the words to another old popular song. Why?) Timelines aside, the production is terrific, though, and some of the scene changes - like the one that goes from the banquet hall to the bringing on of the Ghost - were incredibly effective. As for the acting, which is what HAMLET is all about for most of us, while some of the accents clashed a bit - Horatio both sounds and looks like he just arrived from the East End, so how did he become such fast friends with Hamlet, who sounds of the Upper Crust, as does his mother Gertrude, while Claudius sounds not only American, but very much like Al Pacino playing Al Pacino (he doesn't sound the least bit kingly, but could pass for another leader - Al Capone) - there was not a weak link in the cast. Cumberbatch is not only terrific throughout, he is probably the most intensely physical Hamlet I've ever seen; I can't imagine how he could deliver this kind of show several times a week without going into cardiac arrest. Outside of Cumberbatch, and Ciaran Hinds as Claudius, the actors will not be that well-known to movie-goers, but Anastasia Hille as Gertrude and Jim Norton as Polonius are about as good as any actors I have seen in these roles, Hille's surprising physicality almost equaling her son's in their great confrontation scene, and Norton extremely funny. I've seen about a dozen, maybe fifteen, Hamlets in my lifetime, and surprisingly perhaps, the overall best one to me - looks, passion, delivery, etc. - wasn't Olivier or Branagh or any other noted Shakespearean, but Richard Chamberlain, who actually achieved notable success in the role both here and in England about 40 years back; Cumberbatch, on average, runs him a close second. This version has a lot of cuts, some unfortunate, some not so; it has lines transposed (indeed, whole speeches removed or transposed), and changes in dialogue from what appears to be a HAMLET FOR DUMMIES guide, but they are not insulting to those of us who love this play, only a bit disconcerting at times. Still, I really do wish we could continue to see plays and operas in the time period they are supposed to take place in. RICHARD III in the Nazi era was bad enough, but HAMLET in Motown? I think not. Still, this was a very exciting theatrical experience, which should be recommendation enough for it these days.