Best Picture #21: Hamlet (1948)

As a disclaimer going in, I should say that Hamlet is by far not my favorite of Shakespeare's plays. I read it in its entirety and saw the Kenneth Branaugh version in high school. I was not particularly impressed then, though I had an out-there theory that Gertrude actually murdered Ophelia.
In any case, this version is a classic because the legendary Laurence Olivier stars in the title role. If you start to google his name, the next word suggestion that comes up is 'Hamlet.' We'd previously seen him as the male lead in Hitchcock's Rebecca, where I have to say his performance was much more sympathetic and compelling.
Hamlet is the gold standard of Shakespearean male roles, the one every classically trained actor aspires to. In this case, however, the entire thing was kind of like a game of golf: likely far more interesting to participate in than it was to watch. Hamlet is supposed to be one of Shakespeare's most complex characters, but everything about the Olivier version of him, and for that matter the play itself, is treated with absolute straightforwardness in this adaptation. Every line is pronounced with solemnity and gravitas, as if all the actors are metaphorically bowing before the genius that created this masterwork and not really thinking about the material beyond that. This is especially evident in the first half, when there is absolutely no emotion at all in any delivery and all the actors sort of gaze out into the middle distance as they speak rather than look at each other. Things get more interesting after Ophelia dies; Olivier finally seems to realize his character is supposed to be tormented occasionally rather than perpetually serene (you can't really tell the difference in the early scenes where he's supposed to be pretending to be mad and him the rest of the time), and the rest of the cast take their cue from him and occasionally give us a facial twitch.
The thing about dramatic tragedies, and Shakespeare understood this given the script he wrote, is that the interest for the audience is watching the train wreck. It's about deeply flawed people bouncing off each other, unable to overcome their flaws, until they're eventually destroyed by them. This movie is so obsessed with the awesomeness of Shakespeare as a writer that it forgot that the lines the actors are speaking are either conversations or inner monologue, not Pronouncements From on High. The characters are archetypes without any kind of subtlety or life given to them by the performance, nor is there any indication that anything the characters say might be anything other than unvarnished truth about how they feel; the important thing is just the words. It's a different way of looking at Shakespeare, the culmination of centuries of blind worship, and as a 21st century viewer used to adaptations of his works that have pulled him off his altar and given him back to the people, as it were, I found this painfully straightforward version dull and off-putting.
As a sidenote, the camerawork in this movie is occasionally bizarre to the point of being distracting. There's a scene where Claudius is plotting with Laertes (why do all these supposedly Danish people have Latin names, Mr. Shakespeare?) and the camera pans in and out on them slowly up a staircase for no apparent reason.
In conclusion, I will leave you with my favorite adaptation of Hamlet. I had to watch this again as a consolation for sitting through this snoozefest, because god. *Someone* should find humor in all of this. The funniest thing that happens in the Olivier version is that Peter Cushing (aka Grand Moff Tarkin) takes a random pratfall at one point.

The Complete Works of Shakespeare (Abridged)--Hamlet

Watched: March 13, 2018

Best Picture #20: Gentleman's Agreement (1947)

Wow, Gentleman's Agreement is just begging to be remade for the 21st century. But which marginalized group to pick? In a way, I think, it wouldn't matter. Discrimination plays out in an almost universal way no matter which group it's against--I recognized a lot of the tactics used here against Jews that are also employed employed against nonwhites and anyone who doesn't identify as straight and cisgender. In that way, this movie is terribly relevant to today, this exact moment in time, as "nice" people who don't think of themselves as racist or sexist or homophobic have to take a good, hard look at their behavior and the behavior they condone in others. If you don't speak up or take a stand, you're part of the problem, no matter how innocent you think yourself.
The plot is pretty straightforward. A celebrated journalist (Gregory Peck, aka the future Atticus Finch. What is it with this guy and civil rights films?) comes to New York City from California and is asked to write a series on antisemitism. He hits on an idea: he'll pretend to be Jewish. Perfect! Then he'll get an inside look. Since he's new in town, nobody will know any different. He quickly discovers all the subtle and not-so-subtle ways Jews are discriminated against. Daily he has to deal with what we today would call "micro-aggressions," in addition to people just outright snubbing him. His girlfriend's nice WASP family, for instance, can't stand that they'll take flack from their nice WASP neighbors and even his girlfriend urges him to "come clean" with them so as to avoid people looking down their noses at her for dating a "Jew." (The fact that he's nonpracticing and not even culturally Jewish is irrelevant. If you're of Jewish extraction, you're treated as inferior. End of story.)
This movie is almost cute in its righteous indignation, from a 21st century perspective. Immediately post-Holocaust, the Jewish cause was the cause celebre and people were feeling deeply sympathetic, enough to examine their own previously breezy anti-Jewish attitudes. Today, we've now seen countless civil rights movements asking for a change in attitudes towards everyone who isn't a white heterosexual Christian male. We're still in the middle of a huge cultural shakeup. I actually think a lot of people today could benefit from watching this film, as preachy as it gets.
Watched: February 17, 2018

Best Picture #19: The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)

The Best Years of Our Lives was pretty good. Its biggest downside is its length--almost three hours. But I actually think more people should watch it, especially combat veterans.
The story centers around three WWII veterans who are returning home and happen to meet on the plane flying back. They share their fears and dreams about returning to civilian life. One is a decorated bombardier who has no other marketable skills and a young wife he married hastily before being shipped out to Europe. One is an infantry sergeant who has a wife and grown children, and is a successful loan officer at a bank. One is a Navy engineer who left behind a high school sweetheart, and while a former football quarterback had his hands burned off when his ship was attacked and now wears prosthetic hooks. He isn't sure his sweetheart will want to marry him now that there are things he can't do for himself.
The movie then continues to follow these three and their families as they try to readjust. They have varying ups and downs at this, and they cope very differently. But I think modern veterans and their families will relate to their struggles--a lot of it reminded me of things I've heard about coming home after combat from people who have experienced how tough that adjustment period is. Especially for the ones who were wounded and now have to figure out a different normal. The actor who played the sailor who lost his hands actually was a disabled veteran with prosthetic hands. You could tell they weren't faked in part because of how deft he was with them. He won Best Supporting Actor for his performance.
For obvious reasons this movie was very popular in 1946. It was the next big "blockbuster" after Gone With the Wind--the movie everybody saw and talked about. It's all but forgotten today, but we enjoyed it and I think it deserves a revival.
Watched : December 26, 2017