Thanks for articulating what I was having trouble expressing. I went to see this movie with two other middle-aged women. I was expecting tears. The only 2 things I had heard in advance was that 1. Hamnet, a young boy, dies and 2. bring your tissues. However, we all left the theater dry-eyed. I then called my 30-year-old daughter, who also expressed her lack of emotional response to this movie. She was even more forthright stating" I really hated this movie". I was wondering, "What the hell is wrong with us?" Now, after reading this, I feel a little better. Interestingly, when I discussed this movie with a 60-year-old lawyer friend, most known for his baseball fandom, he told me he was a blubbering idiot. He said the film should have a warning label. I agree.
I agree with many points in this essay and made several of them myself as well after watching the film. The actor indulgence, the misery porn, the suicide scene are all extremely valid points of criticism. I think ultimately the film is about a couple, from the perspective of Agnes. It is her life and suffering that we follow, within the context of her marriage and her role as a mother. I think that as a viewer I felt more like a friend of Agnes; watching her life, not fully understanding why she necessarily loves or was drawn to her partner, not really getting the struggles of her husband or knowing her children very well, but having extreme clarity on her emotional suffering and major life events. We should not forget that the film and book are works of fiction so we need to assume that they are entirely invented (but clearly inspired by something, as are most things). I think there are elements that can be enjoyed and others that are wholly bad, and that the film does not deserve nearly as much praise, but that is simply my perspective. Super well written article thank you!
I agree with much of this. I saw it at London film fest and thought it was good, but I HATED the Max Richter at the end and said aloud in the cinema 'wtaf'. I didn't cry, unlike all the snotsville people around me, but i rarely cry at films that are really trying to make me cry... I rewatched it this week and liked it much less. On the cinematography though - I do think the way it's projected has a huge bearing on this. I used to be a projectionist, and if the lens is not adjusted to fit the screen properly, you get a keystone effect which can make it flat and blurry. At LFF at the Southbank centre, the picture quality was STUNNING, rich and vivid, whereas this week at my local cinema it looked absolutely shit.
This is v interesting! I saw it at the Everyman which I assume isn't the best for technical consideration but I do also think it employed a lot of backlighting for dramatic effect - I would love to see the contentious scenes side by side in high quality Vs less high quality projection settings for comparison
Thank you for this. I haven’t seen the film and I’m not sure I could sit through it even for critique purposes as I had similar complaints about the book. Loosely hung together based on the few scraps of knowledge we have about Shakespeare and Anne’s lives - their relationship seemingly based on the allure of a 17th century manic pixie dream girl and some shagging in an apple shed. I barely remember anything the characters said or did or felt (and certainly couldn’t connect with them) because - just as you’ve described - they felt like pawns in the inevitable path to grief porn. Which is maybe why the filmmakers had trouble creating anything different…
That's interesting - there was certainly a huge issue with the film about it forcing this every modern feminist protopersonality on Agnes, like she's mad that William goes away to work, and then there's the gentle parenting that everyone has already mentioned. It's like a film that can't decide what period its characters are actually from (plus my usual bugbear about people never using contractions)
I agree wholeheartedly with all of this. I’d happily confess that I seek out media that can make me cry, but it needs to be earned rather than proverbial button-mashing by the author. The romance and parental relationships you are told to care about so deeply, also feel hollow in the book. It’s a common ploy among bestsellers: other offenders including the Other Hand / Little Bee, anything by Khaled Hosseini, as you mention. While the latter dress up trauma porn in foreign culture and conflict to make it feel more high-brow, Hamnet does the same but with Shakespeare. It feels like it’s high brow (see: Very Serious Actors doing Very Serious Acting) so “it must be good”.
Finally someone articulating exactly how I felt watching this film. Right from the start when they put on screen ‘Hamlet and Hamnet were interchangeable names’ you know you’ve been mistrusted as an audience. The director didn’t think we’ll ‘get’ the play’s name connection with the son name so they had to tell us. Full of cliches and emotional manipulation. We’ve learned nothing of the characters, of grief, of Shakespeare. Shakespeare and Agnes are the exact same people at the beginning as they are at the end. And the hands reaching to the stage in the final scene was my final ‘you must be fucking kidding me’
This is a fascinating take on what counts as manipulation vs earned emotion in cinema. I dunno if 'exploitation' is quite the right word tho—maybe it's just that grief-driven stories often confuse impact with depth? Saw a film last year that tried the same emotional beats and it felt equally hollow, like they were checking boxes instead of building something real. Your point about the lighting not letting us see what's happening really nailed somthing I couldn't articulate while watching.
The play was terrible too! I did enjoy the book, but it was as much about the relationship between the twins and Judith's guilt and grief as it was about the adults. I do wonder if some novels, especially those that are deeply literary are not meant to be performed. It annoys me that it seems every successful book is turned into a film or stage play. I say this as a film fan (I love the exploitation genre too). But sometimes it seems to be like a lazy shorthand for people who can't be bothered to read the book. Fine, don't read it then. There are plenty of excellent films that are being made and not enough time to see them all as it is!
I'm such a huge believer that some stories only work in one format - or need to be enormously changed in order to work in another. I think there is totally a way to tell this story on screen but I don't think Zhao is capable of doing it
Alexandra on the new yorker critics at large podcast connects the film to romantasy tropes but also her “I couldn’t connect because I love Hamlet”🔥 she feels this way about the book as well because it doesn’t “illuminate anything about the play” which I think is the most important point.
Kenneth Branagh’s slightly camp and incredibly moving 1996 Hamlet much more worth a watch.
I think the only benefit of the film is perhaps making Shakespeare part of a general cultural conversation again and hopefully make people curious to read the plays?
I think it's very telling that the best parts of the film are just the bits where they are performing Hamlet - even the microscenes where Mescal is trying to get the players to put some emotion into the words. They don't really work in the context of the film (because the film is only interested in their plot-advancing utility) but it reminds me of what Mark Kermode said about Mamma Mia: the songs are so indestructible that they actually make the very bad film enjoyable. Here the bits of Shakespeare aren't enough to save the film but they do remind you just how indestructible Hamlet as a play really is!
I challenged myself at first, saying ‘It’s rare to like a film if you’ve read the book.’ But my disappointment was so much more than that. So many of the characters - so complex and so real in the novel - were like cardboard cut outs in the movie. Even the forest was a disappointment.
And so many scenes just thrown away. All that effort to make an apple storage set not to use the metaphor of apples rolling off the shelf, but instead have a bit of uninspiring and unimaginative humping.
Going to the movies is a rare and serious treat for me these days. I would have been better staying at home and rereading the book.
You articulated everything I was thinking so well! Watched the film last night and was disappointed. I’d only read a bit of the novel, but it intrigued me - but it seems a real shame not to use the cinematic elements built into the book, like non-linear storytelling, and descriptions of elements rather than full scenes, when they are literally made for cinema!
The film felt bland and lifeless, and failed to reimagine Agnes or Shakespeare in any human, recognisable way.
I was starting to think I was the only person who also had an issue with the lighting. This is the best articulation of what’s wrong with the film I’ve seen.
Thanks for articulating what I was having trouble expressing. I went to see this movie with two other middle-aged women. I was expecting tears. The only 2 things I had heard in advance was that 1. Hamnet, a young boy, dies and 2. bring your tissues. However, we all left the theater dry-eyed. I then called my 30-year-old daughter, who also expressed her lack of emotional response to this movie. She was even more forthright stating" I really hated this movie". I was wondering, "What the hell is wrong with us?" Now, after reading this, I feel a little better. Interestingly, when I discussed this movie with a 60-year-old lawyer friend, most known for his baseball fandom, he told me he was a blubbering idiot. He said the film should have a warning label. I agree.
i’m so glad you wrote this because i’ve seen nothing but unanimous praise for this insipid bloody film 😭
I agree with many points in this essay and made several of them myself as well after watching the film. The actor indulgence, the misery porn, the suicide scene are all extremely valid points of criticism. I think ultimately the film is about a couple, from the perspective of Agnes. It is her life and suffering that we follow, within the context of her marriage and her role as a mother. I think that as a viewer I felt more like a friend of Agnes; watching her life, not fully understanding why she necessarily loves or was drawn to her partner, not really getting the struggles of her husband or knowing her children very well, but having extreme clarity on her emotional suffering and major life events. We should not forget that the film and book are works of fiction so we need to assume that they are entirely invented (but clearly inspired by something, as are most things). I think there are elements that can be enjoyed and others that are wholly bad, and that the film does not deserve nearly as much praise, but that is simply my perspective. Super well written article thank you!
I just read the book (haven't seen the movie) and felt basically the same way about it. It's sad, a sad thing happens, but... that's it.
I agree with much of this. I saw it at London film fest and thought it was good, but I HATED the Max Richter at the end and said aloud in the cinema 'wtaf'. I didn't cry, unlike all the snotsville people around me, but i rarely cry at films that are really trying to make me cry... I rewatched it this week and liked it much less. On the cinematography though - I do think the way it's projected has a huge bearing on this. I used to be a projectionist, and if the lens is not adjusted to fit the screen properly, you get a keystone effect which can make it flat and blurry. At LFF at the Southbank centre, the picture quality was STUNNING, rich and vivid, whereas this week at my local cinema it looked absolutely shit.
This is v interesting! I saw it at the Everyman which I assume isn't the best for technical consideration but I do also think it employed a lot of backlighting for dramatic effect - I would love to see the contentious scenes side by side in high quality Vs less high quality projection settings for comparison
Thank you for this. I haven’t seen the film and I’m not sure I could sit through it even for critique purposes as I had similar complaints about the book. Loosely hung together based on the few scraps of knowledge we have about Shakespeare and Anne’s lives - their relationship seemingly based on the allure of a 17th century manic pixie dream girl and some shagging in an apple shed. I barely remember anything the characters said or did or felt (and certainly couldn’t connect with them) because - just as you’ve described - they felt like pawns in the inevitable path to grief porn. Which is maybe why the filmmakers had trouble creating anything different…
That's interesting - there was certainly a huge issue with the film about it forcing this every modern feminist protopersonality on Agnes, like she's mad that William goes away to work, and then there's the gentle parenting that everyone has already mentioned. It's like a film that can't decide what period its characters are actually from (plus my usual bugbear about people never using contractions)
I mean, contractions didn’t even exist before the 1930s, right? 😂
I agree wholeheartedly with all of this. I’d happily confess that I seek out media that can make me cry, but it needs to be earned rather than proverbial button-mashing by the author. The romance and parental relationships you are told to care about so deeply, also feel hollow in the book. It’s a common ploy among bestsellers: other offenders including the Other Hand / Little Bee, anything by Khaled Hosseini, as you mention. While the latter dress up trauma porn in foreign culture and conflict to make it feel more high-brow, Hamnet does the same but with Shakespeare. It feels like it’s high brow (see: Very Serious Actors doing Very Serious Acting) so “it must be good”.
Finally someone articulating exactly how I felt watching this film. Right from the start when they put on screen ‘Hamlet and Hamnet were interchangeable names’ you know you’ve been mistrusted as an audience. The director didn’t think we’ll ‘get’ the play’s name connection with the son name so they had to tell us. Full of cliches and emotional manipulation. We’ve learned nothing of the characters, of grief, of Shakespeare. Shakespeare and Agnes are the exact same people at the beginning as they are at the end. And the hands reaching to the stage in the final scene was my final ‘you must be fucking kidding me’
This is a fascinating take on what counts as manipulation vs earned emotion in cinema. I dunno if 'exploitation' is quite the right word tho—maybe it's just that grief-driven stories often confuse impact with depth? Saw a film last year that tried the same emotional beats and it felt equally hollow, like they were checking boxes instead of building something real. Your point about the lighting not letting us see what's happening really nailed somthing I couldn't articulate while watching.
The To be or not to be scene was the absolute pits for me. They could and should have resisted that. Well said on the rest.
The play was terrible too! I did enjoy the book, but it was as much about the relationship between the twins and Judith's guilt and grief as it was about the adults. I do wonder if some novels, especially those that are deeply literary are not meant to be performed. It annoys me that it seems every successful book is turned into a film or stage play. I say this as a film fan (I love the exploitation genre too). But sometimes it seems to be like a lazy shorthand for people who can't be bothered to read the book. Fine, don't read it then. There are plenty of excellent films that are being made and not enough time to see them all as it is!
I'm such a huge believer that some stories only work in one format - or need to be enormously changed in order to work in another. I think there is totally a way to tell this story on screen but I don't think Zhao is capable of doing it
Alexandra on the new yorker critics at large podcast connects the film to romantasy tropes but also her “I couldn’t connect because I love Hamlet”🔥 she feels this way about the book as well because it doesn’t “illuminate anything about the play” which I think is the most important point.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4mUi9uuLfU1Cao8WJwtLFM?si=8w3OvWb1QjGy442ebh83yg&ct=784&t=784
Kenneth Branagh’s slightly camp and incredibly moving 1996 Hamlet much more worth a watch.
I think the only benefit of the film is perhaps making Shakespeare part of a general cultural conversation again and hopefully make people curious to read the plays?
I think it's very telling that the best parts of the film are just the bits where they are performing Hamlet - even the microscenes where Mescal is trying to get the players to put some emotion into the words. They don't really work in the context of the film (because the film is only interested in their plot-advancing utility) but it reminds me of what Mark Kermode said about Mamma Mia: the songs are so indestructible that they actually make the very bad film enjoyable. Here the bits of Shakespeare aren't enough to save the film but they do remind you just how indestructible Hamlet as a play really is!
I challenged myself at first, saying ‘It’s rare to like a film if you’ve read the book.’ But my disappointment was so much more than that. So many of the characters - so complex and so real in the novel - were like cardboard cut outs in the movie. Even the forest was a disappointment.
And so many scenes just thrown away. All that effort to make an apple storage set not to use the metaphor of apples rolling off the shelf, but instead have a bit of uninspiring and unimaginative humping.
Going to the movies is a rare and serious treat for me these days. I would have been better staying at home and rereading the book.
You articulated everything I was thinking so well! Watched the film last night and was disappointed. I’d only read a bit of the novel, but it intrigued me - but it seems a real shame not to use the cinematic elements built into the book, like non-linear storytelling, and descriptions of elements rather than full scenes, when they are literally made for cinema!
The film felt bland and lifeless, and failed to reimagine Agnes or Shakespeare in any human, recognisable way.
I was starting to think I was the only person who also had an issue with the lighting. This is the best articulation of what’s wrong with the film I’ve seen.
I think I could write a book on the poor lighting in modern cinema 😂
Would read.
awful film, I agree!