Hamlet (1948)

 "This is thevtragedy of a man who could not make up his mind.

Said quote is the popular opinion of the play. It has truth to it. Yet, as always with Shakespeare, there is nuance.

This play is a deconstructioin of the late 16th century revenge tragedy. Hamlet is, yes, hesitant. He is inytrospective, introverted. Naturally he hesaitates. Right?

Yet the ghost of his father gives him clear information. we can't excuse his procrastination. And he is not the student, intoverted, poetic hero. His reaction to his father's ghost is not revenge but a crying-for-help version of suicidal thoughts- see that soliloquy- and misogyny. His treatment of ophelia, and his mother, is unforgivable.He is not a likeable charactor. Here, that is a brave and right decision by Sir Laurence Olivier, whise charisma ois beyond all.

Contrasted to Hamlet is Laertes, an extrovert, who just gets on with his revenge. Good on him. Hamlet loses our sympathy when he kills Polonius, perhaps. After failing to kill the unshriven Polonius in the church. One could construct an argument that he does, in fact, kill Claudius as soon as reason and circumstance permit. I mean, I did this play at both A Level and University. The question persists- does Hamlet procrastinate? There's an argument to say not. His father's ghost interrupts only to rebuke him for being nasty to his mother.

Olivier is superb here.The soliloquys are exquisite. The play, long and bloated though it is, remains a piece of art up there with the best. That Warwickshire boy could certainluy pack a sentence with meaning.

As You Like It (1936)

"He that sweetest rose will find / Must find love's prick, and Rosalind."

Well then. This saucy, decidedly queer play, new to me, is not what I expected from Shakespeare, and the fact that this is a post-code film from 1936, subtitles for YouTube provided for cultural reasons by the US Government (I bet Trump has put a stop to that) only serves to show how intrinsic to the play this queerness is.

I know Shakespeare, I flatter myself to say, better than most. I have a mere undergraduate degree, from Nottingham uni, but before tonight I knew 22 Shakespeare plays to varying extents, now 23. And until tonight I have given no more than perfunctory acknowledgement to queer theory in relation to the bard. I am, of course, aware of the trope of women dressing as men in such plays as Twelfth Night, but have accepted this as early modern LGBT (let us not forget the T) only in the generic way that one must accord to all cross-dressing. And yet... here Rosalind calls her male disguise "Ganymede", Jove's eponymous catamite. It's hard not to see deliberate, glorious, authorial queerness here. And that's before considering the wonderful sexual ambiguity of pretty much all of Rosalind's lines once she takes on male guise. It's doubly wonderful that this happily queer character should be played here, with a noticeable accent but a great deal of charm, by Elisabeth Bergner, a Viennese Jew who had fled Hitler's Berlin.

Ok, queerness aside this stuck me as a relatively ho-hum Shakespeare comedy with moments of lyrical genius, not quite up there with his best, but that's a relative statement. But there's much to marvel at with this somewhat ancient artifact. My reason for watching this was the presence of Henry Ainley, father of the actor Anthony Ainley, well-known to us Doctor Who fans and subject of a splendid biography. Ainley, though, turned out to be the exemplar of something truly fascinating; the theatrical delivery of Shakespeare of a certain era, still "traditional" although pretty much beyond living memory, against which the more "naturalistic" delivery of actors such as Lauence Olivier.

Also notable are the presence of John Laurie (Private Fraser in Dad's Army) as a young heartthrob and a young Peter Bull- the Soviet ambassador in many James Bond films- as a young yokel. This film is fascinating, in the public domain, and on YouTube with proper subtitles.