Hamlet on the BIG Screen"Filmed in 65mm! Projected in 70mm!"Those words splashed across the advertisement would have been more than enough on their own to whet my appetite - even if the movie had consisted of nothing but wide shots of grass growing. In fact, it was Kenneth Branagh's epic, four-hour production of "Hamlet" and I could hardly wait. As it turned out, the wait was well worthwhile and people soon learned not to ask what I thought of the film unless they had at least half-an-hour to spare! Kenneth Branagh, who starred in "Hamlet" as well as directing and co-producing it, wanted to make a full-text version of Shakespeare's classic and he wanted to film it in 65mm to "celebrate the medium of the cinema itself by creating a huge screen experience." He added that, "70mm certainly gives a tremendous sweep to the story that accentuates its epic qualities." "Hamlet" was the first British film in more than 25 years to be shot on 65mm stock and, in a unique distribution deal, Castle Rock Entertainment released a full-length version in 70mm as well as a shorter, 35mm 'scope version. Here in Australia the 70mm version was shown at only two cinemas in the country for a limited season before the 35mm version opened everywhere else. "The Astor" cinema in Melbourne is one of only two venues in the city still capable of projecting in 70mm. It's a friendly, independent house and survives in this day of multiplex installations partly by showing a different program every day of the week - except, that is, when something special such as "Hamlet" comes along. Most of the screening sessions for "Hamlet" were packed - people even flew from Perth (roughly the same as a west to east coast trip in the US) just to see the movie. The house-lights dimmed, there were two or three 'scope trailers, a 35mm flat trailer for the newly-restored "The Big Sleep" and then the screen masks started moving - out past their 'scope positions until the screen filled the proscenium. The aspect ratio was 2:1 and almost the full frame was shown. It did not take long for Branagh's decision to film in 65mm to be justified - the images were simply awesome with rich but not over-saturated colours, superb detail in the close-ups and a breathtaking sweep in the wide-shots. Blenheim Palace, in Oxfordshire, UK, which was used as Elsinore, could have been designed for the 70mm screen. Branagh resisted any temptation to abuse the format - it did not itself become the star. Instead, Branagh and cinematographer, Alex Thomson, used the wide screen as an integral part of their dramatic design. There were many shots that would have been impossible in another format but they were not just a gimmick. In essence, Branagh needed those shots and 65/70mm was the only way to get them. He also used the multi-channel sound with restraint. The effects channels were used only when they contributed to the shot - the voice of King Hamlet's ghost would be a classic example. It need hardly be added that the multi-track, magnetic-stripe, analogue sound was stunning with none of the upper-register harshness that so often seems to afflict the digital processes. Interpretations of Shakespeare's works will always arouse passions and that is no less true of Branagh's "Hamlet" than of any other. There has, for example, been much discussion of Branagh's decision to transpose the play from a medieval setting to the 19th century. His argument was that the move to a time closer to ours, which allowed the use of more-sumptuous sets and costumes, made the play more accessible to modern audiences. At the same time, said Branagh, the 19th century setting was still far enough from our own time to make the Shakespearean language seem plausible. And, indeed, the Bard's words did come "trippingly on the tongue" - the magnificent, multi-national cast, with only one major exception, delivered their lines almost conversationally, as if they had just thought of them, instead of declaiming or reciting. The audience was fully involved. They laughed at the humour and, almost incredibly, applauded at the intermission and at end of the film - something I have not seen happen at a cinema for many years. I wondered how much of this involvement depended on the wide-screen format. There were certainly any number of wide-screen enthusiasts in the audience but I spoke with many who had no idea what 70mm meant. All of them, however, commented on the huge screen and the superb detail of the images. Perhaps, then, audiences do notice the difference - if they are given the chance! Having said that, I cannot end without a brief comparison between the 70mm print and the shorter, 35mm version. Such a comparison could have been difficult because different cinemas were involved but there was no doubt in my mind that the 35mm version was but a pale imitation of its bigger brother. Taken on its own, the 35mm version would have been hailed as an epic production but it suffered in a dramatic sense from the huge cuts that had to be made to fit the shorter time-slot. It also suffered from somewhat-inferior sound and a far-less-detailed image. Both of those factors detracted from the movie's impact and I cannot help but wonder how the 35mm version would have looked had it not been shot in 65mm. What does "Hamlet" mean for the future of wide-format productions? It is probably a vain hope that Branagh's use of 65/70mm alone will spur many other directors and producers to insist on using the format. But commercial results might have more of an impact. Castle Rock Entertainment took a chance with the release of the 70mm version and it seems to have paid off. "The Astor" reports exceptional results for the first-release, four-hour version but I understand that early returns for the 35mm version have been a bit disappointing. We can but hope!
ran@sub.net.au
(This article was first published in the June, 1997, issue of
Wide Gauge Film and Video Monthly in the US)
|