Alternate Best Actor 1964: Innokenty Smoktunovsky & Christopher Plummer in Hamlet (at Elsinore)

Hello friends foxcarolina, on this occasion the admin wants to share an article entitled Alternate Best Actor 1964: Innokenty Smoktunovsky & Christopher Plummer in Hamlet (at Elsinore), we have made good, quality and useful articles for you to read and take information in. hopefully the post content is about 1964 Alternate Best Actor, Christopher Plummer, Innokenty Smoktunovsky, which we write you can understand. Alright, happy reading.

Innokenty Smoktunovsky did not receive an Oscar nomination and Christopher Plummer received an Emmy nomination for portraying the titular prince of Denmark in Hamlet (at Elsinore). 

Hamlet is one of the all time coveted roles for an actor. Certainly for a Shakespearean actor, though Richard III contends, that King lets the actor let loose as a most dastardly sort, but usually within a general understanding of the role, though there are ambiguities. There are greater ambiguities though with Hamlet and perhaps why playing the role is always such a fascinating endeavor. This as in 1964 there were three different high profile portrayals of Hamlet that made it to film, or at least TV film. I actually considered keeping Richard Burton in this review as well, but I will agree with the man himself that the film itself is of poor quality. It is little more than a static shot on the Broadway production and makes other filmed stage productions (or filmed like stage productions) like Hamilton, Give Em Hell Harry and Othello starring Laurence Olivier as positively dynamic. This isn't to say I couldn't see some of what Richard Burton was doing, but any intimacy of his performance (where so much of what is essential to a Hamlet performance) is obscured by the clunky technique, or lack thereof. This leaving that filmed production as just a historical curiosity, well other than Hume Cronyn's Tony winning performance as Polonius where the brilliance of that performance still shines through. So instead I'll be looking at the Russian rendition starring Innokenty Smoktunovsky, in one of the most cinematic adaptations, and the version known as Hamlet At Elsinore, a straight forward though decently mounted version notably filmed in Elsinore itself. 

This in a way gives me the opportunity then to really examine what exactly is Hamlet's path, also will grant me the chance to look at one of the most renowned Shakespearean actors, who rarely got to perform Shakespeare in a true film. Speaking of let's get the obvious out of the way with Plummer, which was also true for Burton, their voices were made for Shakespeare it seems. The language sings from them essentially and never have their voices sounded better in a way. It is as glorious as to be expected, Plummer always had an amazing voice and in turn he shows an expected elegance with the Bard's words. Innokenty Smoktunovsky is dealing with something slightly different in that the words have been adapted to Russian though the intention is still to be Shakespearean just not technical the literal words. Although this isn't a criticism of any kind, rather just really a descriptor. Now the opening of the play is perhaps one of the great ambiguities with the character, as where is Hamlet exactly before learning about his father's true murderer? I think in a way this can specifically help to define how an actor will perform with the character, and how well they will grasp this tragic journey. Plummer speaking his opening monologue presents a man mourning in his state and in a way lost without purpose seemingly. A sadness within the man and striking sense of really lack of purpose. Smoktunovsky is quite a bit different more reserved, again befitting the superior approach overall of his film, which like Olivier literally internalizes the monologue into narration of thought. A great benefit though to Smoktunovsky's approach that in a way presents a man already with a suspicion. There is a coldness and cunning he emphasizes when speaking to his uncle and mo. there, of a man who already suspects something rotten. I love really both men's approach to Hamlet hearing news of the ghost and from his friend Horatio. With Plummer it is a fitting jubilation of a man who wishes to run from his melancholy. Smoktunovsky's reaction is more intimate yet as remarkable as someone who is perhaps already on a path following a hopeful lead.

The ghost sequence is as pivotal in conveying exactly how much Hamlet knows and what exactly he takes from the revelation that his father was murdered by his uncle. The ghost sequence in the Russian version is truly stunning to say the least and I love Smoktunovsky's performance in the scene. This as the horror of it is conveying but also the kind of fascination. This is truly a disturbing sight within Hamlet's eyes and  Smoktunovsky shows this as much as he pushes towards the truth his physical manner retires of a man in presence of something truly terrifying. Smoktunovsky's performance of the moment of hearing that it was his uncle is sheer brilliance this as this nearly maniacal laugh, of man almost in a kind of bliss at experiencing a truth he must've suspected for some time. Plummer's approach is a bit different and just a little bit goes into more than needed for the screen as opposed to the stage, something a slightly more deft director might've been able to purge out. That isn't to say that what Plummer is doing isn't still quite compelling, it certainly is. In fact the intensity of the fascination with the ghost he conveys alludes to a fascinating choice in his depiction. This as Plummer shows a man seeking purpose and the ghost basically being an avenue for it. This as he also shows a sort of cry for joy, but that of seemingly finding his purpose. A moment of jubilation as almost needing the murder plot as something to live for. This that he potently emphasizes all the more in the sudden sense of purpose and determination in his eyes as Hamlet listens to the ghost's instruction for the task of revenge.

 

As Hamlet goes about his task to avenge his father it is then where an even greater ambiguity comes, which is Hamlet pretending to be insane, insane, or a little bit both? This as no one in the court seems to know what to make of him, but what exactly that means is within the actor's purview. Here Smoktunovsky is quite amazing to be blunt. This as his performance just exudes charisma and is magnetic in presenting his Hamlet as a man carefully administering his conspiracy. When he speaks early on to Polonius and his old "friends" of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Smoktunovsky practically conducts them within the speech of nonsense to Polonius as he tries to see where his mind is. Smoktunovsky effectively showing a man purposefully lost and obscuring his purpose. The same with his "friends" who he speaks some more congenially yet in his eyes there is straight cunning where he both seems to decipher exactly what they are doing while also playing on the part as though his Hamlet is wholly unknowing in his beliefs. Plummer is quite a bit different though effective in his own right as playing the part continuing the man of purpose, though now showing the man as having the time of his life in his deception with Polonius. Artfully playing the fool while loving every minute of it. Seemingly equally affable with the doomed "friendly" pair, as again a man whose lost his mind, yet Plummer denotes it as trick, just as he shows Hamlet very much loving his own performance. 

Now perhaps one of the trickiest elements is how Hamlet's once intended Ophelia factors into his plot, as for out technical hero he treats her abysmally so essentially creating the intention within Hamlet's behavior is always a bit of task for the actor's interpretation. Both Smoktunovsky and Plummer excel in this particular regard where Hamlet still seems to prod her along in her interest while also telling her to go off to a nunnery. Plummer's performance is very interesting in the way he presents it as almost that Hamlet has moved on from her. There is a sense of affection in his interest but almost as though he cannot burden himself with the relationship at this time that his devotion towards his purpose being revenge is what compels his crueler behaviors. Smoktunovsky actually is perhaps far more sympathetic I would say in presenting these moments. This as his interactions with her there is a sense of genuine love in moments before he basically thinks upon the interactions. He though shows this palatable distress and struggle in Hamlet's eyes in his moments of rejection towards her. Smoktunovsky emphasizing a real love for her however that love being compromised by the situation. This is different though as Smoktunovsky presents a degree of distrust in the relationship of a man who is paranoid both in the conspiracy that killed his father and his own conspiracy to kill his Uncle. Plummer making Ophelia more so a casualty of a blindness in his quest, while Smoktunovsky makes it more so a casualty of the unfortunate paranoia related to it. 

Now when the play's the thing to capture the conscience of the king we get two very different interpretations of Hamlet's endeavor to trap his uncle. Plummer's performance is defined by excitement for the task at hand and very much presents the fanboy for the players. Plummer emphasizing the way Hamlet is kind of living out a fantasy in the method as much as he is intentionally taking upon this approach. Smoktunovsky's work again in a way brings us more into the man's state of genuinely trying to carefully manipulate the situation. Smoktunovsky projects a low key nervousness fitting someone who is making a big gamble that could either fail or simply reveal himself too quickly. Smoktunovsky conveys that anxiety before making the big ploy through the play. Smoktunovsky is brilliant in again the magnetism he brings within the sequence of the actual performance. This as Smoktunovsky is magnetic in presenting a man wholly within his power within the situation. He basically is conducting every moment of it and shows the man quite effectively executing his plan. Conversely Plummer plays it almost as a court jester both hiding the idea of his intentions while also showing the sheer joy Hamlet is getting from the plot. Both are very different interpretations of the sequence however both incredibly effective in their mutually different interpretations of who exactly Hamlet is in this moment. Smoktunovsky presenting a man with a set plan and executing, Plummer going with the flow of the fun of the whole affair. 

From the success of the plot we have two very different depictions of Hamlet's sort reaction that leads him to confront his mother in her culpability to her now husband's actions that leave a hiding Polonius stabbed to death. Plummer presents more matter of factually a madness wholly taking Hamlet in this moment. This sort of just rush of all his thoughts going in every way now that he has the truth and is almost frothing at the mouth in his vengeance. Smoktunovsky portrays a strict and striking intensity within Hamlet in this moment. Not exactly the same kind of madness, rather a temporary one noted but a kind of narrow minded thought that overtakes him in the moment. A man gripped with wholly his revenge now almost empowered by the thought as he goes about the accidental killing. In the moment Smoktunovsky presenting a man so driven in his task that nothing really phases him from it. Smoktunovsky's portrayal of his confrontation with his mother being the most notable version of the scene that I have perhaps seen. This because he doesn't conduct himself with it as the intensity we see in Plummer's portrayal, which while effective on its own right, there is something all the more compelling in showing Hamlet with his wits about him in this scene. There is almost an angel of death quality within Smoktunovsky moments of accusations, as a man reeking justice for more than just himself. 

The story naturally hits the reprieve where Hamlet goes off to England while Ophelia dies, leading her brother and Polonius's son Laertes rather rightfully seeking revenge, and finding it through Claudius plotting to kill Hamlet via a duel. We open this climax through the comic yet also poignant of Hamlet with the grave digger. Both Plummer and Smoktunovsky acquitting themselves within Hamlet's reflective speech. Smoktunovsky in particular suggesting a certain guidance from his travels, wearing in fact catholic monk robes. This idea forced with the sudden appearance of Laertes and the funeral procession for Ophelia. They're performances perhaps being the most similar here in being Hamlet at his quietest as he just recognizes his mistakes seeking to genuinely apologize for his faults to the man he truly did wrong in Laertes. This following as Hamlet gets his chance for revenge in a duel with Laertes, even though he stays apologetic to his actual opponent. In both we get the man very much being the most romantic type of hero seemingly and both actors get to show off their Shakespearean skill at being the most charismatic. Both thrive in this aspect and they are just wonderful to watch. This is particularly important for Smoktunovsky as oddly the duel is the least inspired scene in the whole film, especially when compared to Olivier and Branagh's cinematic renditions. Where as in Plummer's film it is consistent with the rest of it. Nonetheless each delivers the command of the man as he should. The scene obviously goes through a lot with the random poisoning, killings and dying. A given Hamlet must respond to each point and here again I think Plummer occasionally goes a little bigger than he needs to though not a major detriment, still noticeable particularly in his reaction to the king's treachery. Smoktunovsky is on point in every respect of portraying the joy of the duel, the sudden burst of anger towards Claudius's deception and grief towards the death of the mother and of course his acceptance of his own upcoming demise. Plummer equates himself particularly strongly with the duel just expressing so well Hamlet living out his fantasy fully, and his final moment of poignant reflection. Both of these performances are very different yet wholly successful depictions of the complicated character. With Plummer, while you can see he was getting used to film to a degree, it still is a remarkable Shakespearean performance. Innokenty Smoktunovsky's performance though deserves to put up with the very best of the cinematic Hamlets, Olivier and Branagh. Not only is his interpretation particularly dynamic, his work always breaths life into the words of the Bard with that uniquely cinematic flavor that achieves true greatness within the adaptation.

That's the article: Alternate Best Actor 1964: Innokenty Smoktunovsky & Christopher Plummer in Hamlet (at Elsinore)

Thank you for visiting my blog, hopefully it can be useful for all of you. Don't forget to share this article with your friends so they also know the interesting info, see you in other article posts.

You are now reading the article Alternate Best Actor 1964: Innokenty Smoktunovsky & Christopher Plummer in Hamlet (at Elsinore) with link address https://foxcarolinaa.blogspot.com/2021/08/alternate-best-actor-1964-innokenty.html