HAMNET FILM REVIEW

Chloé Zhao’s adaptation of Maggie O’Farrell’s “Hamnet” is an extraordinary film, but in my Hamnet film review I’m going to have to say straight away that it didn’t move me like I thought it would. I simply couldn’t get past the (brilliant) acting and actually feel what clearly others in the audience were feeling. I’m not sure if it was because there were some “after life” elements I didn’t much like, or because I’m doing Dry January and clearly am grumpy and unemotional, but I think it was more to do with the focus all being on Mrs Shakespeare, to the detriment of her husband. I’m all for looking at life through the lens of the woman – the mother, the wife, the nurturer, the one that keeps it all glued together whilst her partner swans off to London for months on end, but his role was so diminished it didn’t feel authentic to me.

The whole film is a reimagining of William Shakespeare’s family life – one told mainly from the perspective of his wife, Agnes (played spectacularly by Jessie Buckley). We are witness to their first meeting and mutual attraction – we see that there was clearly a lot of love between them (a different take on the widely assumed position that they didn’t much like each other) and there are some delightful home scenes with the entire family – all working well until tragedy struck.

We meet Agnes for the first time in her happy place – in a lush forest with a particularly fabulous tree, where she is focused on her pet hawk and entirely at one with nature. We learn very quickly that she’s firmly rooted and grounded and understands the healing properties of the local herbs and plants.  She learnt from her mother – who was rumoured to be a witch. Because of her love of the surrounding countryside, we understand her reticence to move to London fairly early on – she wouldn’t survive well living in London with her children.

I was the only one in our fairly large focus group who didn’t love the film. Whist I thought the acting was brilliant, I just couldn’t get beyond the acting and actually feel for the characters. We witness her give birth to her three children, but given how earthy she is, I simply cannot understand why we see no blood, let alone even an umbilical cord or a placenta that she quite possibly would have either buried or eaten. There’s dirt under their fingernails and very basic living, so why were the births, which were so much a feature of the film made to be so clean? Is it because of the way the film would be accepted in certain countries if there’s too much blood and gore?

Then there’s the issue of William Shakespeare himself. Played by the wonderful Paul Mescal. He did a good job, but I don’t understand why they made him quite such a blithering idiot. Almost unable to string a sentence together when he first meets her. We don’t see him doing much of his successful writing, in fact we don’t get a feel for his talent really at all – it’s mainly him sharpening his quill when he’s drunk.

The children were brilliant and we all know it’s not a spoiler to mention the agonising death of their son Hamnet from Bubonic plague – her grief was overwhelming and very moving – as was the final scene, when she understands Shakespeare’s eulogy to his son and his final farewell where she found a way to understand his grief. Does she deserve an Oscar? Yes probably, for her portrayal of Agnes, but did I feel the film was fair? No I didn’t. So many unanswered questions – although “To Be Or Not To Be” – that was the question that was answered and understood in the film.  Maybe, (although the language was dumbed down significantly, except in a few scenes), it might appeal to a younger audience who don’t appreciate or understand Shakespearean language – but I just felt it was so far removed from what the real story was likely to be that I’m not sure I loved it.  Clearly I’m a cold, hard cynic and pretty sure my opinions are in the minority.