Multi-talented

The first person to direct himself to a Best Actor Oscar, and the first person to claim both Best Actor and Best Picture, was Laurence Olivier, for his 1948 adaptation of Hamlet. Olivier was also nominated as Best Director for the film, although he did not win, and it was nominated for Best Supporting Actress (Jean Simmons). To date, nobody has managed to win both Best Actor/Actress and Best Director for the same film. Olivier was more successful at Oscar time with this film than he had been two years earlier, with unsuccessful nominations for both Best Picture and Best Actor for Henry V, though he missed the Best Director nomination that year. Henry V did, however, get Olivier an honorary award for the feat of producing, directing and acting. One wonders, though, at the legitimacy of that honorary award, as Orson Welles had, in 1942, managed to get nominations in all three categories without being honored for the feat. And, in case you were wondering, the other person to get both Best Actor and a Best Picture Oscar was Michael Douglas, who won as a producer on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest, and a Best Actor statue for his performance in Wall Street.

The problem with so many of the films based on the works of Shakespeare is that they get too caught up in the staginess of the performances, and in the lyricism and poetry of the words being spoken, to the point that the story itself is pretty much forgotten. The most frequent victim of this unfortunate tendency is Hamlet. How familiar is the "To be, or not to be speech," delivered in a thundering, bombastic, triumphant tone. "TO BE... (dramatic pause) OR... NOT TO BE!!!" The speech is delivered so often in that tone, as though the actors don't even notice the meaning behind the words they are saying. This is not the speech of a conquering hero, as it is so often delivered. It is the mumbled ramblings of a sullen, angst-ridden youth, trying to decide whether he should kill himself rather than try to deal with the problems of his life. It is a speech to be muttered uncertainly, not thundered confidently. Olivier, for one, actually manages to get it right. Unlike so many before him, and unlike so many that came after, Olivier actually sees the source material as a story to be told, not just as a vehicle by which an actor can prove his greatness by reciting a famous speech or two.

This film truly is the best of both worlds, as Shakespeare goes. Olivier does not ignore the poetry of the words, he just doesn't let it override their meaning or overshadow the story that they tell. He doesn't dumb down the screenplay, or feel the need to update it to modern English just to make it more palatable to a more modern audience. He doesn't, as so many have done, feel the need to transplant the basic framework of the story into a more modern setting. In short, Olivier does not feel the need to rewrite Shakespeare. Shakespeare is Shakespeare for a reason. All things considered, if I had to pick a single film version of Shakespeare to watch, this would be the one.

That being said, I must admit that this film would not have been my pick to win either of its awards. Hamlet beat out The Treasure of the Sierra Madre for Best Picture, and Humphrey Bogart's wonderful performance in that film somehow failed to even get nominated alongside Olivier's. But, of course, that is just quibbling, and, as you are probably already guessing after my last review, I am a bit biased where Bogart is concerned. Certainly, that is just a matter of personal preference, not of unworthiness on the part of Olivier's film.

Movie trivia question: This film, winner of an Oscar for Best Screenplay, scored Best Actor nominations for its two stars. Coincidentally, the two went on to be the two actors with the most Oscar nominations to never actually win the statue. Who were the stars, and what was the film?