Kehr slams Olivier
I've seen thousands of films with rote, static, or unimaginative camera work, particularly those made between the nascent sound era of the early 30s up until the beginnings of the influence of Italian neorealism in the early '50s and the hand-held, free-form era of the French nouvelle vague in the early '60s. Laurence Olivier was, I suppose, not an especially exciting or inspired director, but his three best-known Shakespeare films -- Henry V, Hamlet and Richard III -- never struck me as being particularly labored or tedious or difficult to sit through.
These three films were mainly about text, acting and visual clarity, and Olivier's shooting of them never got in the way of these things.
And yet here, out of the blue, is N.Y. Times DVD columnist Dave Kehr all but spitting on Olivier's grave by saying his work may be slightly worse than that of Ed Wood's -- seriously -- in a brief review of the Criterion Collection's just-issued Olivier Shakespeare box set.
"Olivier might have been a great actor, but he was one of the klutziest directors who ever lived, and seeing these films, with their static arrangements of actors, pointlessly peripatetic camera movements and bizarre framing, makes one appreciate again the deep commitment to cinema represented by the work of Edward D. Wood.
"Hamlet is the best of the bunch, a Freudian interpretation focused on the prince's sexual disgust with his adulterous mother (all ambiguity has been eliminated) and dressed up with billowing clouds of dry-ice and angular, expressionistic sets that strongly resemble Orson Welles's back-lot Macbeth of the same year. Richard III, now with its Technicolor buffed up and its VistaVision aspect ratio restored, still remains a mighty soporific. All three are better heard than seen."
And Olivier's Henry V concept of starting the film at London's Globe theatre and gradually opening it up into big studio sets and outdoor locations....that was chopped liver? It was fairly out there idea for its day, and it's still moderately engaging by today's standards. Kehr must have a serious bug up his ass about something when he wrote this.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 1, 2006 at 12:52 PM
comment #1
BL says ...
I'm not really crazy about any of Olivier's Shakespeare films either - but more because of his acting than his directing.
I don't think Olivier was anything close to the 'chameleon' he was cracked up to be and am more surprised then not when I actually like him in something (my problems with him are almost identical to my problems with Meryl Streep earlier in her career - too show-boaty and phoney).
To me, his greatest performace by far is as Mr. Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice" - that part played to his strengths and weaknesses to perfection.
In any case, "Henry V" IS a lot of fun in concept, if nothing else, "Hamlet" has beautiful black and white cinematography, and all I can really remember about Richard III is his hairdo.
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 1:14 PM
comment #2
Anonymous says ...
Here's Kehr's capsule review of "Hamlet" from The Chicago Reader:
"Laurence Olivier's famous 1948 interpretation of Shakespeare's play suffers slightly from his pop-Freud approach to the character and from some excessively flashy, wrongheaded camera work--including the notorious moment when Hamlet begins the soliloquy and the camera begins to track back. It ends up on the opposite side of the soundstage before the speech is over, leaving Olivier a dim glow on the horizon line."
The capsules of the other Oliviers are by other critics.
I think LO's "Henry V" still remains thoroughly inspired in execution and resonates because of its love of country and theater. It's been ages since I've seen the other two, but nothing in them, from what I recall, matches the sheer exuberance of that descent into the Globe and the slow breaking down of one wall after another. R3 in particular feels like very little developed cinematically for LO in the 12 years between those 2 films.
Posted by Anonymous at August 1, 2006 1:15 PM
comment #3
Joe Greenia says ...
I've always found his Richard III pretty tough going, but his Henry V has always been a cherished thing for me. Again, that Dave Kehr is not to be trusted.
Posted by Joe Greenia at August 1, 2006 1:16 PM
comment #4
ArchiveGuy says ...
Whoops--that was me. And I agree that there's something that approaches hamminess in more of his performances than one might care to remember. Still, he could deliver the goods fairly consistently (at least, until the 60s), with his best performance being another underappreciated one, in William Wyler's "Carrie".
Posted by ArchiveGuy at August 1, 2006 1:19 PM
comment #5
BL says ...
It's been awhile since I've seen Hamlet, but the bit quoted from Kehr's review seems about right to me.
I don't much care for an overly freudian approach to the Hamlet/Gertrude relationship either - I think it kind of takes away from the universality of the mother/son relationship (unless you think ALL sons want to do their moms).
I have hated Kenneth Branaugh in many films over the years, but think his performances in "Hamlet" and "Henry V" are very good, as are his flms of them for the most part.
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 1:26 PM
comment #6
Rich S. says ...
One should also take note that in the same column he spends about three times the space extolling the virtues of Peter Lorre's Mr. Moto series (which is all but forgotten by today's audiences).
Posted by Rich S. at August 1, 2006 1:28 PM
comment #7
NYCBusybody says ...
Yes, Branagh makes a marvelous Shakespearean actor, and is particularly adept at the adaptations because he does understand the universality of the themes (as opposed to the Freudian reaching brought up by BL, for example), and the beauty of the language.
Posted by NYCBusybody at August 1, 2006 1:30 PM
comment #8
BL says ...
Rich S:
lol - funny your comment about Kehr extolling the virtures of "Mr Moto"
His blog is a lot of fun though, at least for somebody like me - I have seen a LOT of obscure movies in my time - but that guy pulls things out of the hat *I* have never even heard of.
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 1:37 PM
comment #9
Patrick says ...
This asshole was looking to make some noise and
get angry feedback. I've always found Olivier's
best screen performance to be contained in the
1960 film 'The Entertainer' directed by Tony
Richardson. His 'Richard III' would be second.
Posted by Patrick at August 1, 2006 1:48 PM
comment #10
Dixon Steele says ...
It's nonsense like this that explains why Kehr isn't a big deal.
The NY Times brought him over and his film review work was decidedly second-rate.
So they pulled him from reviews and fobbed him off in the DVD column.
Posted by Dixon Steele at August 1, 2006 4:21 PM
comment #11
BL says ...
To all you Kerr-bashers
He was confronted with reviewing this DVD set - and reacted truthfully to what he saw.
As a non-fan of the films in question, I find it entirely credible that he believes what he says.
He probably DID know he would be upsetting the conventional wisdom with his opinion, but so what? Trees need a little shaking once in awhile.
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 8:17 PM
comment #12
BL says ...
To all you Kerr-bashers
He was confronted with reviewing this DVD set - and reacted truthfully to what he saw.
As a non-fan of the films in question, I find it entirely credible that he believes what he says.
He probably DID know he would be upsetting the conventional wisdom with his opinion, but so what? Trees need a little shaking once in awhile.
Posted by BL at August 1, 2006 8:18 PM
comment #13
Patrick says ...
What are you? His agent!!! He's a total jerk!
Posted by Patrick at August 2, 2006 7:56 AM
comment #14
BL says ...
Patrick:
What are YOU? His personal enemy? Did he take away your lollypop when you were a baby?
Kerr is no Pauline Kael, but who is? He's OK.
Posted by BL at August 2, 2006 9:29 AM
comment #15
Haiku Harry says ...
O. is no Ed Wood
anyone can see, maybe
Kehr should get out more?
Posted by Haiku Harry at August 2, 2006 11:50 AM
comment #16
nemo says ...
Hey, don't forget that Johnny Rotten supposedly modeled his entire onstage persona after Olivier's performance in Richard III. Try to match that for a far-reaching and enduring cultural influence!
Posted by nemo at August 2, 2006 1:14 PM
comment #17
Dixon Steele says ...
BL,
Comparing Olivier to Ed Wood is beyond idiotic.
And I wasn't that fond of the overrated Kael either.
Posted by Dixon Steele at August 2, 2006 3:41 PM