Benedict Cumberbatch's Hamlet is Exactly Like Sherlock

National Theatre Live Hamlet (2015) starring Benedict Cumberbatch, my take

I finally saw Benedict Cumberbatch in Hamlet from the National Theatre Live. I was so anxious to see it I even considered going to London to see it live, since I didn't want to wait until October/November stateside to see in the theatres here.

At first, I thought Benedict's Hamlet performance was a continuation of his angsty Sherlock. Benedict's modern Sherlock (not necessarily the traditional Sherlock from the canon) and Hamlet do share similarities, namely neuroses, mental problems, a peppery tongue, and a childish self-centeredness. I think Benedict's career has been so defined by his Sherlock role that it's hard to separate the star from the character. Beyond Sherlock, Benedict has been typecast as strange men often with a deviant (Atonement) or effete (August: Osage County, War Horse) edge.

I would say Ciaran Hinds outperformed Cumberbatch. Hinds and Kobna Holdbrook-Smith (who played Laertes) were the only ones in this production who can recite Shakespeare with a naturalism and power that one would mistake their lines for modern prose.

The older members/old guards of the cast dressed in military garb. Queen Gertrude was styled similarly to Queen Margrethe of Denmark; even their hairstyles resembled. Younger cast members dressed as stoned hipsters.

I was simply blown away by the art direction and the costuming. The mise-en-scene and sets were meticulously built to be a dystopian palace.

I'm sure there are dozens of better reviews out there. I'm not a critic, and I did fall asleep here and there. Since this is Hamlet, just about everyone with a Western education knows how it goes.

I was not impressed with Sian Brooke's Ophelia. To date, the best performance of Ophelia is still by Kate Winslet (obviously my opinion).

At this point, however, I don't know if Benedict has been overhyped or his star is shining too bright, eclipsing his actual style and talent. Are Benedict Cumberbatch and Leonardo di Caprio the finest actors of their generation? Is Benedict as good as Leo? Not yet.

If you want superb acting, go see this production for Ciaran Hinds. He is a gem.

If you want to study art direction and costuming, go see it.

If you want a new interpretation of Hamlet that surpasses the ones from the past, Benedict hasn't quite accomplished it. I really thought he acted exactly like Sherlock. I'm not a big fan of Kenneth Branagh or Olivier's hamminess, but I think their interpretations were better than Benedict's Hamlet.

New Netflix series Narcos, Wagner Moura's understated performance of Pablo Escobar

There have been some complaints that Wagner Moura, a Brazilian actor, shouldn't play Pablo Escobar, the notorious Colombian druglord. Having looked at the cast list, it seems most of them are Mexican with some other actors from other parts of Latin America. Moura is Brazilian, perhaps the director who may feel more comfortable working with a very good Brazilian actor. I do like Moura's understated style, while a lesser actor would have gone the bombastic, charismatic route to portray Escobar. 

I don't know how bad the Colombian accents were, but minus the accents, I thought the cast overall did a great job acting their parts. 

Isn't acting a part convincingly more important than an actor's nationality/accent? 

Also, accents are highly subjective. I've heard people speak highly or trash the same accent. There are endless discussions about Boston accents. Accents are also indicative of socio-economic backgrounds, so a character may be from the same town but have different influences due to education, cultural upbringing, etc. 

How many really, really good Colombian actors are there? To my knowledge, Latin American media is more focused on soap operas. I wouldn't really want a predominantly soap actor to act hammy in a "serious" production.

Sometimes a director may choose an actor of a different nationality due to logistics - maybe it was easier to assemble a crew from a certain region. Maybe he knew some of those actors already and know they can be relied on. Maybe the production knew or trusted a region/group of people better than if they went with something or someone totally new. 

There was a brouhaha when Zhang Ziyi was chosen for Memoirs of a Geisha instead of a Japanese actress. At the time Zhang Ziyi was a much higher profile actress than any Japanese actress. She can also act. Even some Japanese liked her portrayal, although of course some were unhappy. 

It must be said that producers/studios will accept the actors with bigger names, talent, and work experience than choosing an actor who is authentic to a character's nationality but can't act or doesn't have enough star power. An actor is supposed to convincingly portray the character even if he or she has nothing in common with that character.

Picasso said something along that lines that art is a bunch of lies to tell the truth. TV/Film is make-believe. I thought Narcos did a good job in portraying the moral of the Escobar story, especially with excellent pacing and rhythm that so many shows lack.

Bernado Bertolucci's Novecento

Novecento's highlights are its art direction and photography. If you need a masterclass in either, viewings of Novecento will provide you a fine education. The richness and strength of Novecento lies in these elements. I don't think length, as one poster noted, is an issue for Novecento. It's long but each scene is meaningful and the rhythm is just right.


I disliked the black-and-white categorizations of the characters - Olmo as a noble Socialist. Attila (what a subtle name too, right?) as the evil Fascist with homicidal sadism to boot. Alfredo is wishy washy padrone who can't figure out what to believe and chooses the easiest path life gives him. And of course, being a Bertolucci film, their sexual lives represent who they are as human beings, especially with Attila.


I find it amusing that Leone thought Bertolucci was too cerebral to write Once Upon a Time in the West - his films are often overloaded with simplistic ideological intentions and heavy-handed symbolism. He has cerebral concerns certainly, but his films lack the intellectual complexity and subtlety to truly be cerebral. I think Tarkovsky fits the bill of the intellectual auteur far more than Bertolucci.

Andrei Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev

(Response to an imdb.com post that AR is unwatchable.)

It took me 6 and a half hours to watch a 205-minute film with many breaks in between. That's how I go through it. I think you'll be happy you made it, because it is an epic; after ploughing through rough moments the end will be rewarding.

As a poster has already mentioned about the pacing and the rhythm - many of these older "art" films have a different rhythm of slowness. Artistically inclined cinema is perceived and constructed out of the philosophy that film is visual poetry (Parajanov, Tarkovsky, Antonioni, etc), unlike "mainstream" Hollywood-style films where plot and action are main keys. Visual poetry involves the experience of the senses rather than the external actions of plot. It is important to "surrender" to the pace.

I grew up with fast-pacing Hollywood "editing" where if shots are considered "excessive" or "don't help the story/plot," they are considered redundant and are hence cut out. Here, the pacing/rhythm is essential to experiencing Andrei Rublev. I also want to say that growing up with Hollywood films has caused many of us to expect to be entertained, rather than intellectually and aesthetically challenged. Film has been seen as a function of entertainment rather than a function of thought and artistic expression. These "art" films are bringing back the limitless possibility of what film can do. I can appreciate being entertained with a popcorn movie (as long as it's not too stupid!), but I can also appreciate a film that has other goals with mindless entertainment low on the list.

I was astonished by the film. Yes, the first half was rather intolerable, but your tolerance for such pacing increases as you watch more and more "older art films." I watched Parajanov prior to Tarkovsky and Parajanov, although shorter, can be just as "intolerable," if not worse, than Tarkovsky's pacing.

I am grateful that there are artists like Tarkovsky who are bold filmmakers - they didn't care about the prevailing standards of cinema of the time and went ahead and did what they imagined. I love film for this reason - if it can be conceived and imagined, it can be done. Do watch Tarkovsky's interviews about his views on art; they are inspiring and I agree with almost everything he says. He would be a cool guy to talk to if he were still alive.

Andrei Rublev is a meditation on how an artist struggles in a world of suffering, how he grows, transforms, and finds himself again in art. Tarkovsky says that if the world were perfect there wouldn't be any artists. This film is about an turbulent epoch in Russian history which is filmed as historically accurately as possible - it is a grim, bleak world where people age fast, live in fear and servitude, and basically in constant depression.

I was quite depressed for the first half of the film due to the masterful bleak direction of Tarkovsky . Then Tarkovsky turned things around and the film became a triumphant, even joyful ode to life. It was full of hope and life. The film was dominated by human cruelty in the first half, and towards the second half, a community of teamwork, brotherhood, and hard work re-emerged as people healed and licked their wounds. Tarkovsky showed Russian history and the philosophy of life by showing the full cycle of human existence. It is a great achievement.

I think the first half of the film was intolerable and deliberately so - I don't think Tarkovsky wanted you to be happy. He wanted to the viewer to experience the same suffering and desperation of the world he created. Then he proceeds to show the human will transcend suffering and the cycle of destruction and rebuilding. And it is also a meditation on art and the artist.

Not only is this film an epic but it is a poetic meditation and a visual record of Russian history. It is philosophical as well as a visual poetic experience.

I urge anyone to finish it, because you will find a great sense of relief towards the end.

Pedro Almodovar's Hable con Ella/Talk to Her

(Response to an imdb.com post that Almodovar portrays rape lightly)

As far as I am acquainted with Almodovar's work and I may be wrong, I think Almodovar is as much a feminist as any woman. Most of his works are about women's struggle towards independence and liberation. I doubt that a director and writer with so much empathy for women would condone what happened to Alicia. I may be wrong, of course.

Second of all, Almodovar is a great director and a provocative thinker - he shows all the sides of the story from each character's perspective and that is as fair as it gets. Benigno was brilliantly portrayed and what was most brilliant about his portrayal was that he didn't think he did anything wrong or that he was abnormal in any way. Even when Alicia's father says, "You've had a very special childhood," Benigno clearly doesn't see what's so weird about it and shoves it off with such charm that you just end up liking the guy.

That is also the reason why Marco liked Benigno - he is clearly twisted and disturbed but he is also very likeable, direct, funny, and caring. Aside from what he did to Alicia, is there anything about Benigno that's not likeable?

I think Almodovar made his position through Marco. Marco said to Benigno, "Don't even go there. You don't know what you're doing. You can't marry her. A woman has to say 'I do' with all of her body, mind, spirit, and Alicia can't do that. That is not right." Just paraphrasing.

(Response to an imdb.com post that Marco is not a well-developed character.)

I think Marco's character is well-developed without being explicitly obvious. A sensitive Argentinian travel journalist who has been tormented and driven by love most of his adult life. He cried at the opening dance piece of the movie because it reminded him of Angela, the younger woman he tried to protect from falling and lost. Then, Lydia's snake phobia led them to get together. Because he was still pining for Angela and was unable to become emotionally close to Lydia soon enough, she went back to her ex. Feeling guilty about getting back with her ex and being distressed by Marco's unexpected disclosure, Lydia was not in a state of mental clarity to perform well at the bull ring. So she got gored and fell into a coma.

Part I shows what a sensitive and forlorn lover Marco was.

Then Marco meets Benigno and Alicia.

Part II shows what a sensitive, compassionate friend Marco is.

So, I'd think Marco is pretty damn well-developed as a character, and just about all his motivations were explored in one way or another.

(Response to an imdb.com post that Marco's and Benigno's relationship is homoerotic.)

I think there was a moment of homoerotic undertone during the prison conversation when Benigno said, "When they asked whether you are my boyfriend, I almost said 'yes,' you don't mind, do you?" Marco said he didn't mind at all, because 1) he felt extremely sorry for his friend, 2) he isn't the macho type who cares whether people think he's gay or not.

In essence I don't think they are gay or have predominantly homoerotic feelings towards each other. They both caught each other during extreme moments of vulnerability and confusion; Marco was fully experiencing and empathizing with Benigno's pain, and Benigno was longing for Alicia which was misdirected towards Marco. That crossed over and became a very brief homoerotic moment, but that was because both were confused and vulnerable.
But it was only a moment. Sexuality is rarely black and white but definitely overlapping shades of grey.

Their relationship is a true friendship and camraderie, but Marco certainly behaved as a big brother towards Benigno. Their fates are entwined - comatose women brought them together, and Benigno in turn brought Marco to Alicia, his ultimate future love. Without his failed relationships with Lydia and Angela, Marco wouldn't have found Benigno who led him to Alicia towards the end.

Tribute to Giulietta Masina, a.k.a. Mrs. Fellini

I was floored when I saw Nights of Caribria back in 1998. It was a performance that has stayed with me all these years and inspired me to go on as her character did.

Then I realized I also saw her in La Strada, La Dolce Dita, etc., but her lead role as Caribria (excuse my spelling) was the most memorable for me. Fellini and Masina are definitely soulmates as husband and wife as well as artists. They couldn't complement each other's work any better. It is a pairing of cinematic perfection. In Fellini's memoirs he wrote that his wife is the person he admired most; her physical presence is somewhat frail and plain with a waif-like cuteness accentuated by her wavy red hair and large, innocent eyes - what a visual deception! Her physique masks a tour de force talent and a subtle power that slowly overwhelms you.

I won't lionize her talent anymore - Others have done it better and I simply couldn't express how she IS one of the greatest and less known actresses of all time.

I think, it's a shame, that to this day, I still couldn't find much information on her other than the basic details of her life. I hope someone will be able to show us some of her interviews, maybe writings, and memoirs. She must have been such an interesting individual too.

Zhang Yimou's Ju Dou

(Response on imdb.com on why the kid was so disturbed.)



The kid represents the cultural and moral oppression of traditional Chinese society.

He full well knew of his mother's and "brother's" relationship. The kid was able to absorb the patriarchal attitudes of his adopted father and society at large, the "old bastard." As a child he was almost pushed into the dye vat by the "old bastard," but the kid mustered enough sense to call him "father" and hence melt his heart. It's disputable whether the kid unconsciously or consciously knew that would save his life. Previously, he never spoke but when he spoke the magic word "daddy," at the right place at the right time, it at least means the kid acknowledges the social mores and situations of his time: he knew his "brother" and mother were having illicit relations (he's seen them fooling around) and still acknowledged the "old bastard" as his father. He knew how to play the game.

The "old bastard," as you recall, had no intentions of recognizing the child unil the child recognized him. The kid lived in a vaccuum in as much a repressed family situation as his birth parents, and he was observing and absorbing everything. He always knew of his birth parents' illicit affair, and he always knew that people praised him when he was recognized as the heir apparent to the dye mill. As his adopted father's son, he was a legitimate, proud son, but as his "brother's" son, he is illegitimate, marked, and shamed. Hence, as a kid, it's much easier to just hate his real father than to actually have sympathy for his adulterous parents.

As an audience we are sympathetic to Ju and Tianqing, but in that kid's eyes, their actions bring dishonor and shame. He lacks as much sympathy for Ju Dou and Tianqing as the society around them lacked. We are sympathetic to the couple because we know they truly love one another and have suffered a great deal together - physical abuse, repression, miscarriage, abortion, barrenness, separation, etc. The kid ignores all those elements as much as the surrounding society did.

He accidentally killed his adopted father as a child. It is not clear whether he intended to do so being so young - this is in fact the most debatable part of the film: is Tianbai already a murderer and capable of revenge at such a young age? He could be avenging for the old man trying to kill him previously and for having all this power over his real parents. Or it could be an accident, but the fact that the directors emphasized that Tianbai never smiled and only laughed in this death scene could say a thousand words. Whatever the complex story is within this sullen kid's psyche, Tianbai has a history of killing father figures and with the same method and location, no less.

No matter how angry and resentful he was towards his parents' illicit affair, he never harmed his mother, however. I think there is an element of the Oedipal complex in this story, but Tianbai also acted as someone who "kept his mother from going astray," sort of a moral chaperone. He put her clothes back on immediately when he discovered his parents in the underground. His parents clearly loved each other and he witnessed their suffering. Yet, he was not touched by it at all. He was more touched by the vicious gossip in the village and would kill to vindicate the shame of his family.

I think Tianbai as a character is more symbolic than anything else. As a fruit of Tianqing's and Ju Dou's love, they could have been a happy family. But with the social structures and mores in place, the kid absorbed the traditional, patriarchal values of his world and enacted upon them on his parents. He recognized their union as unacceptable and punishable by death. In terms of social rank, Tianbai is actually higher up than his real father - though his "brother" is older, he is still adopted and unrelated by blood to the "old bastard," making him a dependent ward for life. Ironically, this is also Tianbai's real status, but he is officially recognized as the old man's son by the village and that makes a world of difference. Tianbai is the future owner of the mill and hence it is easier for him to feel superior to his real father and to cast him away as he pleases. His mother is still the mistress of the mill and he also has some Oedipal feelings for her; it's also easier to blame his real father whose social rank and power is lower than the mother as aunt and mistress of the mill. Tianbai treated his "brother" as a family rogue and that opened an easier path for him to kill him without too much hesitation or guilt - none of which he had anyway.