To be, or not to be
Hamnet is an intriguing take on the Shakespeare legacy, inspired by Maggie O’Farrell’s novel that imagines the death of Shakespeare’s only son and its possible influence on his work. Mixing fact and fiction, it focuses on the death of Shakespeare’s only son, Hamnet, and in doing so doesn’t pretend to be a true biopic about the bard but instead focuses on grief and coping. Whatever the inspiration, it is compelling cinema.
It’s the late 16th century and William (Paul Mescal, and like the book, his name is not stated outright) is courting woman-of-the-woods herbalist Agnes (Jessie Buckley) in Stratford, England. He’s working as a tutor and falls for her after she appears out of the forest with her pet hawk. The two have an instant connection and end up sneaking off and getting pregnant, forcing the class-divided families to agree to wedding terms.
William tries to provide for the family by working in his abusive father’s glove-making business, but he is overwhelmed by a desire for something greater. This leads to drinking and depression, and his volatility causes Agnes to plot his exile to London under the guise of selling more gloves, so he divides his time between Stratford and the city.
Fast forward a few years and Agnes has birthed twins, Hamnet and Judith (alongside first-born Susanna), while William is getting successful in the theatre world. From here things get darker, and we won’t be spoiling anything by giving away that Hamnet dies, and the rest of the movie deals with the grief the parents face.
Despite the tragedy at its centre, the film is less about the shock of Hamnet’s death and more about the different ways Will and Agnes process grief. Will goes away and continues his theatre work, leaving Agnes to stew over the loss. She can’t understand how Will is now more absent and seemingly not grieving, which is where the focus on the famous play comes into the fore (we are told that Hamlet and Hamnet are the same interchangeable names in this period).
It’s an out-there concept, but it works, mainly because of the strength of the performances, particularly Jessie Buckley who seems destined for major awards recognition, and is outstanding as the woman-of-the-woods who becomes a grieving mother. Mescal plays the bard well in what would be a difficult role to fill. He’s picking the right roles for an actor approaching, or perhaps already in the peak of his career.
What makes the movie work so well though, is the technical elements. The cinematography is incredible, with a number of breathtaking shots, from forest to city settings which, combined with Max Richter’s excellent score, give the film the edge. Even an extended shot of Will drunk and struggling at his desk in the middle of the night just looks incredible. There are many moments like this where you can’t help being absorbed in the moment.
Which leads to the other element of the movie that is perhaps not quite as obvious a focus – it delves into the struggles Will faces trying to live a normal life as a glove maker but yearning for more and turning to depression and alcoholism. This is a highly relatable element that many artists would sympathise with and eventually intertwines with not just Will achieving success through following his dreams but also becomes his outlet for grieving.
A last comment on the movie versus the novel. Director Chloé Zhao (who has already won the best director gong for Nomadland in 2020) co-wrote the screenplay with O’Farrell and the pair keep quite true to the novel for most parts. Smaller characters like Agnes’ stepmother and brother have larger roles in the novel, as well as William’s parents. Will himself seems to be a much more caring and respectful husband and father in the film, and we get some direct Shakespeare quotes that are not present in the book. The quotes are the clunkiest change to the adaptation, seemingly included to remind the wider movie-going audience that they are watching the bard himself.
The film is already winning awards and will go in as one of the favourites for best film at the academy. It’s definitely a step up from the last Shakespeare movie that bizarrely swept the Oscars in the nineties, Shakespeare in Love. It’s worth a watch for Buckley’s performance alone.
Leave a Reply