10 Shakespeare Movies Everybody Should See - Part 2 (6-10)

This piece is a continuation of a previous article; find the first half (Movies 1-5) here!

Adapting Shakespeare to the screen presents a myriad of problems and opportunities for the filmmaker. After all, centering a camera on a soliloquizing actor as they stare off into the nothingness of filmic space could, in fact, be perceived as stagey and artificial to a film-going audience of the early 21st century. None other than Laurence Olivier thought to have solved this problem with his version of “Hamlet” from 1948, by rendering Hamlet’s monologues as products of a voiced-over, interior, thought process. Audiences and critics seem to have responded, granting the film the Oscar for Best Picture, and Olivier himself the award for Best Actor. A filmmaker such a Roman Polanski can choose to focus on atmosphere and setting when adapting the Bard, as in his 1971 version of “Macbeth,” where the cold, rocky crags of Scotland help to inform the bloody-minded bleakness of events as they unfold, some of which are spoken by a fantastically naked trio of witches. Baz Lauhrman’s version of “Romeo and Juliet,” from 1996, caters itself to a young demographic, with its frenetic pacing, a constant, booming soundtrack, and what seems like a jillion jump-cuts. Thus, in over a century of cinema, filmmakers have adapted, tweaked, and molded the Shakespearean canon to their own devices and desires.

Before jumping into the second half of our list of ten Shakespeare films, it should be noted that the list itself is, in no way, a best-of List, and is thus not intended as definitive. As truth, one need only glance at the previous paragraph, as Olivier’s “Hamlet,” Polanski’s “Macbeth,” and Luhrman’s “Romeo + Juliet,” don’t even appear on the list, though they easily could have. Anyone wishing for diversity of content may be disappointed, as Kenneth Branagh and Akira Kurosawa appear on the list twice, deservedly so. Don’t like it? Tough. Make your own damn list. 😁 Lastly, although each one of these films vary in quality, all of them are laudable and deserve to be seen by those who wish to take their Shakespeare seriously.

6. Hamlet (2009) 

One could argue away the inclusion of this RSC-produced version of “Hamlet” from ten years ago on this list, but even with its grievous flaws, it is still worthy. This particular “Hamlet’s” worthiness stems entirely from David Tenant’s portrayal of the title character. In my over three decades of watching Shakespeare, I have never seen as appropriately cerebral portrayal of Hamlet, as Tennant provides here. Intellectual acuity, coupled with a blazingly overactive mind, are perhaps Hamlets chief character traits, and Tennant has no qualms about displaying this to the viewer. Through quirky facial tics and expressions, and unexpected pauses in line delivery, Tennant shows us a Hamlet who actively works through his labyrinthine thought process. Yes, this filmed stage production has tremendous flaws---whether its Patrick Stewart sleepwalking through the role Claudius, or a 30-year-old Mariah Gale, playing an ineffectual, completely unbelievable Ophelia---Tennant’s consistent energy, and uncanny ability at depicting Hamlet’s cerebral nature, is the real reason to take in this production.   

7. Prospero’s Books (1991) 

Oscar Wilde once observed that nothing succeeds like excess---a maxim which can be at least partially applied when considering British director Peter Greenway’s wild rendering of “The Tempest,” from 1991. Keeping Wilde’s statement in mind, provocateur Greenway’s film is as often beautiful as it is excessive. Run through with fleshliness and sexual license, wondrous and dazzling at one moment, gruff and brutal the next, “Prospero’s Books” is multifarious in its presentation. The film is bold enough to depict Caliban as a well-spoken, yet entirely rapey, monstrosity, whom Prospero can barely control. Eminent Shakespearean Sir John Gielguld glides easily and eloquently through the role of Prospero, lording it over everyone and everything on his island, with an arcane muttering or swish of his hand. In an especially inspired move, Prospero’s magical grimoires are given an animated (literally) life of their own, as a way of emphasizing Shakespeare’s many references to magical lore in his text. As a neat aside, “Prospero’s Books” is actually linked with Welles’ “Chimes at Midnight,” as Gielguld had been attempting to bring “The Tempest” to the screen for decades, and had nearly enlisted the services of Welles as a director, who had originally cast himself as Caliban. In sum, when Greenway’s film works, as it often does, it is an overwhelming audio-visual experience, when it doesn’t, it is simply tedious and annoying.

8. Titus (1999) 

Director Julie Taymor’s adaptation of “Titus Andronicus” can be thought of as a close relative to “Prospero’s Books,” with its grim, startling violence, and fearlessness in presenting grotesqueries. As evidence, one of the film’s best moments has a mutilated Lavinia, san arms and tongue, turn abruptly towards the camera and vomit forth a veritable gusher of blood. Few horror films could provide a more gruesome, more emotionally charged moment. Taymor’s “Titus” succeeds on just about every level: the entire cast is stellar, from the quietly menacing Anthony Hopkins in the title role, to the wildly seductive, manipulative traits Jessica Lange gives to the role of Tamora, to the ugly, despicable charm Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Mathew Rhys give to the roles of Chiron and Demterius; to the ancient Roman wilderness that aids in giving the film a symbolic setting; to the notorious, cannibalistic finale, which is appropriately cringe-worthy, Julie Taymor shows how Shakespeare can be interpreted with a flurry of style, and even excess.

9. Throne of Blood (1957)

By 1957, Akira Kurosawa was already an accomplished filmmaker. Films such as “Drunken Angel,” “Rashomon,” and “Ikiru” had demonstrated his seemingly preternatural ability to create exquisite scene compositions; “Rashomon” showed his willingness to experiment with narrative exposition, continuity, and point-of-view; film critics were starting create a fashionable arguments for declaring “Seven Samurai” as the Greatest Film Ever Made. So why not see what he could do with one of the crown jewels of the western canon, Shakespeare? With “Throne of Blood,” his adaptation of “Macbeth,” Kurosawa shows his ability to honor source material, while at once making it entirely his own. By transposing Shakespeare to a paranoid, politically charged 16th century Japan, Kurosawa makes explicit the clannishness and ambition of his characters, not the least of which is Toshiro Mifune’s fierce, visceral, Macbeth stand-in, Lord Washizu. The changes Kurosawa makes to the “Macbeth” story work out brilliantly: a dispensing of the three witches, in favor of a single, weird, unnerving, forest spirit whom Macbeth encounters; Isuzu Yamada’s ritualistic performance as Lady Asaji (Lady Macbeth), in which minimal physical movement goes a long way in giving her character an appropriate degree of icy calculation. But what may be most impressive about “Throne of Blood,” is that it doesn’t even need Shakespeare’s language in order to succeed. Instead, we are dropped mercilessly into a negative field of black and white imagery, enraptured as Kurosawa’s film unfolds. Amazing.

10. Ran (1985) 

If “Throne of Blood” can be considered an early artistic peak for Akira Kurosawa, “Ran” can easily serve as a late-period masterpiece for a filmmaker who was already revered as a genius. Similar to “Throne of Blood,” Kurosawa is unafraid to play fast and loose with “King Lear,” the source for the film. In his old age, Kurosawa seems even more willing to mess around in this regard: instead of three daughters, Lear---in the guise of Lord Hidetora--- has three sons; the character of Edmund is entirely disposed of; the Fool and Kent follow Lear-Hidetora around like shadows, with the Fool becoming a central character; Edgar and Gloucester are conflated into a blind, hermit-like character whom Hidetora encounters in his mad ramblings. Sacrilege, right? Hardly. Kurosawa’s bold artistic choices make for a dynamic, totally absorbing viewing experience. Certainly, Kurosawa’s “Ran” is one of the most magisterial films ever mounted, easily able to stand side-by-side with other film epics such as “Lawrence of Arabia,” “Gone with the Wind,” or Kubrick’s “2001.” Truly, words fail in describing it, and it really needs to be seen to be believed. 


So there you have it---ten Shakespeare movies everybody should see. Along the way, we’ve seen how Shakespeare has been adapted to the screen over the course of the 20th century. From the note-perfect precision of Branagh’s “Henry V,” to the personal, triumphant howl of Welles’ “Chimes at Midnight,” to the heated grotesqueries of Julie Taymor, to the magisterial scene compositions of Akira Kurosawa, filmmakers over the decades have shown how Shakespeare can be re-appropriated to fit one’s own artistic inclinations.