Hamnet

[LlynTegid]

Hoping to see it at the weekend, Jessie Buckley has been excellent in anything of hers I have seen.

Will be interested in other's thoughts once they have seen it.

I loved Nomadland! Which made Hamnet all the more disappointing.

There was nothing wrong with Chloé Zhao’s direction, I think the problem is the source material. Mark Kermode said the film left him cold, and I felt the same.

I found it all a bit irritating.

I rankle at this trend of rewriting historical women through the lens of 21st century feminism. It erases women’s lives and experience and is deeply misogynistic.

The witch theme was wholly inappropriate. Women who were tortured and murdered in that period were not witches, and most identified as devout Christians who were forced to make false confessions, many of which were retracted. It’s a privilege of modern times to dabble in Wiccan, or paganism. Again, deeply misogynistic and erasing the experience of real women who lived in fear of being ostracised or worse for not fitting in.

It completely erased religion, and all experience of death (which would have been considerable)from the main characters’ lives, in order to create a direct link between the death of the child and a play based on the Norse legend of Amleth. It just felt like a very thin plot.

It was weirdly inarticulate, except for the quotations which were all out of context. I missed the point of that, if it was deliberate. Also, I’m not sure of the exact etymology of “okay” but I don’t think Shakespeare coined that one.

Jessie Buckley is absolutely compelling, and a great actress. But the character’s histrionics were irritating.

Not a fan.

Another one here who doesn’t understand the hype. I have enjoyed many of Maggie O’Farrells books over the years and I love Jessie Buckley. Just feel as though I am missing something that everyone saw/felt. As a pp mentioned, Mark Kermode has a similar reaction. I don’t always agree with him but in this case i did.
I saw Song Sung Blue recently and actually felt more moved by that.

I went for a loo trip during a crucial moment and was confused the rest of film. Doh.

I thought the acting was brilliant.

It was beautifully filmed, and several scenes were just like a painting.

I thought Jessie Buckley was good, but a bit too "full on" at times, and for that reason I felt rather manipulated when Hamnet died, and I remained dry-eyed. (I suppose it doesn't help that we know what's coming!).
But Jessie redeemed herself in the final scenes, when she dials it back a bit, and finally begins to understand her husband.

I've never seen Paul Mescal in anything before, but he was excellent in the scenes post Hamnet's death.

The final scenes, when Agnes goes to London and watches the play, were just wonderful. The connection between Will & Agnes, and the audience reaching out their hands to the dying Hamlet.... yes, now I'm crying. It was a powerful way to show us Will's true feelings about his son (even if invented) and, ultimately, a positive way to show us the power of art, specifically theatre. And that's why Shakespeare is a genius, because his plays still do this to us after 400 years..... magical.

(Yes, they did shoehorn in a few of Will's best quotations, but I could live with that).

(The lad playing young Hamnet was good).

There was a certain stillness about it that was powerful - in a full cinema, nobody moved or uttered a word for 2 hours which, these days, is impressive. I don't know how anyone could find it boring.

I loved it, thought it was impeccably acted and gorgeously shot. The only thing that annoyed me was babies being born with no umbilical cords 😄

I wish I'd gone to see Song Sung Blue instead.

Interesting that you saw it as misogynistic! I thought it was very feminist. For one, the focus was very much on Agnes rather than Shakespeare which is unusual. It depicted how there have always been strong, independent women who were forced into the status quo - she had to forego her wild ways to live in her husband's home and give birth there against her wishes. She was pushed into a life of domesticity while her husband pursued his dreams. And she wasnt actually characterised as a witch and there was no reference to magic, she was a herbal healer. She and her mother were treated with suspicion because of their wild ways and herbalism. Actually, a lot of people accused of witchcraft were healers and midwives, so this tracks. I saw the healer angle as her being in touch with nature (and the cycles of birth and death) vs her husband's worldly ambition, and how despite being a knowledgeable healer she wasnt able to save her son, which magnified her pain and loss.

I can't see how there was an ounce of misogyny in it either? It is all done from Agnes's perspective and highlights the strength, power and loneliness of women.

True to the novel, the film never mentions the name William/Will nor William Shakespeare, and as I watched a subtitled viewing of the film on the weekend I can confirm that they all said (husband) or I think it may have said (father).

Here's a link to an interview with Maggie O'Farrell regarding this:

Waterstones Article

I read the book, it was only ok and I’m not going to see the film.

I was underwhelmed by the book.

I am a little bit tired of people riffing off established authors / works/ stories to be honest.

They do actually use his name once, when Agnes and her brother turned up at Shakespeare's lodgings - they were asked who they wanted to see.

@tocsin are you in Liverpool? I went to Mowgli and then FACT to see Hamnet today.

I don’t understand the ‘deeply misogynistic’ accusations, or all the ‘erasure’ comments.

I agree with pp that it showed a female perspective, and it foregrounded the remnants of matriarchal religion, although Agnes had to conform outwardly to Christianity. That wasn’t really a theme of the film though - I saw it more as a way of showing Agnes as an outsider, or at least someone with her own view of the world. Will knew that, but married her because he wanted her, then left her to cope when she was tied down by three children, so that he could fulfil his own dreams.

Tale as old as time, maybe - but we saw it through her eyes, not his. It was Agnes’ story, not Will’s or even Hamnet’s. I didn’t think it was remotely misogynistic.

No, Oxford!

(I do love Liverpool, though.)

I felt the same. Just a bit flat. But I’m trying to see that’s the point of it. Shakespeare was off in London making something of himself. Not around for his twins birth or their sickness, or the death.

So perhaps it’s suppose to feel empty and a bit dreary. That powerless feeling of women clubbing together and seeing it all through. So sad to see people die of things that are now curable with antibiotics. I’m sure in 500 years they’ll be plays and movies about 2026, and how people died from cancer and it’ll seem medieval and cruel.

I’m sure we have plenty of practices that might have seemed medieval to Agnes Shakespeare. Enlarging parts of our bodies through actual surgery, for one. We may have antibiotics - but we don’t seem to be evolving in any meaningful sense.

Saw this last night. I hadn't read the book so didn't really know what to expect. Jessie Buckley is good, Paul came over as a bit...thespian. And there was so much weeping and wailing I felt a bit fed up with it all. But it was well made and held my attention.

I'm loving your enthusiasm, how was it?

I’m another one who didn’t love the book as much as I expected to, given the reverence everyone seems to speak of it with. I got into eventually, and finished it, but it’s not going to be a re-read. I found the decision to never use Shakespeare’s name irritating and forced by the end. I much preferred The Marriage Portrait as a novel.

So am thinking I’ll save my pennies and wait for the film to come onto streaming!

Scroll four posts below that one, @FaceDownInAPuddle …

I did love the book and liked the play.
Saw the film last night.
Hmm…..I thought JB’s performance was excellent..as was Paul Mescal’s and the 3 children were superb too.
The direction and cinematography were beautiful.
But, as a pp commented, it was a bit flat and I can’t put my finger on why.
Also…the use of the word “okay”….was that around in the 16th/17th century?

No, probably not, earliest reference is nore than 200 years later https://www.etymonline.com/word/okay

Saw it but found it very dull

I've read the book and watched the film and I really liked both. I don't understand the criticism of it being too weepy and wailing. It's about a death of a small child. How can it not be so? I'm often surprised when films/TV programmes underplay the emotions involved with death.
The film felt very immersive on the big screen. The whole (massive) cinema was packed when I went on Sunday and it was mesmerising to watch a film where no one made any noise for over 2hrs.