​Be here now: Zhao stages a powerful “Hamnet”

By Greg Carlson

gregcarlson1@gmail.com

Cinephiles who fell in love early with Chloe Zhao’s remarkable moviemaking gifts will point to the blend of unpolished performances, raw emotion and stunning visuals on display in “Songs My Brothers Taught Me” and “The Rider.” Those two features laid the groundwork that earned Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actress Oscars for mainstream breakthrough “Nomadland” and then the odd and polarizing Marvel superhero entry “Eternals.” Zhao’s latest, a much-anticipated award-season buzz magnet adapting Maggie O’Farrell’s 2020 prize-winner “Hamnet” with stars Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal, doesn’t quite attain the indie vibes of the first two movies, but its positive reception will undoubtedly occasion sighs of relief from Zhao and her team.

Zhao adapted the novel with author O’Farrell, and the co-screenwriters ditch the book’s achronological dual-time period structure for a deliberately sequential narrative focused on domestic tragedy over the transmission and devastation of the plague. An imaginative and imagined story detailing the impact of love and death on the family of William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway (renamed Agnes in book and film), “Hamnet” uses the premature loss of the couple’s 11-year-old son as the catalyst and foundation for the core themes and timeless language of the enduring play. In addition to its tearjerking examination of parental grief, “Hamnet” also situates Agnes in the central role, a move that in Justin Chang’s estimation makes some space for at least a partial “feminist corrective to the myth of male genius.”

Because the awesome power of Will’s writing ultimately redeems the frequently absent and often irresponsible father in the eyes of his spouse (in a final act sequence that requires tissues for even the most stoic viewers), “Hamnet” doesn’t fully connect or land all of its gender-specific critiques. Even so, Buckley is phenomenal while expressing her despair that William was not around when he could have/should have been. The headline for Chang’s review in “The New Yorker” rhetorically asks, “‘Hamnet’ feels elemental, but is it just highly effective grief porn?” I would argue the unfairness of that loaded charge; it doesn’t take a bard to know that theater patrons are well-prepared, even eager, to grapple with tragedy.

The worst nightmare of every parent may be at the heart of the drama, but Zhao has fine instincts for showing other long arcs of human experience. The immediate physical attraction between Shakespeare and Agnes is a rapid and forward courtship of steamy kisses. Lust gives way to the realities and responsibilities of children. In this gear, Buckley takes charge, expressing a desperate and palpable rage at the imbalance in her marriage. Zhao conveys how these sacrifices made by Agnes on behalf of her increasingly successful partner compound. It may be the late 16th century, but many viewers will easily recognize and relate.

On the “Critics at Large” podcast, Vinson Cunningham said, “‘Hamlet’ has never not been popular, right? It's been in production almost constantly since it was written over 400 years ago. And in that time it's undergone all manner of revisions, updates, adaptations, re-imagining. ‘Hamlet’ to me is all about how the common difficulties of life, grief, betrayal, loneliness, [and] indecision strike each of us with a unique and particular pain.” Without stating it directly, Cunningham is making a strong argument on behalf of O’Farrell’s fantasized historical fiction. Shakespeare’s text is as durable as it is elastic — not every interpretation will appeal to every aficionado, as you like it (or don’t). But I’m happy they exist.