Aneil Karia’s Hamlet, highlighted by Riz Ahmed’s deeply empathetic and grief-stricken performance, brings a sense of urgency and vitality to the Shakespearean canon that challenges the stillness of the stage. The film’s opening scene—Hamlet driving through London traffic while grappling with the “to be or not to be” soliloquy—sets the tone for a tragedy rooted in movement. This is a story that cannot linger in its sorrow; it must navigate, confront, and ultimately transcend it. This approach reflects the film’s heartfelt aim: to interpret the prince’s profound existential crisis through the pulse of contemporary urban life.
The adaptation’s most poignant change from the original play is its emphasis on closeness. Karia’s camera stays near enough to reveal the tremor in Ahmed’s voice, the weariness in his posture, the flicker of doubt that crosses his eyes before he speaks. This intimacy deepens the tragedy. Shakespeare’s Hamlet often performs his grief for others; Ahmed’s Hamlet bears it within himself—visible in his body, in his breath, in the way he grips a steering wheel or hesitates before entering a room. The film replaces theatrical distance with emotional immediacy, and that shift gives the story a more raw and heartfelt texture.
Michael Lesslie’s screenplay gently refines Shakespeare’s words into a more focused, contemporary essence. While some of the philosophical breadth is condensed, the core emotional struggles become even more powerful. The film forgoes lengthy rhetorical speeches, intricate contemplations on mortality, and political commentary, focusing instead on a heartfelt emotional spectrum: grief, suspicion, rage, tenderness, and despair. These omissions are intentional and thoughtfully structured. The desire is for a tragedy that truly moves the audience, and that necessitates a certain compression to highlight the emotional truth.
The relocation to a wealthy South Asian household in London offers a fresh perspective on the story, preserving its core while highlighting new dimensions. “Elsinore” transforms into a symbol of inheritance and the complex nature of family legacy, reflecting both pride and underlying struggles. The mansion’s polished surfaces mirror a family that has perfected appearances, yet anyone can sense the fragility beneath. This change shifts the focus from courtly politics of Denmark to the nuanced dynamics of corporate influence and family bonds. The stakes feel more intimate and personal, emphasizing the household’s inner turmoil and emotional unraveling.
Some omissions alter the fabric of the story, highlighting the loneliness faced by Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s absence leaves him more isolated, making his world feel smaller, more confining, and harder to bear. The removal of the Fortinbras subplot also distances us from the broader chaos of war, focusing instead on a family in turmoil. Shakespeare’s Denmark is depicted as a nation in turmoil; Karia’s London as a family suffering its own crises. While these shifts narrow the scope of the tragedy, they also deepen its emotional intimacy, inviting us to feel more compassion for those caught in its grip.
The film moves beyond the play’s focus on performance and theatricality. Shakespeare’s Hamlet often stages plays, manipulates audiences, and explores the nature of acting. In Karia’s Hamlet, the character does not perform; he erupts with raw emotion. His grief is portrayed as a true wound rather than a mask. Without the play‑within‑the‑play, one of Shakespeare’s most intricate devices is absent, but this also allows the film to stand on its own, free from the weight of meta‑theatrical commentary. As a result, the tragedy feels more honest, more personal, and more deeply vulnerable.
Karia’s London transforms into a landscape filled with thresholds—temples, homeless encampments, neon-lit streets, private clubs—each representing a space of transition and need. Hamlet moves through these areas with a searching that feels both spiritual and deeply anguished. The film omits the court’s rigid hierarchy, instead portraying a city that reflects Hamlet’s inner fragmentation. The urban environment becomes a quiet witness to his unraveling, a place where grief resonates softly through alleyways and underpasses, highlighting the human pain woven into the city’s fabric.
Ophelia’s role transforms in quietly profound ways. Morfydd Clark portrays her with gentle restraint, yet the film narrows her narrative arc, omitting some of the play’s most intense portrayals of madness and grief. Her tragedy becomes more introspective, less overtly symbolic. The exclusion of her extended breakdown and funeral rites shifts the emotional focus, emphasizing Hamlet’s struggles while softening the portrayal of the collateral damage from his actions.
Polonius, portrayed by Timothy Spall, maintains his confrontational attitude but loses some of the play’s comedic nuance. The film omits the clumsy verbosity that often characterizes him, opting instead for a sharper, more fragile presence. This adjustment deepens the family drama but removes a layer of tonal richness. Shakespeare’s tragedy often intertwines humor and horror; Karia’s version emphasizes sorrow, allowing little room for relief.
By the final act, the film gently guides us through Shakespeare’s words, gently shedding the political scaffolding, philosophical breadth, theatrical devices, and secondary characters that once surrounded the story. It holds onto grief, corruption, the longing for justice, and the haunting terror of clarity. It keeps the ghost, the wound, the rawness of human suffering. What it omits allows the tragedy to become more immediate, more intimate, more vulnerable. This Hamlet is not exhaustive. It is not definitive. It is not complete. It is alive with the rawness of human emotion.
B+. Amazon Prime Video.
Leave a Reply