Film Review: Hamnet

Shakespeare. Grief. Paul Mescal. On the surface, Hamnet seems to be a film centred on big, showstopping ideas. But it is actually the smaller everyday goings-on of family life which bring the story to life, and this quiet minimalism is what gives the film plenty of powerful emotional punches (having tissues to hand is seriously advised).

Based on Maggie O’Farrell’s 2020 novel, which won the Women’s Prize for Fiction, Chloé Zhao’s adaptation (which O’Farrell co-writes) offers a faithful, though simplified portrayal of an imagined life in 16^th Century Stratford-Upon-Avon. It is worth noting at this point that the events of the film are fictional – imagined by O’Farrell and Zhao based on the scant historical details we have about the personal life of England’s most famous playwright. A quote from scholar Stephen Greenblatt opens the film and reminds us that the name of Shakespeare’s son, ‘Hamnet’, was at the time functionally interchangeable with the name ‘Hamlet’.

The events of the film are fictional – imagined by O’Farrell and Zhao based on the scant historical details we have about the personal life of England’s most famous playwright.

The film’s approach to Shakespeare is interesting – there are a handful of relatively subtle references to various plays, but for the most part Zhao avoids too many ‘quill drops’. That is apart from one major exception, which is easily the weakest scene in the film. There is no need to spoil the film by describing the scene in question, as it hits you over the head so hard that anybody who has seen the film will instantly recognise it. Momentarily, the film’s chief triumph – its wonderful visual storytelling – flies out the window and we are forced to endure the whips and scorns of a very heavy-handed cliché.

Aside from that fleeting moment, the film is restrained and avoids heavy handed Avengers-style easter eggs. It does take more of an interest in Hamnet’s father than the book (which never explicitly names the bard) but while Paul Mescal gets a decent sized role as William Shakespeare, he is still very much the ‘Supporting’ to Jessie Buckley’s ‘Leading Role’ as Agnes Hathaway. On that point, Buckley’s Oscar win could not be more deserved. Even Oscar kleptomaniac Emma Stone’s exceptional performance in Bugonia could do nothing to stop Best Actress from being a one-horse race. The fact that Buckley had been the sure awards favourite for months is a real testament to the quality of her performance which arguably warrants an entire piece of its own. She breathes life, with all its vulnerability encompassed, into the character of Agnes – every glance is imbued with sharp poignance.

Buckley’s Oscar win could not be more deserved.

As the Oscars don’t have an award which celebrates child actors, Jacobi Jupe walked away without any accolades – but if his performance in the titular role is anything to go by, he will surely make up for it later in his career. The thirteen-year-old plays an earnest and adventurous young man, one that the world is not quite ready for. Considering this is only his second feature film, the performance is remarkable – he is the epitome of innocence but also holds a tragic precociousness in his face throughout. It is a stroke of genius from casting director Nina Gold that his brother, Noah Jupe should be cast in a brief but key cameo appearance towards the end of the film. The real-life brothers are just one example of the many subtle touches in Hamnet which truly elevate the storytelling.

Hamnet’s visual sensitivity helps make it so very stirring. Łukas Żal’s cinematography provides a kinetic depth to the natural world, where you can feel the dread slowly building – there is something rotten, a deep-rooted sense of unease which permeates the world of Elizabethan England. Suddenly the spirituality of the time feels present and tangible, nature being its own character in it all.

You can feel the dread slowly building – there is something rotten, a deep-rooted sense of unease which permeates the world of Elizabethan England.

Max Richter’s score ties everything together, though the borderline formulaic use of ‘On the Nature of Daylight’ in the film’s final scene has been criticised by some, prompting the claim that Hamnet is overly emotionally exploitative. These criticisms miss a key point – well told stories make us feel things. As the final scene of the film shows, art can be engrossing, but it also gives us an opportunity to engage with our own individual feelings and experiences. Dismissing Hamnet as overly sentimental overlooks how careful balanced it is – the story may be one family’s tragedy, but the experience approaches something far more universal.