Greetings, commies!
Your heartless eyerolling monster is back ;-) You know it's my guilty pleasure to spit on other people's holy-of-holies. And today, the target is "Hamnet", the Oscar-nominated tear jerker.
I have no issue with reimagining the past and spinning untold stories of cultural beacons like Mozart or Shakespeare. I don't necessarily hate the idea of injecting some modern sensibilities and ideas into a historical setting - as long as it is done carefully and strategically. "Hamnet" is not a very good example of the genre. Both the author of the novel and the director did a fine job creating an unconvincing tear-jerker.
Enthusiastic fans of the movie refer to Hamnet's death as "unspeakable tragedy". In 16th century England, plague flare-ups were routine. Death of a child was hardly an unspeakable tragedy - it was a part of life. I can forgive the costuming liberties, that horribly impractical hippie red dress that Agnes wears. I cannot forgive the pushy-shovey 21 century ideology. The fact that Agnes would passively-aggressively punish her husband for "not being there" when their son died is a little outrageous. Elizabethan wives have lost teeth for less. Agnes is lucky she wasn't blamed for Hamneth's death. She is also lucky she did not get reported for her eccentric tree-hugging behavior and burned as a witch.
Then there is the element of psychological inauthenticity. The makers of the film clearly do not know much about pediatric psychology. The whole idea of a sibling offering his life for a twin, bargaining with powers that be, tricking death itself - is over the top. When Hamnet started bargaining with death, I started grunting with frustration and rolling my eyes. Come on! Children are not capable of even contemplating such a sacrifice, let alone executing it by manipulating some invisible forces.
If you want a convincing and compelling story of bereavement and grief, watch "Reservation Road" 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment