Ever since Julie Taymor’s Titus was released in 1999, filmmakers have steered clear from the mighty works of William Shakespeare. Sure, there has been the occasional adaptation here and there- ranging from Kenneth Branagh’s As You Like It to Geoffrey Wright’s Melbournian MacBeth¬- but film has taken a backwards step to theatre in regards to Shakespeare. Here, I will look at the great, pre-Titus adaptations of Shakespeare, looking at their strengths, their weaknesses and their impact on popular culture.

Hamlet (1948)

Though often maligned for cutting half of the play (including the characters of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Fortinbras), Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet succeeds wonderfully as a film. Dark and moody, the film focuses on Olivier’s incredible performance as Hamlet, although there are terrific supporting performances from Felix Aylmer, Jean Simmons, Stanley Holloway and Norman Wooland. The atmosphere of the piece is relocated to a morbidly oppressive Ellsinore, but this does not distract from the power of the play. While Branagh’s four-hour version may be more satisfying for purists, turn to Olivier’s version if you are interested in the dramatic and emotional heights of filmed entertainment.

Julius Caesar (1953)

In the ‘30s and early ‘40s, Hollywood studios had endeavoured to do justice to Shakespeare… and had largely failed. However, in the wake of Olivier’s Henry V and Hamlet, Shakespeare was game once more for major studios. Perhaps the most refined of these efforts was MGM’s Julius Caesar, which boasted an extraordinarily good cast (including Marlon Brando, James Mason, John Gielgud and Deborah Kerr) as well as one of the most gifted directors of the decade: Joseph L. Mankiewicz (All About Eve, Sleuth). The result is nothing short of astounding – the performances all shine, although Gielgud well and truly soars as the serpentine Cassius. For something that could have gone horribly wrong, this American effort does not put a foot wrong.

Richard III (1955)

Although the film was initially considered inferior to the director’s first two films, Richard III might just be Olivier’s finest film as director and actor. The role was one of the thespian’s greatest on the stage and he assembled a great roster of talent as support- including Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, Cedric Hardwicke and Claire Bloom. Again, Olivier gives little consideration to anyone but himself, but, once again, this is excusable because he is just too damn good. Whenever he is on screen, you watch him, and nothing else, especially as he breaks the fourth wall to provide for an engrossing experience, as he makes you feel like a co-conspirator of the dastardly Richard.

Romeo and Juliet (1968)

After tackling The Taming of the Shrew, with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, Franco Zeffirelli moved on to Romeo and Juliet and decided to do something revolutionary – he would actually cast actors of an appropriate age in the title roles. And while Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey are not the most brilliant of actors, they acquit themselves well enough to let everyone else shine, including John McEnery’s superb Mercutio and Michael York’s unctuous Tybalt. Shot in Italy and superbly lensed by Pasqualino De Santis, the entire film is beautiful and boasts a heartbreaking score by the great Nino Rota.

Henry V (1989)

If, for whatever reason, you just plain do not like Shakespeare… check out Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V. For sheer balls-to-the-wall, bloody spectacle, the film is a great historical epic. In fact, it is much, much better than overrated, overheated melodramas Braveheart and Gladiator. Like Olivier, Branagh chose Henry V as his feature debut, and like Olivier, he managed to revitalize Shakespeare on film, making way for Franco Zeffirelli’s Hamlet, Richard Loncraine’s Richard III and Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet. Branagh’s Henry V is certainly a different beast from Olivier’s… not necessarily better, but definitely more accessible. Branagh assembled some of the finest British talent of the time- Emma Thompson, Robbie Coltrane, Paul Scofield, Judi Dench, Christian Bale, Ian Holm, Derek Jacobi- and manages to give them more of a showing than Olivier ever gave to his supporting casts. It is a shame that Branagh’s revitalization did not quite have the same legacy as Olivier’s… after all, there have not been many great Shakespeare films since 1989.

Timothy Maddocks