Laurence Olivier Criticism
Laurence Olivier, a prominent British director, actor, and producer, is celebrated for his innovative film adaptations of Shakespearean plays. Beginning his theatrical career at eleven with a role in Julius Caesar, Olivier developed a deep affinity for Shakespeare. Despite initial reluctance, he embraced cinematic renditions, crafting acclaimed adaptations of Henry V, Hamlet, and Richard III. These films are noted for their balance of innovation and fidelity to Shakespeare's eloquence. Olivier's adaptation of Henry V is praised by Bosley Crowther for its theatrical brilliance, while his Hamlet receives mixed reviews for its austere production, as noted by James Agee and Arthur Vesselo. His Richard III is hailed by Derek Prouse for its innovative approach but critiqued by James E. Phillips for lacking thematic depth.
In contrast, Olivier's direction of The Prince and the Showgirl, based on Terence Rattigan's The Sleeping Prince, diverges from his Shakespearean adaptations with its light romantic tone, though some critics, like Penelope Houston, argue it relies too heavily on theatrical conventions. His approach to Chekhov’s The Three Sisters for the American Film Theatre, where he remained true to the original text, was met with disappointment for lacking his usual cinematic flair.
Olivier's contributions to the arts were formally recognized with a knighthood in 1947 and a barony in 1970, marking his enduring legacy in both theatre and film.
Contents
-
At the Stanley: 'Henry V'
(summary)
In the following essay, Bosley Crowther praises Laurence Olivier's film adaptation of "Henry V" for its theatrical brilliance and fidelity to Shakespeare's spirit, although he critiques some elements, such as the focus on comic characters and unnecessary scenes, while ultimately commending Olivier's overall tasteful execution and visual impact.
-
Time: Olivier's 'Hamlet'
(summary)
In the following essay, James Agee critiques Laurence Olivier's film adaptation of Hamlet, noting its austere production and focus on language clarity, while acknowledging the loss of depth due to significant editing, but ultimately praising Olivier's contribution to Shakespearean cinema and his ability to bridge literature, stage, and screen.
-
British Films of the Quarter
(summary)
In the following essay, Arthur Vesselo examines Laurence Olivier's film adaptation of Hamlet, critiquing its blend of cinematic techniques and fidelity to the original play, and argues that while the film successfully captures the duel scene, it fails in other areas by overcomplicating Shakespeare's work rather than enhancing it for a broader audience.
-
'Hamlet' and Documentary
(summary)
In the following essay, Parker Tyler critiques Laurence Olivier's film adaptation of Hamlet for prioritizing traditional cinema over theatrical depth, arguing that Olivier's reliance on conventional interpretations and cinematic techniques undermines the psychological complexity and poetic essence of Shakespeare's play.
-
Shakespeare Filmed
(summary)
In the following essay, Henry Raynor critiques Laurence Olivier's film adaptations of Shakespeare's Hamlet and Henry V, highlighting the former's reductive interpretation of Hamlet's character and the latter's successful adherence to a heroic portrayal, while also discussing the cinematic techniques and choices that impacted the films' dramatic and narrative effectiveness.
-
Film Reviews: 'Richard III'
(summary)
In the following essay, Derek Prouse argues that Laurence Olivier's film adaptation of Richard III is a masterful and innovative expansion of Shakespeare's play, highlighting Olivier's nuanced portrayal of Gloucester and the film's intelligent direction, despite some issues with the play's inherent structure.
-
'Richard III', Two Views: Some Glories and Some Discontents
(summary)
In the following essay, James E. Phillips critiques Laurence Olivier's film adaptation of Richard III, arguing that while it effectively distills the historical and dramatic essence of Shakespeare's play, it sacrifices crucial elements of character development and thematic depth, particularly in relation to Richard's complexity and the moral intricacies of the original text.
-
Boys into Men—and Other Fables
(summary)
In the following essay, Philip T. Hartung critiques Laurence Olivier's direction of the film "The Prince and the Showgirl," suggesting that despite Rattigan's screenplay and the actors' performances, the film's plot remains thin and predictable, with humor and situations that fail to fully engage the audience.
-
'The Prince and the Showgirl'
(summary)
In the following essay, Penelope Houston critiques Laurence Olivier's film The Prince and the Showgirl, arguing that its adherence to stage-like pacing and theatricality results in a performance-driven yet mildly engaging cinematic experience, likening it to "lemonade in a champagne bottle."
-
New Films: 'The Prince and the Showgirl'
(summary)
In the following essay, Rupert Butler examines the collaboration of Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe in The Prince and the Showgirl, praising its boldness in enhancing British Cinema's provincialism, while critiquing the film's reliance on theatrical conventions that detract from its cinematic execution.
-
Olivier's 'Richard III'—A Re-evaluation
(summary)
In the following essay, Constance A. Brown argues that Laurence Olivier's cinematic adaptation of Richard III transforms Shakespeare's play into a complex exploration of tyranny through innovative use of imagery, religious motifs, and psychological interpretation, elevating the film beyond its source material to an incisive commentary on power and moral ambiguity.
-
Epitaph for a Small Loser
(summary)
In the following essay, Judith Crist praises Laurence Olivier's direction and Moura Budberg's translation of Three Sisters for infusing the production with a sensuality and vitality that revitalizes the play's themes, particularly through the characters of Masha and Vershinin.
-
Laurence Olivier
(summary)
In the following essay, Foster Hirsch analyzes Laurence Olivier's adaptation of Hamlet, noting Olivier's efforts to balance realism and expressionism in conveying Hamlet's psychological turmoil by using cinematic techniques such as mobile camera work and deep focus to create a dreamlike atmosphere and explore themes of alienation and introspection.