Hamnet

Directed by Chloé Zhao. Starring Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal.

(watched in January)

William Shakespeare (Mescal) must work as a tutor to pay off his father’s debts. Whilst teaching the children he is distracted by a woman flying a hawk. The woman is Agnes Hathaway (Buckley) and William becomes enamoured by her. He courts her and she reciprocates but they doubt they will be allowed to marry. They force their families’ hands by consummating their relationship and Agnes becomes pregnant. They marry and she gives birth to a daughter, Susanna.

William is frustrated by his writing and Agnes persuades her brother Bartholomew to send William to London so he can pursue a theatrical career. Meanwhile she is pregnant again and gives birth to a son, Hamnet. This chimes with a prediction she made that there would be two children at her deathbed. However, it becomes apparent that she was actually carrying twins, and a daughter, Judith, is born. Initially it appears Judith was stillborn but then she shows signs of life.

The family are happy, but the plague is abroad in the land and tragedy isn’t far away. When it comes Agnes and William will deal with their grief in very different ways.     

Ok so a brief spoiler alert. I’d be surprised if anyone watched this film without a clue what it was about but just in case you don’t know the story of Hamnet or in fact Hamlet, feel free to stop reading now…

And so we come to the film version of Maggie O’Farrell’s award-winning novel (and O’Farrell co-wrote the screenplay with Zhao).

Ostensibly a tale about the romance between William Shakespeare and Agnes Hathaway, beyond this it’s tale about grief, how it affects us and how different people will respond in different ways.

There’s a dreamlike quality to the film at times, and yet it also manages to feel grounded. It’s an earthy film; there’s dirt under characters’ fingernails and the world feels lived in. Mortality and melancholy lie over the film, even before tragedy comes, there’s a lot of foreshadowing, the first tale Will tells Agnes is the legend of Orpheus and Eurydice, and death has touched Agnes long before we meet her, with the death of her mother.

It would be wrong to suggest the film veers into supernatural territory, but it dances at the periphery, magic and nature form parts of Agnes’ world, and at times one might almost mistake this for folk horror.

Mescal is very good as Shakespeare, though in many ways he has the more thankless task because the film isn’t really about him, in fact we’re two thirds of the way in before his full name is even uttered.

No, the heart of this film is Agnes, and if Buckley doesn’t get an Oscar I’m going to be very put out. Regular readers of this blog will know I have long been a fan of Jessie Buckley. I’ve never seen her give a bad performance, but she takes her art to another level here. She convinces as Agnes, in her love for her children and for Will, and in her grief when Hamnet dies. This is a woman whose life has been torn apart, and Buckley show every ounce of pain Agnes is feeling. But also every bit of joy, and as sad as the film becomes, there is a joyful element to it, even if it is the delight of remembering that what we have lost once brought happiness.

Does the film manipulate our emotions, well yes but don’t all films want to manipulate us to feel something? That Hamnet manages this is testament to Zhao’s skill as much as the performances and the music.

It is a slow burn, at times perhaps a trifle too slow, and I felt worried because even when Hamnet dies (and kudos to Jacobi Jupe for a performance that belies his years) I didn’t feel the punch to the gut I was expecting, but I shouldn’t have been concerned, the finale which takes place at the Globe and features a performance of Hamlet (featuring Jacobi Jupe’s older brother Noah as Hamlet) tore my heart out.

A film about love, creativity and grief, this is very good.

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple

Directed by Nia DaCosta. Starring Ralph Fiennes, Jack O’Connell, Alfie Williams, Erin Kellyman and Chi Lewis-Parry.

(seen in January)

At the end of the last film young Spike (Williams) was rescued from some of the infected by the weird group known as the Fingers, led by the charismatic Lord Jimmy Crystal (O’Connell) but any respite is short lived for Spike because Crystal is a deranged cult leader and his Fingers, all of whom are named Jimmy in some way, are a murderous clan, and the only way to survive is to become one of them, and the only way to do that is for Spike to battle one of them in a fight to the death…

Meanwhile Dr Ian Kelson (Fiennes) continues to maintain the Bone Temple, an ossuary he has built in the decades since the infection destroyed civilisation (in mainland Britain at least) to honour the dead. He continues to be visited by the giant Alpha he names Samson (Lewis-Parry) who he constantly has to drug with morphine, lest he tear Kelson’s head off. But Kelson slowly begins to see curious behaviour in Samson, behaviour one wouldn’t expect from someone infected by the rage virus.

Two men, Kelson and Crystol, who have chosen to deal with the chaos of the infection in different ways, slowly draw closer together until they meet…and Spike is right in the middle.

The follow up to 28 Years Later arrives hot on the heels, and only seven months, after Danny Boyle returned to the franchise last year. Boyle hands over the reins to DaCosta, though the script is again written by Alex Garland, with both films made back-to-back. 28 Years Later was a real treat and so I was looking forward to the next instalment, especially given the bonkers ending of 28 Years Later. My fingers were very firmly crossed that it would be as good as the last film…

And it bloody well is!

In fact the big question at the moment for me is exactly which film I like more, and I’m not sure I’ll be able to answer that until I see them both for a second time, but what is clear is that The Bone Temple is a fine follow up that continues the interesting work done in the previous film and lays the groundwork for what will hopefully be an interesting final instalment which, despite this not quite setting the box office on fire, does look likely to happen.

I’ll start with my one nit-pick. Having played such a central part in the last film, here Williams’ Spike feels sidelined. He’s relegated too often to the role of observer. I suspect it is intentional, both from a narrative perspective but also because of how the two films were shot, but even so his lack of agency feels jarring.

This isn’t Spike’s film though, it belongs to Dr Kelson and Lord Jimmy Crystal and, to a lesser extent, Samson.

Fiennes is rarely less than superb in anything, and he is on top form here. This is a film of contrasts, about how different people approach the apocalypse, about different reactions to chaos. For Kelson it’s about empathy, it’s about finding good amidst the horror. He’s possibly mad (taking it upon yourself to create something like The Bone Temple is hardly the action of a sane man) yet his innate goodness shines though, and you haven’t seen anything till you see Fiennes dancing to Duran Duran.

This is in sharp contrast to O’Connell’s Jimmy, whose reaction of chaos is to embrace it, to revel in violence. And yet in part because of Garland’s script, and in part because of O’Connell’s performance, I felt a hint of pity, he is, lest we forget, someone who was a child when the outbreak began and who, quite possibly, has never really grown up, and oddly in a film of violence and horror, my favourite scene is perhaps the one where Kelson and Jimmy first meet and quietly talk, and it becomes apparent that in another life Kelson could have been the male role model or father figure that Jimmy sorely needed, it also becomes clear that Jimmy is mentally ill.

None of which excuses his barbarity, but does at least go some way to explaining it.

And between these two men is Samson, the rage infected Alpha who, unlike Kelson or Jimmy, had no say in how he reacted to the chaos, and yet there are parallels between him and both other men. Chi Lewis-Parry doesn’t have the easiest of jobs but shows the humanity inside the monster.

Kudos to Kellyman as well who’s very good.

Whilst it isn’t perfect, my main takeaway from the 2021 Candyman sequel was that DaCosta was a good director, and she prove it again here. She wisely doesn’t try to emulate Boyle’s style which makes the film a little more traditional, but that’s not meant to be a criticism because one could just as easily argue Boyle was being a trifle too clever at times, For me both approaches work.

This is a horror film, that’s undeniable, and utterly brutal at times, but its also beautifully shot, which mitigates the horror. It also retains that Britishness, thanks to the script the cast but also the fact that DaCosta has spent a lot of time in the UK. Chances are Boyle will direct the final film, but if he couldn’t for any reason my top two choices would be Garland or DaCosta.

Speaking of Garland, again his script is great, and again he gives us what we didn’t expect, but what we needed. You won’t see the final act coming that’s for sure, and this is a film that’s about humanity as much as it is horror.

And there’s a familiar face at the end of course, but I’ll say no more.

Roll on the third film. I have no idea where the story is going to end, but by this point I have utter faith in Garland et al that it’ll be superb!