Hamnet Film Review

If you liked the film from beginning to end then maybe you are not going to enjoy reading this. And if you are going to see the film and don’t want spoilers, then also don’t read this.

And as a general point, my desire is to be positive in life and bring people together. Then along comes a film like Hamnet and I think that that is a good principle but a difference of opinion is also a good thing to bring to the table.

Just keep it tolerably polite.

Right from the start, I was not taken with the voice or the delivery of Paul Mescal, the male lead. I just didn’t think he was a very good actor. People are divided on this, and I have to accept that some people think he is a fine actor.

I read that he is “one of the most talented actors of his generation, iwidely lauded for his ability to deliver authentic, nuanced, and emotionally raw performances, particularly in dramatic roles.”

But I also read that he is “a wooden actor who gets cast in movies just because he was in Gladiator 2. And he acting in Gladiator 2 is the worst acting in the last 10 years. The speech at the end is so bad that I started laughing. This actor has zero charisma, and the worst of all, his career is only getting started.”

Well, I have already said where I stand on this divide, so with my opinion of Paul Mescal, nothing was going to go right.

The first experience was in the wooing scene between the two leads at the start in close up. It was kind of enticing, except for that wooden delivery.

But from then on it was turgid. It seemed we were looking at lives unfold while at the same time being told to prepare ourselves for tragedy. It was akin to an actor telegraphing his lines.

Portentous and turgid. Oh dear.

If I could have shouted at the director I would have said – Don’t prepare me. Don’t tell me how to seize up, how to feel tense in anticipation of tragedy. Don’t weigh each scene down with feelings that are not yet fitting and ready to be felt in the drama. And do not drown me in the dirge music of Max Richter. Oh God, save me from this.

When Hamnet died, and Will came back from London after he heard that his daughter was gravely ill, and came home to find that Hamnet had died, I was steeling myself. I was steeling myself against him crying and screaming like Anne had screamed. Please, no more.

And before Hamnet died, the child actor who played him was asked to take on an emotional range that even if he could have coped with it, he was a child. The director should not have made him behave with an attempt at the range of an adult. It didn’t carry, and it could never have carried. Well perhaps in a magic realism film where children behave strangely. But not here. It was manipulative, overwrought, and limp.

More than that, the film did not flow. It was episodic, and while I may be remembering this wrongly, I think the sound quality was strange, as though the full range of the human voice was clipped to make it seem distant. Or perhaps it was Max Richter’s music.

A major bloop was when one of the subsidiary characters tells Ann what Will is doing in London – and Ann’s reaction was all wrong. Why would she not have known what her husband was doing before the person who told her knew? And if the other character did know, then Ann’s reaction was still more strange. Any human being would display a different emotion on being told what her own husband was doing.

The film was so dark – literally dark – that it was like peering into a mist, not quite able to pick things out clearly. And on and on and on. Dirge.

And then at the end with Hamlet, the play, performed on the stage, I was affected by it. It was as though everything was leading me to this point so it could finally reach my emotions.

And Will’s smile was good – the best bit of his acting in the film.

And then Anne laughed and I thought – who directed this??

Last comment – the actor who played Hamlet on the stage in the final scene was good.

Somaliland

map of somaliland and somalia

Somaliland is home to approximately six million people and occupies an area of 176,000 square km, which makes about three quarters the size of Britain. It borders Somalia to the east and is not recognised as an independent state by any country except Israel.

The area edged blue in this map is Somalia. From Somalia’s point of view the blue line continues around the pink area. In the view of Somaliland the pink area is Somaliland.

Somaliland is not a breakaway province of Somalia. Rather, in the late 19th century, the Somali sultanates were colonised by the Italian and British empires, who created two colonies from the tribal territories: Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland.

Britain formally granted independence to the State of Somaliland in June 1960, and almost immediately Somaliland voluntarily united with the former Italian Somaliland to form the Somali Republic.

Things didn’t go smoothly, however, and the union didn’t last. Eventually war broke out, and after ten years Somaliland declared independence in 1991.

Israel recognised Somaliland as an independent state last December. To cement that, the first official delegation from Somaliland arrived in Israel on Monday 23rd February 2026.

So from 1991 until last December, Somaliland has been in a nether world of being home to its people but not recognised as a country.

That is not to say it was ignored, because it has relations with a number of countries. But by making the step to formally recognise Somaliland, perhaps Israel will cause the floodgates to open.

Israel has reason to want a partner in the Horn of Africa. It helps to counter Iranian-back Houthis in Yemen. But as of just a day or two ago, that dynamic has changed with the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. That said, a partner is a partner, particularly in this changing world. I guess the parties probably stressed that when they met.

President Nicolás Maduro

President Trump has consistently berated Zelensky for not giving way to Putin’s demands. He seems to be saying that sometimes the best deal is the one that hurts but at least is a deal, because without a deal the outcome will be much worse. Is he looking as an outside observer? Does he think that cutting Europe loose is a better outcome for the USA than taking a stand with Europe? Does he have another agenda?

With the invasion of Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro, the USA has nicely undercut its ‘sovereign territory’ objection to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I am sure that President Trump, President Zelenskyy of the Ukraine, and President Putin of Russian Federation are acutely aware of this.

Each will have their own reasons and motives for drawing parallels and of saying that the analogy has limits and what applies to one does or does not apply to the other. But whichever way it is described, President Trump has handed President Putin an argument that sways the balance away from support of Ukraine. Perhaps that is what he wants. He might have handed himself an argument for abandoning Ukraine and Europe without having to shoulder responsibility for having done that.

Self Sacrifice – Self Interest

Let’s say that approximately ten percent of the people are naturally altruistic. The rest are self interested. This is not my calculation. It is the assertion of someone whose work I respect and who wrote about these things. Where did he get the figure of ten percent? Why not only five percent? I don’t know, but let’s work with it.

You may have seen the film Enemy At The Gate. It is set during the battle of Stalingrad in WWII. The hero is Vassili Zaitsev – a soldier who for his skill with a rifle is promoted to sniper. He comes to the attention of Commisar Danilov, whose task it is to inspire the army in its time of dire need.

Commisar Danilov’s stock in trade is inspiration, and so he promotes Zaitsev’s reputation until even the enemy hear of the famous sniper.

Things are going well until Danilov falls for the very woman who is attracted to Zaitsev. And in following his desires, he acts against everyone’s interest but his own.

Things continue until Danilov is lying in wait with Zaitsev, trying to winkle out the famous German sniper who has been sent to kill the famous Russian sniper and so reinstate Germany’s honour.

Zaitsev and Danilov are lying there, and then a realisation he can no longer evade comes to Danilov. He reflects on the damage he has secretly done to Zaitsev and the woman who loves him. Danilov sees that he has made a fundamental error in his understanding human nature. He sees that all his work to promote equality in the Soviet Union. all his exhortations, are undone because man will always find something to envy in his fellow – taller, more attractive, more popular, cleverer.

Danilov wants to make things right. He raises his head a little to present himself as a target to the German sniper, and is shot dead. Once he is dead, the enemy sniper reveals himself, believing he has killed the famous Zaitsev – only to find that he has made an error and the Russian sniper has him in his sights.

So what to make of Danilov’s self sacrifice other than that he is fulfilling an obligation to the very thing he recognises is impossible to achieve? To what logic, to what feeling did he attach himself that obliged him to sacrifice himself?

Was it just the pain of self knowledge? Maybe, but equally he might have said to himself that although he had no redeeming qualities and nor did man, he could live with that.

Had he done that he would have been free – free of care and free of conscience.

But he doesn’t.

Is he a romantic self-deceiving fool who throws his life away for nothing? We can’t think so, not from the way he has behaved. Certainly he is not altruistic by nature.

Does he see something else, a bigger picture beside which his own life is a cog in the process of bringing about something worthwhile?

Who can answer these questions? Where would one go for answers?