The main purpose of my review is to correct the misapprehension of one previous reviewer about the writer of the 'film diary', in order to encourage interest in the film diary section of the book. A previous reviewer suggested that 'Russell Jackson' might be a filmographer. In fact, Russell Jackson is a Professor specialising in Shakespeare Studies and is the Director of The Shakespeare Institute, a prestigious school for Shakespeare studies in Stratford-upon-Avon, UK. This school has strong ties with the nearby Royal Shakespeare Company, and Professor Jackson himself is one of the leading scholars in the field of criticism of Shakespeare in Performance. He has published many articles in scholarly journals, and is the editor or co-editor of major books about Shakespeare in Performance such as 'The Oxford Illustrated History of Shakespeare on Stage'.

Most importantly, Prof. Jackson has acted as 'textual advisor' to Kenneth Branagh on the sets of many (if not all) of his Shakespearean films; this means he was often responsible for advising Branagh how to interpret a particular line or scene. No one is more well-qualified to write the film diary.

Prof. Jackson's film diary is not only anecdotal; it also describes many of the discussions actors had about how to play certain scenes and characters, and sometimes compares them to approaches that were made in other productions of 'Hamlet': it does become analytical at times. One cannot complain about the funny anecdotes Prof. Jackson relates about making this film, anyway. Amongst other things, he discusses the different viewpoints and acting styles brought to the film by the actors from varying countries, he discusses the difficulty of filming swordfights and snowstorms, and embellishing Blenheim Palace to make it look more fortress-like. Prof. Jackson also makes it clear that many of the people working on the film had been working with Branagh for years, and he captures a sense of this camaraderie.

Branagh's own introduction to the book could perhaps have been longer, but is of value, letting readers know how he first became interested in acting, who his earliest acting idols were, and why he finds 'Hamlet' particularly interesting to act.

I'm not sure why one previous reviewer expected the book text of the film's dialogue to be different from the film; the intention of the film was to make a filmed version using the 'full' (longest available, conflated) text of the play. The film uses every word from texts of 'Hamlet' that are seen as legitimate, and the text in the book transcribes exactly what is said in the film.

There are however some comments interposed within the text spoken in the film - I guess comments by Branagh. These could be a little disconcerting as they break up the text, but one can easily jump over them if necessary. They would probably be very useful to a high school student studying the play who does not understand the play's language; they will also interest anyone wondering about Branagh's motivation behind particular readings of lines or portrayals of scenes.

Lastly the photographs are great, and not really small - the book is somewhat larger than many hardback/softcover books.

I recommend this book. For anyone interested in Shakespeare on Screen, I also recommend the book relating to Richard Loncraine's film of 'Richard III', which has an interesting introduction by Ian McKellen. Those who like Branagh's 'Hamlet' film might wish to also watch Zefferelli's film version of 'Hamlet' to compare two recent and very different approaches to filming the play. Hamlet is arguably the best play that Shakespeare ever wrote. This play has intrigue and misery and death everything that makes it Shakespeare but not only that it is more interesting not only in plot but in language than all the other plays. If you are not use to reading Shakespeare then you may have trouble understanding everything that is going on in this play.

The character of Hamlet is so interesting because his misery can be interpreted in so many different forms. Hamlet's misery can be construed as his frustration over his father's death or his love for Ophelia, or just adolescent misery in general. The fact that it can be all of these things just makes it more interesting because in each way the play can be read in different ways.

Hamlet seems so noble in his efforts to expose his uncle as a murderer but he is also a murderer because he murders Polonias. This event in turn makes Ophelia mad and she then commits suicide and therefore her brother blames Hamlet so there is double guilt for Hamlet.

In the end of the play I believe that Hamlet is so tortured not only with his own guilt but also his misery of all of the other factors such as his mother that he actually wants to die. But he had to kill Claudius in order to feel ready to die because then he would have done his duty and avenged his father's death.
My favorite part in the play is where Hamlet devises the play to his own benefit to confirm that Claudius is really the killer and that the ghost was really his father and not the devil.

This play is great fun to read and play out in your mind. If you want to see a good video version of this play rent the version that stars Mel Gibson. This is my favorite Shakespeare play and always will be.