Shakespeare's most famous interpreter just threw shade at one of this year's biggest Oscar contenders, and his critique is deliciously specific. Ian McKellen, a man who's spent the better part of seven decades embodying the Bard's characters on stages around the world, has publicly stated that he doesn't "quite get" the critically acclaimed film about Shakespeare's personal life. And his reasons are refreshingly blunt.
The film in question, Hamnet, has been sweeping awards season. It's nominated for Best Picture. Its lead actress won a Golden Globe. It's racking up critics' awards. It's the kind of movie that seems destined to dominate the conversation leading up to the biggest awards show of the year. But McKellen watched it and essentially said: I'm not convinced.
The Theory That Doesn't Hold Up
Here's the premise that McKellen has a problem with: the film posits that William Shakespeare's masterpiece tragedy Hamlet was inspired by the real-life death of his young son, also named Hamnet, who died at age 11 in 1596. Hamlet premiered just four years later, in 1600.
It's an intriguing theory. It connects the biographical to the artistic in a way that makes for compelling storytelling. A grieving father pouring his anguish into one of literature's greatest works? That's the kind of narrative that audiences connect with emotionally.
But McKellen isn't buying it.
"I'm not very interested in trying to work out where Shakespeare's imagination came from," he said with characteristic directness, "but it certainly didn't just come from family life."
That's not a casual comment. That's McKellen—a man with legitimate authority to speak about Shakespeare—essentially saying that reducing the Bard's creative genius to a single biographical trauma is intellectually lazy and probably inaccurate.
.webp)
The Anne Hathaway Problem
But McKellen's critique goes deeper than just philosophical disagreement. He takes issue with specific details that he finds implausible. And the first one is genuinely baffling when you think about it.
The film portrays Anne Hathaway—Shakespeare's wife—as someone who's never seen a play before. Apparently, she doesn't even seem to understand what a play is, according to McKellen's recollection. And here's the thing: that's absurd on its face.
"The idea Anne Hathaway has never seen a play before? It's improbable, considering what her husband did for a living," McKellen pointed out with dry logic. "And she doesn't seem to know what a play is! I think there are a few doubts of probability."
This isn't McKellen being pedantic. This is him pointing out a fundamental narrative contradiction. Shakespeare was the most famous playwright in England. His wife would have absolutely known what his profession entailed. She likely would have seen his work performed. The idea that she's somehow ignorant about theater despite being married to the most important theatrical figure of her era is dramatically convenient but historically improbable.
The Bigger Problem With Biographical Speculation
McKellen frames his critique as part of a larger philosophical problem: we simply cannot know what Shakespeare's actual life was like, what his relationships were like, or what inspired him creatively. Yet the film presents one speculative theory as though it's historical fact.
"Shakespeare's perhaps the most famous person who ever lived, so of course there is some interest in what he looked like, what his relationship with his family was. And we can't know," McKellen said. The acceptance of that unknowability feels like intellectual honesty that the film perhaps lacks.
The Oscar Comparison That Stings
Then McKellen delivered what might be his most devastating critique, one that compares the film to another theatrical biopic that was also historically questionable.
"As Hamnet races towards the finishing line, as far as Oscars are concerned, it's likely to repeat the success of Shakespeare in Love, which had odd views as to how plays get put on," he said.
That's essentially calling Hamnet a romantic fantasy masquerading as historical insight. Shakespeare in Love was a delightful film that won Best Picture in 1999 despite being fundamentally historically inaccurate in almost every way. McKellen is suggesting that Hamnet is doing something similar—telling a beautiful story that audiences will love while potentially misleading people about what actually happened and how Shakespeare actually worked.
The Authority Problem
What makes McKellen's critique particularly worth noting is who it's coming from. This isn't some random film critic or academic taking issue with the movie. This is Ian McKellen, the legendary actor who got his career launched performing Shakespeare with the Royal Shakespeare Company. He's performed Richard II, King Lear, Macbeth, and nearly every other major work in the canon.
He's not speaking from a place of ignorance or bias. He's speaking from a place of genuine expertise and intimate familiarity with Shakespeare's actual works and the questions surrounding his life and inspiration.
The Festival Season Reality
The irony is that McKellen's critiques aren't likely to slow down Hamnet's awards momentum. The film has already achieved critical success and audience approval. It's nominated for multiple major awards. Jessie Buckley, who plays Anne Hathaway, won a Golden Globe and is in contention for Best Actress at the Oscars.
The truth is, the film doesn't need historical accuracy to win awards. It needs to be compelling cinema, and it apparently is. Awards voters aren't necessarily looking for historically rigorous biographical accuracy. They're looking for well-made films that tell engaging stories.
The Unanswerable Question
At its heart, McKellen's complaint is about something fundamental: we'll never know what truly inspired Shakespeare. We can speculate. We can dramatize. We can create beautiful stories about his life. But claiming that we know—claiming that his son's death directly inspired Hamlet—is an assumption presented as fact.
McKellen seems to believe that Hamnet makes that mistake, and based on his intimate knowledge of both Shakespeare and theater, he's probably worth listening to.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.webp)
0 Comments