Hamlet Movie Comparison

Hamlet is a world renowned play written by William Shakespeare. I will be discussing the theatrical film adaptation of the 1996 production of Hamlet directed by Kenneth Branagh. To give a brief synopsis in Branagh’s own words, Hamlet is an incredibly flawed man who is the rightful heir to the Danish throne. His father, the king, has just died and to Hamlet’s detest the queen is quickly remarrying to the king’s brother Claudius. The ghost of the fallen king appears to Hamlet and informs him that Claudius, the king’s brother and wife stealer, was in fact also his murderer and asks Hamlet to seek revenge in his name. Hamlet thrown into a turmoiling plot of leadership, betrayal, love, and revenge must deal with his emotions and make very important

decisions dealing with these issues for the rest of the story. All the while trying to keep appropriate appearances due to his public position as a royal family member. (Fresh Air) The movie features Branagh himself as Hamlet, Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, and Kate Winslet to name a few of the actors and actresses. It was nominated for four Academy Awards: Adapted Screenplay, Art Direction, Costume Design, and Original Dramatic Score. The movie was glorified as one of the best at the time and some claim to this day it is still the best cinematic adaptation of Hamlet.

One thing critics agree most on is this movie’s colorful production was brought together through Kenneth’s Branagh starring role as Hamlet. Not only did he bring life and vigor to the Shakespearean movie theatre adaptation, but he also brought solid showmanship and energy on screen with his brilliant acting. And furthermore, the huge cast and realistic setting allowed for the story to be adequately represented (Maslin). Many critics echoed theses praises such as James Berardinelli, who said “From the moment it was first announced that Branagh would attempt an unabridged Hamlet, I never doubted that it would be a worthy effort. After all, his previous forays into Shakespeare have been excellent.” He continues to rave over the movie claiming it is one of the most impressive motion pictures of 1996.

The movie Hamlet was claimed to be a raving success by most critics, claiming it the best film adaptation there is of Hamlet.

Most critics are basing their criticism of the film on the comparisons of other shakespearean adaptations, which mind you, aren’t so great.* So indeed, it becomes exemplary compared to others and may be the best adaptation currently, but when viewed purely as a film does is still stand? To critic Desson Howe from the Washington Post, it doesn’t. “It would be worthless for a play or movie not to reflect its maker. But we're forced into an uncomfortable relationship with Branagh's banally ambitious ego. When you emerge from this four-hour movie, somewhat older than before, the satisfaction comes from persevering through the whole thing. It also comes from Shakespeare's mastery, in spite of Branagh's direction.” Other critics who have also chosen to not simply compare this movie to the previous shakespearean adaptations have echoed these views. Without the simply glorified Shakespearean element in this film, this movie loses its sparkling quality and becomes an incredibly long, drawn out, bore of a

film.

This brings me to my concluding point on this film.

I believe this film lies somewhere in the middle in its overall success rate. As stated in critic Robert Ebert’s words “Branagh's Hamlet lacks the narcissistic intensity of Laurence Olivier’s (1948 Academy Award winner film) but the film as a whole is better,...” Laurence Oliver’s Hamlet, produced in 1946, was a condensed version that displayed at a more reasonable length of 2 hours and 35 minutes. Naturally, Oliver’s adaptation was seen as too botched for a Shakespearean adaptation and Branagh’s Hamlet too lengthy. Branagh was determined to keep the whole text of the play and successfully portray it in a bright, colorful fashion. Branagh’s intention was to make the movie as clear and followable as possible, claiming the story was easier to follow in the fuller text version. (Fresh Air) Due to this decision, Branagh opted of make a true cinematic adaptation with a more natural pacing and quicker, cleaner adapted dialogue version. Unfortunately, Hamlet becomes drawn down and too lengthy of a piece due its cutting and pasting of Shakespearean text along with its awkward cutting edits. I believe Hamlet would have been a widely more successful film if the theatre elements had been removed, though admittingly a daunting and difficult task to accomplish. I believe if Baranaugh had created a simplified script that adhered to its own rhythm and creativity of his own film that it would stand as a much more stronger and successful

adaptation. its own piece, instead of cutting and pasting in entirely too lengthy speeches that are hard to follow. Not only would this create a shorter movie, but it would also keep Hamlet at a much more natural pace, such as what director Baz Luhermann has done in the modern adaptation of Romeo + Juliet. Not only has this director made a successful adaptation for that film, but also for the film Moulin Rouge! which is the second film I will be discussing in depth.