A Perception of Kenneth Branagh Stage and film legend Kenneth Branagh has fascinated audiences for decades with his unmatched directing style and strong sense of narrative. Branagh is known for pushing the limits of theatrical and cinematic expression with his work through interpretations of classic literature and his experimental methods of stage crafting and filming. We'll look at Branagh's effect as a director, how he changed people's perceptions of plays and movies, and how he changed my thoughts about the craft of storytelling in this paper. Although Kenneth Branagh has directed a wide range of genres and styles, his incomparable efforts at Shakespearean adaptation are what best showcase his technical mastery as a filmmaker. Holding the …show more content…
Not only that, but Branagh's direct repertory covers a wide variety of genres and issues in addition to Shakespearean theater. His 1994 version of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" demonstrated his flexibility as a director, fusing romance, tragedy, and horror themes to produce an eerily atmospheric tale. Branagh established himself as a formidable filmmaker by giving the traditional story additional depth and resonance through his strong visual sense and ability to convey strong emotions to his audience. My viewpoint on plays and movies has been greatly impacted by Kenneth Branagh's skill as a director, who has caused me to reevaluate the limits of artistic expression and narrative. His skill at fusing advanced cinematic tools with time-honored theatrical methods expanded my perspective on the relationship between stage and screen and motivated me to approach storytelling with a fresh sense of inspiration and originality along with a new
Ethan Hawke and Kenneth Branagh recreated Shakespeare’s Hamlet with an alluring ambiance, however Ethan Hawke’s version was more appealing to an audience due to the stimulation of intelligent reflection. The setting and the mood in each of these versions played with the audience’s emotions, but Ethan Hawke’s version brought on stronger ones. Secondly, Ethan Hawke and Kenneth Branagh used different choices of music and visuals that were equally effective in creating the ambiance the directors wished to obtain. As well, both movie versions created characters that tried to influence an audience; but, Ethan Hawke’s version introduced its main character so effectively that an audience was captivated by him. These two movie versions had some similarities, but Ethan Hawke’s different style produced a more appealing film. In the end, it was interesting to view the ways in which a director can try to make an old story more appealing to a modern day audience.
Shakespeare is trying to demonstrate and it sincerely aids understanding, as Zefferelli has kept it original. Zefferelli has done a very good creating the right atmosphere as how lifestyle was like in Shakespeare's time, this is clearly shown by the Shakespearean. costumes worn in Zefferellis production. As Zefferelli uses the commonsensical, original approach, he directs. the film using the continuity style of editing; this tells the story.
The works of William Shakespeare have been one of the diligent hotspots for adaptation and appropriation. We see dramatic adaptation of Shakespearean playtexts began as early as Restoration period. Different fields like poetry, novels, advertisements, and movies have connected themselves with Shakespeare as well. The adaptation of Shakespeare makes him fit for new social settings and distinctive political philosophies.
Filmmaking and cinematography are art forms completely open to interpretation in a myriad ways: frame composition, lighting, casting, camera angles, shot length, etc. The truly talented filmmaker employs every tool available to make a film communicate to the viewer on different levels, including social and emotional. When a filmmaker chooses to undertake an adaptation of a literary classic, the choices become somewhat more limited. In order to be true to the integrity of the piece of literature, the artistic team making the adaptation must be careful to communicate what is believed was intended by the writer. When the literature being adapted is a play originally intended for the stage, the task is perhaps simplified. Playwrights, unlike novelists, include some stage direction and other instructions regarding the visual aspect of the story. In this sense, the filmmaker has a strong basis for adapting a play to the big screen.
Although Branagh’s version of Hamlet parallelizes to Shakespeare’s masterwork, mainly by keeping the text very similar, it almost retrieves the importance of the original work by the shift in eras as well as the addition of modernized extras. Zifferelli is able to show his audience a whole new dynamic of interpreting a classic masterpiece. By focusing on casting popular actors and including extras that are appealing to viewers currently, but not overwhelming, he is able to reach out a larger array of fans and critics without taking attention away from the main focus; the storyline. The battle between staying true to the original work and altering a classic masterpiece to appeal to audiences today is a continuous dilemma which many filmmakers are destined to face when attempting to remake timeless work such as that of Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
Hollywood has managed to reeducate the world of the timeless and classic literature by altering the story to the point beyond recognition. Starting back with 1931 Frankenstein, where producers took a simple strategy and altered the theme of the story in a way they thought audiences would enjoy more. An ambitious man of science that tries to play a god by creating a man of his own vision. The sequel followed in 1935 named The Bride of Frankenstein, which took off even farther form the original novel by introducing audiences to the author Mary Shelly, and her husband Percy.
The first ever adaptation of the famous novel is the iconic Frankenstein, directed by James Whale. We may owe our thanks to this film for bringing the story, and unique characters, to life, and setting the stage for newer adaptations to come. Out of all the Frankenstein’s, I personally believe the
Transformations inherently contain traces of the author’s social and cultural context. Much of the same can be applied to “Much ado about nothing”. It incorporates comical features, yet retains the sense of tragedy which is attached to almost all of Shakespeare’s plays. Brain Percival’s role as a director, was determining, understanding and distinguishing the social norms and the social structure of the society, and how the themes represented in the play can be transformed into a modern text. The Elizabethan society was typically a patriarchal society. Percival has used as well as transformed certain themes and textual features to ensure, that the film is more appealing and assessable to the critical modern audience.
The most recent film which reflects the novel, was directed by Kenneth Branagh in 1994, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. The character remains one of most recognized icons in horror fiction today. Written almost 200 years ago about a man obsessed with creating artificial life continues to be a topic in the 21st century. Such as today’s controversy in stem cell research or human cloning which reflects the basic theme of Mary Shelley’s novel.
However, though Branagh’s vision is nothing short of cinematic genius, it neglects some of the deeper meaning that is illustrated within the original written play. Shakespeare’s subtle nuances and elaborate dialogue shape each character as the plot of the story unfolds. Branagh neglects the situational relevance of certain dialogue within scenes of the written play; relying more on visual effect rather than verbiage. Branagh’s use of editing creates a wistfully light-hearted adaptation of the play, and hastens the pace of the drama. While Branagh succeeds in creating many parallels between his movie and Shakespeare's written play, his use of visual imagery, characterization, and setting deliver an interpretation that stands alone as one of joyful camaraderie and humor.
The common aim of playwrights of any time or location is to capture and hold the attention of their audience. It is an irrefutable fact that in order for a play to be successful, the playwright must maintain the interest of the audience. The tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice, is one of Shakespeare's most renowned plays, and has been capturing the interest of its audiences for many hundreds of years. The success of Othello is largely due to Shakespeare's phenomenal ability to secure the unwavering attention of an audience. Various techniques were employed by Shakespeare in order to achieve this crucial feat. Through construction of intriguing characters, exploration of universal themes, use of comic relief and a well-written script featuring a compelling plot, Shakespeare ensured the tragedy of Othello would hold the interest of the audience.
One notable difference between William Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Julie Taymor’s film version of the play is the altered scenes that made quite a difference between the play and the movie version. This difference has the effects of creating a different point of view by altering the scenes affected the movie and how Taymor felt was necessary by either by keeping or deleting certain parts from the play. I use “Altered Scene” in the way of how Julia Taymor recreates her own point of view for the movie and the direction she took in order to make the audience can relate to the modern day film. I am analyzing the way that the altered scenes changes to make a strong impression on the audiences different from the play. This paper will demonstrate
Shakespeare’s influence continues even in the world of film, not invented until several hundreds of years after his death in 1616. As well as the inevitable BBC remakes of most of his plays, newer adaptation such as Kenneth Branagh’s ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ (starring Keanu Reeves and Denzel Washington) and Baz Luhrmann’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ (featuring Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio) have met critical acclaim and can be credited with bringing Shakespeare to a new generation not inclined to visiting theatres.
Arguably the greatest playwright of his time, perhaps in all of history, William Shakespeare's literary works have had a tremendous impact (see Appendix 2). Reaching into the pop culture of the modern world through movies and quotes used in everyday conversation, Shakespeare's influence is astounding (see Appendix 1). One rarely stops to think, however, about events that had an impact on Shakespeare's life, particularly his writing. The outbreak of the plague, social disparity, political unrest, just a few of the historical happenings that impacted Shakespeare's plays, including Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, and Henry IV
The name most associated with excellence in theatre is William Shakespeare. His plays, more than any other playwright, resonate through the ages. It may be safe to say that he has influenced more actors, directors, and playwrights than any thespian in the history of the stage. But what were his influences? During the Middle Ages theatre was dominated by morality, miracle, and mystery plays that were often staged by the church as a means to teach the illiterate masses about Christianity. It wasn’t until the early sixteenth century that Greek tragedy experienced a revival, in turn, inspiring a generation of renaissance playwrights.