Hamlet is a classic play that has been performed, filmed, and read millions of times since its birth four hundred and fifteen years ago. These portrayals vary from the basic performances of Shakespeare’s time to high-tech revivals that remodel Claudius’ seizure of the throne as a sly boardroom takeover of a prospering tech-company. Each of these adaptations takes artistic liberties, a collaboration or conspiracy among director, screenwriter, and cinematographer, which changes not only the details but also the era and locale. Both Branagh and Almereyda’s versions retained the original name, and some of the dialogue, yet couldn’t be more opposite in their portrayal of “The Tragedy of Hamlet”. Each depiction has quirks that modify Shakespeare …show more content…
The Modern Hamlet attempts to fluster his parents throughout his film, “The Mousetrap”. The movie lacks a chorus and is made of vague clips cut together that are meant to evoke different eras, families, and the jumble and the circles of his mind. It resembles the play within the original text. In this method, Modern Hamlet achieves the goal of the ridicule. But the montage reflects a concerted effort of a director to achieve a goal. Victorian Hamlet accomplishes his objective to a much higher degree. Branagh’s use of Shakespeare’s original words brings out the terror within Hamlet. Both his and the audience’s skin crawl as the words flow. Every insult makes the situation more awkward, and every response enables Hamlet to continue speaking. Hamlet traverses every possible avenue to insult his mother and stepfather. For example, Hamlet remarks during the prologue (line 144) “Is this a prologue or the posy of a ring?” To which Ophelia responds “‘Tis brief, my lord.” Seeing the opportunity to insult his mother, Hamlet turns around, faces her, and at the top of his lungs yells, “As woman 's love.” This insult refers to how Gertrude remarried just days after becoming a widow. No planning; just reactionary, at the
During class we have reviewed many versions of the play Hamlet. The two movie versions that I chose to compare on the play Hamlet are the David Tennant version and the Kenneth Branagh version. I chose these two versions because these were the two that most interested me. I believe that some scenes from each movie were better than the other, but overall I liked these two versions just as equally. The three main scenes that stood out to me that I will be comparing are ‘Ophelia’s Mad Scene’, the ‘Hamlet Kills Polonius’ scene, and Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’ scene.
Everyone knows the story of Hamlet: Hamlet’s father is killed, Hamlet’s mother marries the evil Uncle, everyone thinks Hamlet has gone mad, and almost everyone dies at the end. In David Tennant’s version of Hamlet, the use of the characters’ physical antics, interactions with each other, the stark similarities between the characters, and the way they dress, changes how the audience interprets each character’s actions and contribution to the play as a whole, which then determines how successful this version of Hamlet is.
1. In this specific version of Hamlet there are various characters that demonstrate an exaggerative and dramatic persona; Brain Blessed chose to interpret the role of the ghost in the traditional eerie, spooky, and mysterious manner. He does this by being portrayed as a reoccurring pale figure that is only visible to certain people (the traditional characteristics for a ghost). Also he does this by deepening his voice to sound more frightening. In my opinion, I do not think that the performance of the apparition was believable in any scenes in which it appeared simply because I do not think that something that does not exist in reality can be displayed realistically. Moreover and in contrast, I believe
Kenneth Branagh’s version of the ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy, although slightly overdramatic, was superior in delivery and setting. First, Hamlet’s tone held a faint aggressiveness, which helped emphasize his growing dissatisfaction with his current disposition. The other films’ depictions of the scene were dull and lacked the proper emotion required to give life to Hamlet’s internal debate. In addition, the mirror Hamlet faces as he speaks alludes to the derivative and folly of his, and his father’s, vengeful pursuits. Hamlet’s obligation to fulfill his father's demands causes him to self loathe, which leads him to question his existence. As Hamlet approached the mirror with his sword drawn, both Polonius and Claudius flinched in fear,
Could it be or could it not be? That is the question. Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet was indeed the first uncut film version of Shakespeare’s masterpiece. It was set in a generic 19th century European setting that kept a modern and ancient look from distracting the content. The production design was eye-catching during each and every scene, which was a necessity to include, seeing as though it was a four-hour film. I felt as though Branagh accomplished the heavy task of making it a movie rather than a version of the play. Kenneth Branagh in his 1996 film Hamlet, uses mise-en-scene to characterize Hamlet’s sword, Yorick’s skull, and Hamlet’s dagger in order to carefully utilize and depict the tragedies that took place during Shakespeare’s play.
Hamlet is a masterpiece not because it conforms to a set of conventions but because it takes those conventions and transmutes them into the pure gold of vital, relevant meaning. Hamlet’s feigned madness, for instance, becomes the touchstone for an illumination of the mysterious nature of sanity itself (44-45).
Kenneth Branagh creates his own individualistic adaptation of this classic through the use of visual imagery, characterization, and setting. Branagh cut many lines and speeches from the text to better support his interpretation of a more open and informal society of warm-hearted, affectionate characters. Though Shakespeare's mood is more formal, Branagh remains true to the essence of the play as all of the same characters and most of the dialogue are justly included in the film. Although distinct differences can be made between Branagh’s film and Shakespeare’s written work, they both share a common denominator of good old-fashioned entertainment; and in the world of theater, nothing else really matters.
Zeffirelli’s filmic Hamlet evidently interprets the original play especially considering Mel Gibson’s performance making it easy for the audience to understand Shakespearean dialect. Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a man with friends who proves to be much more reserved, and manipulative than someone might imagine today. His hamlet is considerate in his plans, but with no tact interpersonally. Zeffirelli’s audience is required to focus on the troubles, and character of Hamlet, who is nonstop, and unfriendly, but a sensitive loner when the time is right. Zeffirelli accomplishes this mixture while staying faithful to his starting place my maintaining solid screenplay with a constant flow supporting his own take on the story. Concisely, Zeffirelli’s Hamlet is both a free and a loyal understanding of its source, which is, for today’s viewers, a Hamlet in its own right.
Applying Showalter’s Idea’s to Branagh's Film Version of Hamlet. Elaine Showalter begins her essay, Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism, by criticizing analyses of Shakespeare's Hamlet that have virtually ignored the character of Ophelia in the past. The feminist critic argues that Ophelia is an important character in her own right, not just a foil to Hamlet.
In the early 1900s, Hamlet was “rediscovered.” A resurgence of productions came about, and with the creation of a modern director now in place, several alternations were made. Hamlet was converted into movies, opera, condensed plays, parodies, and even later offshoots were created, such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.
Different adaptations of William Shakespeare’s works have taken various forms. Through the creative license that artists, directors, and actors take, diverse incarnations of his classic works continue to arise. Gregory Doran’s Hamlet and Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet bring William Shakespeare’s work by the same title to the screen. These two film adaptations take different approaches in presenting the turmoil of Hamlet. From the diverging takes on atmosphere to the characterization of the characters themselves, the many possible readings of Hamlet create the ability for the modification of the presentation and the meaning of the play itself. Doran presents David Tenant as Hamlet in a dark, eerie, and minimal setting; his direction highlighting the
There have been numerous remarks of William Shakespeare’s most celebrated drama Hamlet. Almereyda managed to make Hamlet a theoretical play, into an intense, action-driven movie without losing much of the initial tragic atmosphere of the original play. The play Hamlet focuses strictly on the state of Denmark on the original Elsinore castle, however Michael Almereyda was able to modernize the movie to New York City. In many ways I think that the modernized version of Hamlet is easier to appreciate but in review that diminishes the play’s “greatness,” in my personal opinion.
Shakespeare thus leaves his audience to fabricate their own perception with serving only minor stage directions. They are then left with Hamlet’s lingering words, actions, and the reactions to predisposed whether Hamlet’s madness is actually feigned or legitimate. Nevertheless, The evidence does not actually define Shakespeare’s character, Hamlet. To relate, modern audiences must do their research to become accustomed to the way of thinking done by people of the Renaissance. All in all, Hamlet’s true soundness is left up to the people of today’s
Michael Almereyda’s movie adaptation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet brings about a new perspective through its performance. The movie adaptation, Hamlet (2000), retells the original play in a modernized setting, bringing out various different elements of characters, which highlights a new reading of these characters as individuals, and a newfangled reading of the play as well. Throughout the movie, Ophelia and Gertrude, the woman-leads, are advanced in a progressive manner compared to the original play. In particular, Gertrude from Hamlet (2000) is noticeably altered from Hamlet, the play. This new interpretation of Gertrude and the play created by the movie adaptation advances the position of Gertrude as a woman, as well as motifs of incest, misogyny,
Up until this point the kingdom of Denmark believed that old Hamlet had died of natural causes. As it was custom, prince Hamlet sought to avenge his father’s death. This leads Hamlet, the main character into a state of internal conflict as he agonises over what action and when to take it as to avenge his father’s death. Shakespeare’s play presents the reader with various forms of conflict which plague his characters. He explores these conflicts through the use of soliloquies, recurring motifs, structure and mirror plotting.