Hamlet Vs Film Analysis

To play Hamlet well is to succeed on the stage or on the screen. It is one of the most complex of the Shakespearian roles that many actors have aspired to master or at least, bring something distinctive and fresh to the pivotal character. There is no doubt that Hamlet “brazenly solicits interpretation”, demonstrated by modern day actors including Mel Gibson, Ethan Hawke and Kenneth Branagh, in the medium of film. Throughout the 20th Century, film adaptations have finely developed both the character of Hamlet and have nurtured a performance of the play, in some very creative and exciting ways. Film directors Franco Zeffirelli, Michael Almereyda and Kenneth Branagh have brought “Hamlet” to varying levels of success on the screen while achieving this through stark differences in interpretation and through realising very different creative ideas.

Zeffirelli’s 1990“Hamlet” is an interpretation designed for the mainstream Hollywood audience, who by now were thoroughly interested in Mel Gibson – one of the rising stars of the early nineties. Gibson does well to externalize the flurry of emotions tormenting Hamlet and this allows the mainstream audience to follow quite easily, his complex and changing mindsets. The famous Act Three, Scene One “To be or not to be…” soliloquy is done especially well, with Gibson maintaining an aura of strength, even as Hamlet revels in his own misery and contemplates suicide. Zeffirelli and Gibson have combined their ideas to create an interpretation of Hamlet that is sensitive but never weak, very active and external in the portrayal of emotion – but not over the top.

Perhaps the most controversial scene in any screen adaptation of Hamlet is contained in the Zeffirelli production, in which Hamlet confronts Gertrude in her bedroom. Interestingly, this confrontation is one of the most successful scenes of the movie as it is finely acted and very intense! At the same time, it leaves itself most open to criticism. Hamlet’s fury at Gertrude (played by Meryl Streep) is demonstrated when Hamlet taunts his mother and then jumps on her to mock her sexual exploits with Claudius. Hamlet’s violent anger over his mother’s apparent betrayal fits very much inside an Oedipal interpretation of the play. Zeffirelli’s makes his opinion quite clear on the theory of “Hamlet’s Oedipus Complex”. Zeffirelli is of the school that Hamlet cannot kill Claudius; “because of his relationship with [Hamlet’s] mother. A classical Oedipus Complex: he is incapable of killing the man who sleeps with his mother because that would mean that he would have to admit to himself his own feelings about her, something which overwhelms him and disgusts him… Hamlet can kill Claudius only after he knows that his mother is dead and that he is going to die” (Johnston, online). Zeffirelli’s very Oedipal “Hamlet” while a logical interpretation, is not an idea that I can fully agree with as it disturbs my own interpretation of the play. However, his use of cold castle sets and authentic middle age costumes are very agreeable to my images of a production of “Hamlet” and my interpretation of the play. Ethan Hawke’s Hamlet in Almereyda’s 2000 film, is as far removed from Gibson’s interpretation as a modern New York setting is from Zeffirelli’s traditional approach. Hawke is a much more arrogant Hamlet with a pretentious New Yorker film student persona. Unfortunately, while the idea of Hamlet as a snobby film student is not a bad one, Hawke does not fulfil its potential in a number of ways. Firstly, in true “Sean Penn” method actor style, he mumbles his lines. While this could be a valid

interpretation of Hamlet’s grief and frustration, the zest of Shakespeare’s language is lost in Hawke’s dull monotone and tired, depressed voice. Secondly, unlike the Gibson Hamlet, Hawke transforms into an annoying wimp during the same Act Three, Scene One soliloquy. Amusingly, this scene takes place in an isle of a video store! While Gibson’s performance better realises the character of Hamlet, the differences between the two renditions of this soliloquy is a testament to the validity of Cedric Watts’ opinion: the Hamlet encourages actors to find new ways to perform the role.

The Almereyda adaptation of “Hamlet” is very interesting because it adapts the play into a modern setting and takes some very creative liberties with the original text – to mixed success. Firstly, Almereyda’s 2000 adaptation of “Hamlet” shows a creative flair by completely changing Shakespeare’s original setting, favouring a modern day New York location, complete with skyscrapers, yuppies and taxi-cabs. Denmark is now “Denmark Corp” and Claudius is the new CEO. This new setting is very cold – keeping the same tone as Zeffirelli’s film – except that the sets are now very sterile and very modern. Almereyda also uses modern technology to its fullest storytelling potential, however some may see these new methods of advancing the story as gimmicky – the ghost of Hamlet’s father is seen through a security system, fax machines transmit vital messages and Hamlet delivers his asides to his film student video camera. For the most part, Almereyda generally succeeds in his modern-day interpretation, however it is not a production that reflects my ideas of how “Hamlet” should be performed.

Whilst, the creative realisations of Almereyda and Hawke, Zeffirelli and Gibson, do produce some good moments, none of these come close to Kenneth Branagh’s performance of Hamlet and the scope of production in his 1996 film. As Branagh’s “Hamlet” presents the play in its lavish four hours, the character of Hamlet can be more fully realised and examined as there is more scope for character development. Branagh’s Hamlet, while not as animated or energetic as Gibson’s, helps the audience gradually get a feel for why Hamlet feels the anguish and frustration that he feels. More so that any other movie-screen Hamlet, the audience can also feel Hamlet’s obsession with avenging his father’s murder. This is coupled with Hamlet’s more ambitious nature - after all, the crown has been stolen from him by Claudius. Instead of wallowing in his own grief, wouldn’t Hamlet be plotting and waiting for an opportunity to strike and claim what is rightfully his, rather than wallow in indecision? In my opinion, Branagh brings to the screen the ideal Hamlet for reasons which can be summed up in his own words “there isn't anything in the play to suggest that [Hamlet is] buried in gothic gloom or that he is a self-indulgent sad sack. He's a soldier and scholar, a renaissance man…” (metroactive.com). As with Branagh’s ideal performance of Hamlet, his direction and creative ideas work  very well in a number of areas including: the use of the entire text of the play, the  choice of time period, setting and the film’s cast. One of the great strengths of this  production as a whole is that Branagh did not condense or cut any of Shakespeare’s text, but at the same time was able to exercise his own directorial interpretation of the play. This is demonstrated in a number of areas. Firstly, by transposing the story into a Victorian setting, Branagh was able to escape a formulaic rendition of the play and make one of the most well known stories in literature seem new, exciting and fresh.

As the movie had very high production value, great care and effort went into the design of the sets – including a beautiful lavish ballroom - the centrepiece of the film’s production design. However what really stands out in Branagh’s “Hamlet” is his use of flashbacks to enhance the story. The relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet and Claudius’ act of murder are explored through skilful use of this cinematic technique to help the audience get a feel for the story and appreciate Hamlet’s motivations. Finally, by casting fine actors including Derek Jacobi, Kate Winslet and Sir John Gielgud as well as iconic movie stars like Robin Williams, Jack Lemmon and  Billy Crystal – the film automatically becomes a more energetic and enthusiastic  interpretation, as the familiar faces enhance the audiences’ entertainment. 

Overall, Branagh’s Hamlet is a production that most closely mirrors my ideal  interpretation of Shakespeare’s masterwork. He executes his own creative licence by  transposing the story into a Victorian setting and by using the language of film and a  fine cast to accomplish a rich and full film translation. Branagh is also able to remain  completely true to the words and feel of the play unlike Zeffirelli and Almereyda who admirably bring some interesting ideas to the table (modern settings, an Oedipal Hamlet) but who ultimately fail to realise the feel of the play. The immortal staple points of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” are the timeless and undiluted themes and language – free of gimmickry and distracting ideas.

List of Sources Films Almereyda, Michael. 2000, “Hamlet” Miramax Films Branagh, Kenneth. 1996, “Hamlet” Columbia Pictures Zeffirelli, Franco. 1990, “Hamlet” Warner Brothers Internet Sites Branagh quote taken from: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.20.97/branagh-9708.html Johnstone, Ian. “Introductory Lecture on Shakespeare's Hamlet” http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/eng366/lectures/hamlet.htm\