- Chose one or two of the film elements listed below and consider how Branagh’s version (1996) and Zeffirelli’s version (1990) compare and contrast
- Compare and contrast the adaptations by examining the portrayal of major characters or a character
- Respond to another student’s comments (NB: identify who you are responding to by using the tag “@” such as @Socrates if you are responding to me)
Film Elements to consider:
Sound Elements:
- Sound effects, background noise in the scene
- Soundtrack, music, voiceovers and other sounds put on over the scene
Language Elements:
- What lines are emphasized?
- What lines (if any) are noticeably cut, included, or altered?
- Facial expressions
- Gestures and mannerisms, body language
- Tone of voice and inflection
- Fluctuation, Pauses, and Volume of voice
- Where is the scene taking place physically?
- What do props and costumes tell us about the characters and about the time period?
- How are the props/setting used and what might they mean/signify?
- How long does the director stay with shots?
- How often are there cuts and transitions?
- When does the camera take the view of a character?
- Were there close ups, long shots? To what effect?
- What is the effect of each of these aspects on the scene?
- How does each director establish the tone of the scene?
Mel Gibson's Hamlet is a solemn and grief-stricken one who doesn't have a wide range of emotions and brings with him a sombre mood wherever he goes. While this could be the portrayal of Hamlet that Shakespeare envisioned, I found Kenneth Brannaugh's slightly manic version of Hamlet to be much more enjoyable. Brannaugh's Hamlet went through a wide spectrum of emotions from fury to insanity in a short period of time and while the acting was occasionally over the top, I found it refreshing to watch a character who was not depressed for the entirety of the film.
ReplyDeleteOne of the aspects of Brannaugh's version of the film that I enjoyed was the bright scenery in which the film was set. Although the dark imagery and pathetic fallacy of the older film did reflect the idea of tragedy and loss I felt that the contrast between the seemingly bright and jovial castle and Hamlet with his inner turmoil stressed the idea that the happiness was just and act. The light and dark contrast made Hamlet look completely alone in his suffering.
by kaela
@ Skaramoosh (Kaela)
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comparison of the two actors playing the role of Hamlet and I also preferred Kenneth Brannaugh's version over Mel Gidson's. Kenneth Brannaugh's Hamlet played a much more convincing role as an insane man, which he demonstrated through frantic mood swings and erratic behaviour. This type of acting was much more exciting for the audience and helped to portray a Hamlet who was truly lost and very indecisive. Where as Mel Gibson's Hamlet definitely seemed more calm in comparison, and spent more time transitioning between states of sanity, thus appearing to have some control over his situation. After reading the book as a class it definitely appeared as though Hamlet was more lost and indecisive than some what in control, thereby leaning more towards Kenneth Brannaugh's interpretation. However I think you made a valid point in that either impersonation of Hamlet could have been what Shakespeare had envisioned, yet from our twenty-first century perspective Kenneth Brannaugh's was more engaging.
By Samuel
After seeing both Branagh and Zeffirelli's renditions of Hamlet, perhaps the most noticeable difference between the two is the time period in which they are set. Both the castles and minor props used in both plays outline this difference. Zeffirelli's version takes place in an old medieval stone castle, while Branagh's castle is much more ornate and seems to be from a later time period. In addition, the soundtrack used in Zeffirelli's version seems to be much simpler, uses fewer instruments and helps to confirm the time period, while Branagh's background music sounds well orchestrated with more instruments. In addition, I believe that the motifs used in both plays are weighted and emphasized differently. The idea of Claudius appealing to the people of Denmark is far more prevalent in Branagh's version than in Zeffirelli's. For example, when Claudius allows Laertes to go back to France, he announces it in front of the people of Denmark in Branagh's version, but discusses it much more privately in Zeffirelli's. In addition, I found that Fortinbras' presence was much greater in Branagh's version than in Zeffirelli's version, making the uncertainty of impending doom much greater in the former than the latter.
ReplyDeleteBy Mark
@skaramoosh (kaela) and @Sam, I agree with you analysis of the interpretations of Branagh’s and Gibson’s portrayals. Branagh’s Hamlet was not depressed and morose the entire time, and the audience had the impression that at least some (though likely not all) of his madness was faked in order to confound those that he was manipulating. This brought the theme of acting into play far more than Gibson’s, where acting only seemed to be a plot point for the play that Hamlet set up. Gibson’s portrayal seemed to overplane Hamlet as insane with grief. Also, though in the play it is hinted that Hamlet’s love for his mother might be more than that of a son for his mother, Gibson’s portrayal of him was over the top. Adding in the incestuous plotline and having Gertrude almost encourage Hamlet’s advances seemed unrealistic and forced the story in a way that the audience could not identify with and was not, in my opinion, true to the play.
ReplyDeleteThe settings in both plays set the tone for the entire film. In Gibson’s version the dark, medieval setting seemed more true to the play, but combined with Gibson’s dark portrayal without any humour it was more gruelling for the audience to watch. Branagh’s setting was open with bright, grand halls that lightened the mood and matched Branagh’s humorous approach to Hamlet. I’m not sure that one version was more truthful to Shakespeare’s version, but they are quite different.
By Julie
@skaramoosh (kaela), @Sam, @Julie I also agree with your thoughts on Branagh’s and Gibson’s portrayal of this iconic character. I found that Branagh’s more diverse and varied interpretation is more enjoyable compared to Gibson’s stagnant portrayal. In Branagh’s version Hamlet’s insanity is communicated to the viewer through a whole range of emotions, whereas Gibson’s Hamlet is a constantly depressed. The set and scenery also reflects these differences with Branagh’s version taking place in a regal castle, decorated with vibrant carpets and decadent adornments. Where Gibson’s Hamlet takes place is much like Gibson’s character in that it is minimalist, rudimentary and unsophisticated; having mainly functional designs, durable walls, and extensive defensive measures. Perhaps Gibson’s portrayal is a more antique interpretation, unfourtuntely modern audiences are no longer impressed stagnation even if it is authentic. Branagh’s Hamlet appeals more to the modern mutli-tasking, information over-loaded, audience that needs stimulation. By:Yaseen
ReplyDelete@ Mark
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts on the two versions of the play. Both adaptations revealed different ways in which Hamlet could be interpreted. With the versions set in different time periods, we see that the scenes that the play used were extremely different thus creating a different mood for each play. The late medieval setting in Zeffirelli’s film created a darker and depressing scene compared to Branagh’s 19th century setting, which had a bright, open and ornate look and feel, as you stated. This mood was also reflected in the costumes as well, with the darker colours used in Zeffirelli’s film establishing the gloomy feel that is evident when you watch the play, and the use of light costumes in Branagh’s created a different mood all together. The performances delivered by both actors were also distinctive. The two actors playing Hamlet were Mel Gibson in Zeffirelli’s version, and Kenneth Branagh in the Branagh version. I found Mel Gibson’s character to be solemn and dreary throughout the play, not truly expressing in progression towards the inner turmoil and madness that Shakespeare shaped Hamlet to be. Branagh’s version of Hamlet supported how I envisioned Hamlet character; shifting from a character mourning the loss of his father, to acting as if he were mad. By:Jenna
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Mark and @jvl, I absolutely agree with your point that the most noticeable difference between the two adaptations of Hamlet was the setting in which the films took place. There is a distinct variance between the settings of the two films, due to the time period portrayed by each director. The time period portrayed by Zeffirelli was a more accurate depiction of how Hamlet would have been played in Shakespeare's time. In saying this, I felt that although it was more accurate with regards to time period, the way Branagh presented the story was much more enjoyable as a viewer. I felt that the colorful costumes and the spectrum of emotions Branagh was able to incorporate, trumped Zeffirelli's ability to portray an accurate representation of the time period. I feel that because of this, Branagh's film was more enjoyable for the viewer as it had a brighter setting and fun characters.
ReplyDeleteBy: Colin