Hamlet: The Play Versus the Movie Essay

Hamlet's play vs. Hamlet's movie ((1990 version))

Zeffirellis 1990 Hamlet.. Is an interpretation designed for the mainstream Hollywood audience, who by now were thoroughly interestedin Mel Gibson oneofthe rising stars of the early nineties. Gibson does well to externalize the flurry ofemotions tormenting Hamlet and this allows the mainstream audience to follow quite easily, his complexand changing mindsets. The famousAct Three, SceneOne To be or not to be soliloquy is done especially well, with Gibson maintaining an aura ofstrength, even as Hamlet revels in his own misery and contemplates suicide. Zeffirelliand 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 oneof the most successful scenes ofthe movie as it is finely acted and very intense! At the same time, it leaves itself most open to criticism. Hamlets 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. Hamlets violent anger over his mothers apparent betrayal fits very much inside an oedipal interpretation of the play. Zeffirellis makes his opinion quite clearon the theory of Hamlets Oedipus Complex. Zeffirelli isof the school thatHamlet cannot kill Claudius;" because of hisrelationship with [Hamlets] 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).Zeffirellis very oedipal "Hamlet While a logical interpretation, is not an idea that Icon fully agreewith as it disturbs my owninterpretation of theplay. However, his use of cold castle sets and authentic middle age costumes are very agreeable to my images of a production ofHamlet and my interpretation ofthe play

In this production of Hamlet, the original old English is used. However, I noticed that any dialog that was too difficult to comprehend or too wordy was deleted from the scenes. Some of the scenes had also been altered. For example, In Act 2, Scene 1, the director has Polonius spy on Ophelia and Hamlet, and this is how he learns of Hamlets strange visit with his daughter and Hamlets madness. In the original text of Act 2, scene 1, Ophelia informs Polonius of Hamlets visit and his apparent madness. I believe the director chose to have Polonius spy on them to obtain this information, because the audience would observe for themselves just how mad Hamlet appears. It was also probably done to save time so that the movie wouldnt drag. In Kenneth Branaughs version the movie is contained on two tapes, and his version was a little too slow moving for my taste. The lines 207-0 213 in Act 2, scene2, where Polonius has a lengthy monologue, also appears to have been cut from the script. In that same act the lines where Guildenstern and Rosencrantz enter the scene have been moved to Act 3, Scene 1, a point directly after Hamlets Mousetrap play. There were also several other modifications to the placement of scenes in this play, including Shakespeares famous speech, To be or not to be [], which had been moved to Act 1, scene 2. I believe all of these changes were made due to the advantageous nature of the film media. It was possible for the director to show several shots of different actors and events, shifting back and forth between scenes. This gave the effect of the scenes occurring simultaneously. Since these scenes appeared to have occurred at the same time in the movie, it probably made sense or seemed more effective to the director to move the scenes or acts around to what seemed the most logical point in the film. As a result of these modifications, I felt this version of Hamlet was more fast-paced and engaging. It did not drag. I appreciated this production over the other Hamlet films I have seen, because it was made more interesting through directors shifting camera technique. The setting and costumes of this play were also historically accurate for that time period. And the lighting was well done -not too dark. As far as the actors go, Mel Gibson gave an energetic interpretation of the melancholy Hamlet; and Glenn Close was so intense and very believable as Gertrude, Hamlets mother. The other actors also performed their parts very well. In summary, I enjoyed this performance more than Kenneth Branaughs production, because I felt it was faster paced and more dynamic. I feel this effect was achieved through the directors technique of shifting the camera between the actors and scenes to give the impression that events were occurring simultaneously. I also feel Mel Gibsons energetic performance and Glenn Closes intense and realistic performance added a dynamic quality, which I have not seen in any other production of this play

In Act 1, scene 2, Claudius dispatches Votimand with a letter to Young Fortinbras' uncle, the king of Norway (referred to as "Norway"). Because Norway is old and bed-ridden, he does not know about his nephews plans; he thinks Fortinbras is preparing for war against Poland instead. In Act 2, scene 2, Votimand returns with Norway's response: he has forbidden his nephew from warring against Denmark. Fortinbras relents, and as a reward for his obedience, his uncle allows his to go to war with Poland. Norway asks Claudius for permission to allow Fortinbras' army to march safely through Denmark to get to Poland. I realize the Norwegians could have easily sailed to Poland, but sailing with a great army is a dangerous gamble, and Denmark is much closer and land a much safer means of traveling.