Comparison of Ethan Hawke and Kenneth Branagh's Versions of Hamlet Modern day directors use a variety of methods to hold ones interest. Ethan Hawke and Kenneth Branagh’s created versions of Hamlet that shared some similarities, but ultimately had many differences in respects to an audience’s appeal. An appealing movie is one that has an alluring ambiance and an intellectual stimulus. With these two movie versions, a setting and a mood forced an audience to acquire specific emotions, but Ethan Hawke’s version generated emotions more strongly and effectively. Also, these movies had extremely different uses of music and visuals, but both movie versions incorporated them well for the ambiance it tried to obtain.
Such as Zeffirelli uses a more realistic feel as to Luhrmann who uses a postmodern feel in his. But which film is better? How are they different? In this paper, I would like to focus on why Zeffirelli’s film is faithful to the play by exploring the differences between his and Luhrmann’s film of Romeo and Juliet. In the beginning of each film is where the differences first start off, the scenery is one of the main and major differences between the films.
Among these directors are Baz Luhrmann and Zefferelli, who both felt motivated enough by this play to turn it into a film. Some aspects of the two resulting creations were very similar, but in other ways very dissimilar, and the two directors approached their task in very different ways - and this is what I want to study. ====================================================================== The opening of a play is very important. It makes the reader decide whether he or she wants to read on, gives us our first impressions, and most importantly, it introduces the characters and sets the scene for the rest of the play. So, when writing the opening of "Romeo and Juliet", Shakespeare takes care of all these points effectively.
However, at times, the action and music became a bit overwhelming. Perhaps Branaugh got a little to caught up in the moment, it is hard to say. The silent plays that were shown throughout ( King Hamlet's death, the drowned Ophelia, Hamlet's childhood days with Yurich, Priam's slaughter, Fortinbras) added a lot to the film, because it gave the characters a history and allowed for a non-shakespearean audience to better understand what was being said. The adaptation from play to film is not always very easy, and obviously some changes have to occur. Branaugh's version of Hamlet definitely had some additions, but it still captured the essence of Shakespeare making it an interesting piece of work, and an enjoyable film.
Defining it within the genre may be compromising to the nature of the film. Scarface (1932 U.S.A. - Howard Hawks ) is a f... ... middle of paper ... ...s that are felt for the characters can for the most part be generalised by saying that the "principle" of the film is most often the character that receive the greatest attention. This is fundamental in the understanding of a film and in the deliverance of a story. The apparent identification with characters of certain types of films is totally dependent upon the desires and expectations of the viewer. It is the ability of the audience to identify with the central characters of a film that keeps them watching.
In addition, throughout the film, the characters portray themselves to be someone else to prevent from displaying who they really are. Once they eventually reveal their true self, their relationships with each other changes. There are many similarities and differences between the film and the “making of the film” such as, acting, shot types and overall film choices. The exposition in the film explains the status quo of the characters. In addition, the facts within the film are a vital preparation for the rest of the story.
He uses a different order with the scenes and parts of scenes, most long speeches are cut, and sometimes gives one characters lines to another. Even though these changes could offend the devoted Shakespearean researcher, they mainly are there to build up the action and cut down the plot. Theatre is restricted to geographical span, whereas motion the opposite is true. In film the director has freedom to shoot each scene at different locations and at different times, later putting them together for the final product. The result for the movie is that the audience is easily able to recognize the time of day and place.
I am more willing to watch a black and white film but only if it is directed by Alfred Hitchcock or Orson Welles. The same goes for foreign films. I have also changed the way I analyze films. Now when I critically looks at a movie I find that I judge a movie based on more than the story and acting. I will looks and what goes on to getting that shot or how hard it must’ve been to edit some of the scenes.
The opening scene is one of the major changes between the movie and the play. In the movie, the act highlights the main theme of the storyline that helps the viewer to get the gist of the plot from the very beginning: Desire. The amorous relationship between Blanche and the collector boy made scene less lascivious. The exploitation of an adolescent in the play was removed in the film because it is inappropriate to the viewer. Censorship is also one of the key figures that altered the scene from the original play.
Furthermore, other structures and techniques must be added to the film to enhance the beauty and impressions of it. Like a translator, the director wants to do some sort of fidelity to the original work and also create a new work of art in a different medium. Regardless of the differences in the two media, they also share a number of elements: they each tell stories about characters. In the novel and the film, The Woman In Black, both the author, Susan Hill, and the director, James Watkins, have applied sundry techniques and developed logical thinking to the multiple adversities of both the novel and the film. Due to these elucidations, the two media are intertwined with copious clouds of detail, which relate to both media.