The existence of art demands the existence of criticism. Wherever one creates, another is there to examine what has been made. While the artist may chafe at this reality, healthy criticism has pruned the art world for generations, helping to produce the harvest of creation that benefits us today. Shakespeare, if not the most, is certainly one of the most evaluated playwrights of all time. In the following essay, this role of critic will be expressed by comparing three different topics between two film versions of Shakespeare’s classic Hamlet. The two film versions include Michael Almereyda’s Hamlet from 2000 starring Ethan Hawke and Bruce Ramsay’s Hamlet from 2011 also starring Bruce Ramsay. The first topic to be discussed will be the setting …show more content…
However, a viewer would be hard pressed to know this from the film itself, needing to consult outside sources to confirm this. Outside of the occasional aesthetic nod to the era, information is scarce concerning the exact time and place of the movie’s setting. As will be discussed later in this essay, Ramsay cut Hamlet’s script generously. In the vacuum created by his edits, Ramsay neglected to give the novel environment any real significance. The setting of this version of Hamlet is little more than window dressing for Ramsay’s interpretation of the classic play. Compare this then to Almereyda’s version of the Bard’s longest play which was set in the era contemporary to the year of its release. Almereyda does a chilling job at presenting a bleak, modern environment, capturing the sense of melancholy present in the text. His transformation of the kingdom of Denmark into a business corporation allows for the element of competition and warfare to stay relevant in the plot. This contrasts with Ramsay’s interpretation which almost completely removed the political element instead of adapting it to the setting chosen for the …show more content…
As previously mentioned, Ramsay’s interpretation leaves much of the original plot out from his film. Ramsay trimmed almost everything regarding politics from the story, making the focus solely on the drama unfolding between the families. This does make some things confusing, like Laertes’ return at the end of the play. As in the original play Laertes, with the help of his father Polonius, asks the permission of the king to return to France since the coronation is finished. This makes his return at the end of the movie, which takes place entirely over the course of one evening, seem forced. While Laertes fury at the death of his father is understood, how he arrived with the event having occurred so quickly before is not. The setting is pre-mobile phone and pre-internet; Laertes knowledge of the event seemed to be predicated on Ramsay’s need to end the
Throughout the play, Laertes is as an extremely caring member of his family. His strong emotions for family have an opposing side to it, a shadow that has repressed feelings of anger which cause him to add to the disaster in Denmark. An example that depicts this is when Laertes attempts to request more rites for Ophelia’s funeral. After he is denied, he starts a commotion by calling the priest “churlish”, explaining that Ophelia will be “A ministering angel” while the priest will “liest howling”(5.1.217-218). His compliments to Ophelia shows how much he loved her, while his nasty insults to the priest show his repressed rage. While this is occuring, Hamlet hears Laertes’s mention of Ophelia during the commotion and throws himself into a brawl with Laertes. It is the conflict built up from there that causes Claudius to target Laertes as his next weapon to kill Hamlet with. Laertes’s deep anger for Hamlet makes himself the best candidate for Claudius’s manipulation. Once Laertes’s sides with Claudius, he shows his dark intent by requesting Claudius to not “o'errule me to a peace”(4.7.58). On the day of the duel, Laertes undergoes a confrontation of his shadow while he clashes with Hamlet. His realization of his shadow comes too late into the duel when both Hamlet and Laertes are struck by poison, as this happens he declares that he is “ justly killed with mine own treachery (5.2.337).” In the moments that he is still alive, he dismisses his shadow and ends the circle of murder by announcing the true nature of Claudius. Laertes’s repressed anger guides the play into the duel where many deaths occur including Hamlet’s.
...e text, there are several differences between them that are based on interpretation. These differences are notably evident in the character of Laertes during the last scene. While his dislike of Hamlet is obvious in the text version of the play, Laertes demonstrates much stronger feelings towards Hamlet in the movie through his actions. Other aspects of Laertes's character, such as his cowardice and deviousness, are manifest through his actions and are thus more obvious in the movie. The rearranging of lines and events also portray Laertes in a much more negative light in the film version. In all, the film version of Hamlet allows the character of Laertes to be more complete, and he is developed as more of a villain in the movie than he appears to be in the text. This development occurs mainly through his actions, since the words were the same that Shakespeare wrote.
”(153) It becomes clear that the parallels presented throughout the play are there to further illuminate the flaws of Hamlet’s character. Laertes is a hot-headed man looking for revenge. His father was killed by Hamlet and his sister was driven insane due to the series of events that took place because of Hamlet. Like Hamlet, Laertes wants to avenge his father by killing the man who killed Polonius.
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.
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.
Goldman, Michael. "Hamlet and Our Problems." Critical Essays on Shakespeare's Hamlet. Ed. David Scott Kaston. New York City: Prentice Hall International. 1995. 43-55
Hamlet, one of the most intricate and influential plays by Shakespeare, debatably of all time. It has inspired not only appreciative readers and writing critiques but continuous generations of people. The inspiration led to the fabrication of many great movies, which wasn’t achievable until the 20th century. Before cinema was the prevalent method of sharing appreciation and spilling emotion for a specific subject, art portrayed what would fly through our minds such as the many interpretations of Ophelia’s death. With the imagery put into motion we can try and pick apart how certain people might view the play being portrayed and choose what best suits our expectation of this tragedy. Other things that only film has been able to present to us is the various camera angles, a setting that isn’t restricted to a stage and an audience that can be reached anywhere in the world. Also who is casted and how they will be dressed is crucial to the success of the movie although sometimes overlooked during the production process. Some movies represent these elements of mise-en-scene in an excellent matter such as the Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet, while others would seem to disappoint my expectations for a great re-visualization of our suicidal hero like Micheal Almereyda’s Hamlet staring Ethan Hawke. Admirably though every Hamlet film to date has its own unique style, something that will please all audiences, with its unique pros and cons.
The difference between the setting shows how modern the Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet is compared to the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet. One of the difference between the two films is the setting and time period. Mel Gibson version of Hamlet is set in a dark and medieval time castle during the 19th century. Kenneth Branagh's movie of Hamlet was set in 19th century making the setting of the castle more of a luxurious modern palace. For instance, In Act 4 Scene 4 during Hamlet’s soliloquy, Hamlet is seen in a setting full of snow in which he emphasize his anger towards the world and Claudius, “How all occasions do inform against me, And spur my dull revenge! What is a man if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.”(4.4. 31-34). The lighting of the movie plays a major role in the production of the film because it demonstrates emotions and feelings from the characters. For instance, in Hamlet starring Mel Gibson the lighting was adjusted to make the scenes darker to show sadness and grief. However in the Branagh version of hamlet the lighting was fairly bri...
Laertes is looking to seek revenge on Hamlet for killing his father and eventually his sister later in the play. "I dare damnation. To this point I stand, that both the worlds I give to negligence, let come what comes, only I 'll be reveng 'd Most throughly for my father." (4.5.132-135). Laertes is very different in the way he is going about seeking revenge, he is willing to kill any and everybody with no hesitation to revenge his father’s death unlike Hamlet, who is contemplating throughout the play on if he should or shouldn’t kill the necessary people in order to seek revenge.
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
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.
Hamlet and Laertes share a different but deep love and concern for Ophelia. Laertes advises her to retain from seeing and being involved with Hamlet because of his social status. He didn’t want her to get her heart broken by Hamlet, since he believed that his marriage would be arranged to someone of his social status, and that he would only use and hurt Ophelia. Hamlet on the other hand, was madly in love with Ophelia but it languishes after she rejects him. Ophelia’s death caused distress in both Hamlet and Laertes and it also made Laertes more hostile towards Hamlet.
Both fighting scenes are very dramatic, but this fight is not as intense. The fighting between Hamlet and Laertes does not drag out compared to the other film. Also Laertes is just wounded and dies. In the first film Laertes actually falls off of the balcony. The king in this d film doesn’t run away from Hamlet. The king cries out for help, but no one helps him. No helped the king, so he just gives up. The king willingly drinks the wine and dies. The king in both films was not guilty for the wrong he did. He had no choice but to die. In both films Hamlet dies at peace. Hamlet and Laetes makes a mend and forgive each other. Also in both films Hamlet tells Horatio not to kill himself. He wanted Horatio to live and tell his
Through the elements of technique portrayed in this essay, it is clear to see that Shakespeare is able to influence the reader through soliloquies, imagery, and dual understanding. This overall influence being both the communication of a deeper meaning, and a more complex understanding of the events and statements within Hamlet.
The setting of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is winter and all is blue and carries a feel of eer...