The movie of Hamlet was an excellent, as far as book-movies go. I believe it was produced with focus, reason, and logic. The characters were also portrayed with a good interpretation. There were several changes to the play compared to the book, although the movie was done in such a way that they were not particularly missed, from the movie's point of view.
Although, from my point of view, after reading the book, there were several somewhat important scenes and elements missing. The first scene in particular was missed. This played a part in setting the stage and was part of the whole theme throughout the whole play. It was in this scene that the ghost of Hamlet Sr. was first seen and where much of the plot developed. Hamlet Sr. told Hamlet Jr. that he had been killed by Claudius and that he must have revenge, Hamlet Jr. being the person to avenge him. In the book, this carried on throughout the rest of the play and without it the plot was not as concrete from the beginning.
The dumb-play and play for the king and court was compressed. In the movie, it consisted of primarily just a dumb-show and then the king got mad. It should have included that first and still had a whole play, in which special lines inserted by Hamlet Jr. were to be read. This did not have a dramatic affect on the way the plot was presented in the movie, but was just noticeable.
As far as the casting and setting is concerned, I believe that the director did an excellent job. Obviously, this coming from Hollywood kind of gives it advantages to all previous presentations. Mel Gibson was a great choice for Hamlet, because he is good actor and played his part wonderfully.
In conclusion, The Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet was the most successful because it was very similar to the original play of Hamlet written by Shakespeare. The film version of Hamlet featuring Kenneth Branagh is a more successful production of Shakespeare’s play of Act IV according to its setting, editing choices and character portrayal. The two film versions of Act IV of Hamlet have many differences and similarities. Therefore the adaptation of Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet brings the audience closer to the play.
To play one of Shakespeare’s most complex roles successfully on stage or on screen has been the aspiration of many actors. William Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been the focus on various accounts throughout the 20th Century, each actor attempting to bring something unique and unmarked to the focal character. Franco Zeffirelli and Kenneth Branagh, both film directors, introduce varying levels of success on the screen through downright differences in ways of translation and original ideas. Zeffirelli’s much shorter interpretation of the film is able to convey the importance of Hamlet as a masterwork by using modern approaches to film but still capturing the traditional work behind Shakespeare’s well-known play.
Hamlet by William Shakespeare is a story about a king that was murdered by his brother and the prince has been asked by his father?s ghost to avenge his murder. The original story line has been altered a few times since it has been written. The original Hamlet the play and the altered Hamlet the movie are shown differently in many different ways. Hamlet the movie with Mel Gibson shows different things than the play, but there are three major differences between the two. The three major differences are in the way both of the productions start out, differences in the scene that the players put on a play, and differences in the way the productions end.
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.
Hamlet prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare is probably one of the most studied fictional pieces in history. It has become the very pinnacle of literature, and despite the commonality of the play there are many renditions that offer a different artistic interpretation. One rendition, in particular is Franco Zeffirelli’s 1990 film translation starring Mel Gibson as Hamlet. Shakespeare’s original Hamlet follows the heartening life of young Hamlet in which he is often portrayed as a whiney young man that spends his time moping around the castle teetering on the brink of insanity. Zeffirelli’s departure from the norm brings to light a different side of the character that is often overlooked in mainstream productions. Choosing to create a visual Hamlet and heavily cut text has lead to some attention-grabbing changes in the plays structure. Franco Zeffirelli’s film is significantly different with the play. For example, he added the funeral scene at the beginning. 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.
... the mother-son relationship, Hamlet’s reaction to the ghost and Gertrude’s guilt is closer to the original text in which Shakespeare leaves room for audience interpretation. Had Shakespeare not penned a true reflection of human behaviour in all its subtleties, the Dovan and Scott versions of Hamlet might not have been questioned for their legitimacy.
This movie was similar to the others that we watched, but it also had some differences. It did have the same dialogue and had the same basic plot to show Claudius that Hamlet knew he killed his father. A big difference was that this was set in present day as compared to the others, which were set during Medieval Times. Also Hamlet puts on a movie instead of a play, and Hamlet had no interaction with anyone, it just cut to the opening of the play. This is different for how the other Hamlet movies go, because since he makes a movie and not a play it does not show him meeting with any people that are in the cast and Hamlet teaching them what to perform like it did in the others.
Shakespeare's Hamlet has been adopted to the screen many times, each with its own interpretation of the dialogue. The directors Kenneth Branagh and Michael Almereyda both bring the words of Shakespeare to life with vivid and original settings, costumes, and personalities. Of course they both attempt to convey different moods and tones. Branagh's on-screen version is very traditional as it is set in the 1800's and every word of Shakespeare's is included verbatim. On the other hand, Almereyda presents the world a completely modern version of the famous play complete with cell phones, laptops, guns, and your mundane company take-over!
It is said that Shakespeare wrote plays, not scripts. His work was meant to be read aloud and not just read. This became apparent while I watching the BBC 's 2009 version of Hamlet. I choose this version because the director Gregory Doran put a modern twist on the classic tale. The director’s display of contemporary technology, dress, and presentation of relationships enhanced the idea that Hamlet’s madness was simply a dramatic act.
...ter development was sophisticated and artisitic. In this version, the audience was absorbed with Hamlet’s character. This introduced a variety of thought and reflection making the film more appealing to a widespread audience.
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
...nd not making any sense whatsoever. In comparison, Hamlet speaks in regular sentences, and is able to converse normally with those around him. With much thought, and careful planning, Hamlet searches for evidence to determine the truth about his father's murder. And with this in hand, he departs on a path to avenge his father that is both reasonable and rational. While Hamlet might not carry the best of luck with him throughout the play, he certainly holds onto his mental integrity and ability to reason through challenges.
“I like the movie but it was not as good as the book” is a saying that is said by most people. In most cases, a movie changes drastically from the book it is based on. Hamlet is one of those cases. Although it does not change completely, there are some big differences and similarities within the book and movie. Reading the play and then watching the movie makes it easier to pick out the differences and similarities. Being able to compare and contrast the movie and play of Hamlet might make it easier to decide which one is better or which one gives a better story. The movie and play of Hamlet are different because of the chronological order, parts being left out and parts being added. They are the same in ways through dialogue, characters,
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
Hamlet was one of two inspirations for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. I believe the play Hamlet was a little absurd, especially in the extreme role vengeance played, and how almost every character died in the end. Nothing was really accomplished in the play Hamlet, except how Fortinbras reclaimed his land.