- 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?
I would like to compare Claudius in both of the films the class has seen on "Hamlet"
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Claudius in Branagh’s version of Hamlet seemed to depict the king as a user, and of a man of evil who is always planning. However in Zeffirelli’s version, I feel that the king, after becoming a king, just went along for the ride and only planned against Hamlet as a means of moving him away.
This my depiction of the two Claudius' in both film adaptations, with the Claudius from Barangh's version being the one that seeming to have a very large motive towards Hamlet while the other did not.
There are major differences between how the setting was portrayed. In the Mel Gibson version, the story clearly takes place in the Middle Ages, while in Branagh's version it is set in a more modern time, almost like something out of Victorian England. As the play was written during the 1500/1600s, the setting of the Mel Gibson version is more accurate (the type of setting portrayed in Branagh's is much more modern), but I feel that the latter suits the play better.
ReplyDeleteGibson's version has a "depressing" tone to it, and I got the feeling that everything was taking place in a small area -- implying that the event's "stayed bottled up" in the castle, and didn't involve outsiders. I don't feel this is accurate for the play. A key undertone of the play is that Hamlet blows everything out of porportion - being a perfectionist - because he wants everything to turn out perfect. As such, the events impact events both inside and outside of the castle. Branagh's version seems to have a larger "canvas" for the events to unfold onto, so to speak.
Gibson's version also has a "dirty", or "gritty" feel to it - it shows Hamlet as not being completely disconnected from current events, and goes into too much detail when violent acts are portrayed (ex: killing Polonius and Rosencrantz/Guildenstern). The play is not intended to provide Gladiator-esqe entertainment, but is supposed to be about a battle of wits - Claudius and Hamlet, constantly trying to outsmart each other. I get the feeling that Gibson's was designed solely for the box office - hence the less theatrical, and less faithful, feel to it. I don't think it represents the play accurately. To me, Branagh's more accurately represents the ideas and themes of the play.
Both Branagh and Zeffirelli’s version of Hamlet have several strong and weak aspects to them. Branagh’s version however is better organized and this helps give the movie a much stronger feel to it. By staying true to the order of events Branagh’s version has a better flow to it than Zeffirelli’s very back and forth storytelling. Branagh’s version also has a better portrayal of all the main characters. This is primarily due to the mannerisms and very life like feel that the actors are able to portray. This difference is very noticeable when you compare the ghosts from each version. Zeffirelli’s ghost of Hamlet Sr. looks normal and not very eerie looking. Branagh’s ghost however is extremely creepy, and there is lots of noticeable work put into the makeup and sound effects that revolve around the ghost. This is one primary example of how this version has lots of effort put into the small details. A combination of these details and overall better acting portray the characters stronger in Branagh’s version.
ReplyDeleteAnother fundamental difference in these versions is the time period that the film is shot in. Zeffirelli’s choice of medieval Denmark is not a poor one, and does a good job of showing the brutality of Hamlet’s time. Branagh’s more modern time period helps to accentuate the politicking, and manipulation that take place in the play. Both time periods are used effectively, but I personally prefer the emphasis on manipulation. Although Zeffirelli is able to show an understanding of the text, it is the lack of important minor details that makes this version much weaker.
The performances by each actor in the separate films were substantially different. A main difference that I noted was the performances of the character Hamlet. When Branagh performed Hamlet, the character was filled with wit and excitement. Everything was over exaggerated and his facial expressions were very extreme. He was very loud and boisterous. He often fluctuated his voice and talked very loud so everyone could here him. Also, his speeches were very rushed with little pauses and it seemed like he was gasping for air. When Mel Gibson performed as Hamlet, his demeanor was very calm and deliberate. His tone of voice seemed very consistent with little fluctuation. The pauses were very noticeable as if he was always pondering compared to Branagh’s very impulsive Hamlet. Mel Gibson’s had calm body language and seemed to only react when he was alone or faced with a challenge. Gibson’s facial expressions were very blank almost as if he was confused. This is a major contrast of how Branagh’s facial expressions were very loud.
ReplyDeleteOverall both performaces were very different but each managed to fit nicely into the setting of the play.
Comparing Branagh and Zeffirelli’s version of Hamlet I feel Branagh did a better job in his version by staying true to the text by emphasizing the main theme of manipulation in the play. In Zeffirelli's version I felt that Hamlet wasn't portrayed as a great manipulator, but more as a crazy person. I got the sense that Zeffirelli made him appear to be more of a madman than the text supports. This is evident when he pushes Rosencrantz or Guildenstern forcefully to the wall with the flute against his neck, and the rough way he deals with his mother when "speaking daggers" to her. I feel Zeffirelli took Hamlet's madness to a whole new level which makes it seem like its Hamlets true self as opposed to an act.
ReplyDeleteBranagh on the other hand doesn't put as much emphasis on Hamlet's madness, but shows him to be gentler than Zeffirelli does. In Branagh's version Hamlet isn't as rough and aggressive when talking to his mother before he kills Polonius. Branagh focuses more on Hamlets manipulative side. This is seen in Hamlets discussion with Horatio which are calm and secretive showing Hamlet's a schemer. In this way I feel Branagh better portrays the significance of manipulation compared to Zeffirelli.
The setting is the most noticeable difference between the two plays. The Mel Gibson version is set in a more medieval era, common with Shakespearian time. Where the Brannagh version is set in a more modern time, probably around the mid 1800’s which we can tell from the architecture and the costumes. Although the setting of the Gibson version is most likely more accurate it lacks in clarity because the story is out of order and some scenes are omitted. Kenneth Brannagh’s story is easier to follow by staying to the original Shakespeare play, that we read in class, it is also a bit more believable as he is able to show the manipulation of Claudius and Hamlet because he stays true to the order of the story.
ReplyDeleteThe use of props is interesting as well, particularly with the character of Hamlet. In the Gibson version, Hamlet is frequently shown with a sword. This gives this character a more hostile personality. This is not the case in Brannagh’s version which gives the character of Hamlet a more manipulative personality, which is truer to Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
Since the Brannagh version shows a manipulative Hamlet and his story is closer to Shakespeare’s, therefore it is the much stronger movie. Even though the Zeffirelli’s setting is truer to Shakespeare’s, he shows a more hostile and a less passive Hamlet, and the story is jumbled which makes this the weaker of the two versions.
Branagh and Zeffirelli took very different approaches in building the character of Hamlet and the actual scripts themselves. Mel Gibson’s interpretation of Hamlet appears to be very active and dynamic, delivering his lines very powerfully, loudly, and dramatically. I think Mel used pauses in his speech very effectively, allowing for specific emphasis on lines. On the other hand, I found Branagh’s version of Hamlet to have less fluctuation in his voice, was slightly quieter, but did talk much faster at times. As a result, this emphasized his cowardliness, uncertainty, and inability to act. In this film I believe he is portrayed to be a quieter and more secretive manipulator in opposition to Zeffirelli’s version. Overall, Mel Gibson’s portrayal seemed to be more real and interesting to me. But in Branagh’s defence, his version can be said to be much closer to that of the Shakespearian play itself. As opposed to Zeffirelli who chose to omit the sub plot involving Fortinbras and cut out a lot of the script and certain soliloquies, Branagh stayed true to the play and included the entire script, leaving most of it completely unchanged besides the fact that it was set in the 19th century (a very interesting choice). Although the films were very different, they were both very effective and enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteEven though the characters are speaking the same lines, their pronunciation and emotion leaves the two Hamlets very different. In Branaghs version Hamlet seemed much more cheerful and comical compared to the more serious dark aged Hamlet in Zeffirellis take. The general settings in the movies also played a big role in the moods felt throughout the films. In Mel Gibson’s movie the setting is in the midst of the dark ages giving it a more authentic and serious look, this plays well with the overall tragedy of the play. In Branaghs version the setting gives a lighter and peaceful mood, this fits in with the acting styles of the movie but does not have the feel of a tragedy. Both the portrayals of the movies gave great emphasis and tone to the major soliloquies. In both these films there are long close up shots to the speakers, but in Zeffirelli’s many times the camera pans to the scenery or different dramatic angles. In my opinion Branaghs film had a much more theatrical aspect to it and stayed very close to the roots of the play, while Zeffirellis movie seemed grittier and Hollywood influenced.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that Branagh's version of Hamlet is nearly perfect where as Zeffirelli's was simply a pile of trash.
ReplyDeleteBranagh uses subtlety with his actors letting tension to eat away at the audience. He also uses the set to create images and pays fine attention to detail. His ability to stay true to the text (a masterpiece)truly allows for an amazing performance and an incredibly accurate interpretation of the play; even if in the incorrect era.
Zeffirelli is so in your face with all his themes I feel he is insulting every audience member's intelligence. I swear if his actors weren't chewing up the scenery or having mood swings, the set couldn't choose if it was winter or summer. There was poor attention to detail (as mentioned above) and it irritated me, given how deep the play Hamlet is. Also, the complete butchery of the script caused the characters' actions to seem wildly out of place and made the movie almost as random as the changing seasons between scenes.
In conclusion I was impressed by Branagh's interpretation which I believe caught the themes of Hamlet perfectly. However Zeffirelli's interpretation almost placed me in a deep coma due to how stupid it made me feel while it itself was so amazingly inaccurate you could give it a different name and no one would be the wiser.
After watching both film version of Hamlet it was clear that there are many differences in the way the play was interpreted by both Branagh and Zeffirelli. One of the most prominent differences are the settings. Zeffirelli's version is set in the medieval time period, which hold true to the original setting of Shakespeare's play. However, Branagh's version is set in the more modern 1800's. Although Branagh's setting was not what the play was meant to be set in, I felt that it suited the play better than Zeffirelli's medieval setting. The other major difference between the films was the portrayal of Hamlet. Zeffirelli depicts Hamlet as irrational and somewhat mad, where as Branagh's version depicts Hamlet as clever and cunning. In my opinion Branagh's portrayal of Hamlet was truer to the text and was much better overall. While reading the text there is no evidence to prove Hamlet has legitimately gone mad, and he keeps his wits about him until the end of the play. As a whole, Branagh's version of Hamlet was a much better film and an even better portrayal of the themes and characters of the play.
ReplyDelete