Is Shakespeare Modern Enough Summary

The purpose of this report is to compare and contrast two movies made about Hamlet. I will present and discuss different aspects of the version directed by Kenneth Branagh to that of Franco Zefirelli. During this paper you will be presented with my opinions in reference to determining which version of Hamlet best reflects the original text by Shakespeare. I will end this paper with my belief and explanation of which movie is true to the original play.

Kenneth Branagh’s interpretation of Hamlet emphasized different importance's of the play. His version differs from that of Zeffirelli’s because; he makes use of the entire text from Shakespeare’s original work. Branagh also does not hold the time period authentic. Although his version of the play was not altered as much as Zeffirelli’s, he is still able to hold the attention of modern critics and viewers. However, by transfiguring the play into a Victorian background, Branagh’s film completely alters the mindset and feel of a true Shakespearean play.

Many Elizabethan bedsides were haunted from “the terrors of the night”. Back then their ghosts were nothing like the pasty blobs we call ghosts now. Theirs were quite gruesome. Ghostly visitations were claimed to have been very unpleasant. Not only this, but they claimed it cast them into a state of spiritual confusion.

People still admire Shakespeare and create modern versions of his work. The play version of his work made it clear that it is possible to modernize Shakespeare's work, and make it humorous in a way people can understand. Not many people may know this, but Shakespeare's words are expressions some still use to this very day. An example of an expression Shakespeare used that is used today is “break the ice.” This expression does not mean to literally break ice, but to get to know someone and get comfortable with them. No one needs to explain what that means because it is a common phrase, and that just shows how Shakespeare is still relevant

The differences in styles of language truly brings alive the plays' various characters, from the lowliest drawer to the noblest knight. The playwright's audience would have been composed of a similarly diverse spectrum of society, from the groundlings at the foot of the stage, to the members of the court in attendance, and these disparate members of the audience might very well have come away from the plays with different interpretations of

Have you ever read something that didn't make any sense to you? Well that happens to almost everybody when they read Shakespeare. While Michael Mack gave a speech to incoming college freshmen telling them that Shakespeare is remarkably difficult to read he makes his point stand out even better. Mack develops an effective argument that explains to the readers that just because you may not understand something at first doesn't mean you shouldn't try again. He learned this through his use of past experience of working with Shakespeare’s work, and appeal to audience.

Over the course of the past fifty years there have been many cinematic productions of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, some of which remain true to the text while others take greater liberties with the original format. Director Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 production of Hamlet was true to Shakespeare’s work in that the film’s dialogue was delivered word or word as it is presented in the text. In contrast, Franco Zeffirelli conducted his 1990 production of Hamlet in a much more liberal direction in which lines, scenes and characters were omitted from the film. I argue that from the perspective of an individual with moderate knowledge in Shakespearian literature, that the best film versions of Hamlet are those that take the most liberties from the text. I

Shakespeare’s Hamlet has countlessly been formatted into film depictions of the play. Each film seemed to be on one end of the spectrum of either being closely interpreted or completely remodeled a different idea of what Hamlet is. The film version of Hamlet released in 2000 seems to follow closely to the play in some aspects, yet at the same time having its own unique identity Despite there being many differences with the play Hamlet and the film adaptation of Hamlet (2000) by Michael Almereyda there are three categories that really stand out, those are the character portrayal, interrelationship between the characters, and some of the essential themes differ as well. Although there are many differences, one aspect that remains the same is the dialogue of the characters which stays true to the Shakespearean dialect.

A modernized text used alongside the original text actually helps many students understand the original version better, and so it can be used as a helpful tool. Even film adaptations can help students understand Shakespeare better, whether they be tight or loose adaptations. As Annie Holleran explains in her article acknowledging the barriers students face in studying Shakespeare: “Watching such tight adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays in the classroom can help students by giving them the opportunity to experience the Bard’s work visually. Being able to watch a play after a class reads it or as they read it presents the opportunity understand the script on a deeper level, a level deeper than one achieved by simple discussion and analysis through close reading” (“How Modern Film Adaptations Can Overcome Barriers in Studying Shakespeare”). If it helps students to grasp the meaning behind the text on a much deeper level, then why is the modernization of Shakespeare even debated? The modernizations should be justified alone by the fact that they are simply a preference of many of Shakespeare’s audiences. Many authors scoff at the fact that the modernization is even considered, but since not everyone understands the way that the Bard writes, it is essential at the bare minimum in order to gradually learn to read and comprehend the original text over time. It should not be expected that modern day students automatically know how to read Shakespeare without any help, they need to be taught. The authors that scoff say that translations are for those who “don’t understand” (“Why “Translating” Shakespeare for the 21st Century is a Bad Idea”), but the important thing is that by using a modernized version as a learning tool, students are at least trying to

Shakespeare's world and our modern day world have many similarities and differences. Shakespeare's world was one of prim and properness; a world where people thrived on the thrilling tales told at the theatre. They enjoyed stories of love, violence, and drama just as we do today. Queen Elizabeth was their version of a celebrity then. Celebrities make normal things into what the new coolest thing is.

William Shakespeare’s Hamlet is one of the most produced plays of all time. Written during the height of Shakespeare’s fame—1600—Hamlet has been read, produced, and researched by more individuals now than during Shakespeare’s own lifetime. It is has very few stage directions, because Shakespeare served as the director, even though no such official position existed at the time. Throughout its over 400 years of production history, Hamlet has seen several changes. Several textual cuts have been made, in addition to the liberties taken through each production. In recent years, Hamlet has seen character changes, plot changes, gender role reversals, alternate endings, time period shifts, and thematic alternations, to

Hamlet is the most well known and most frequently performed play in today’s society. The deep character development intrigues audiences and builds relationships with the characters, interesting story, and plot that have audiences on the tip of their seats, keeps many fans buying more tickets instead of buying tomatoes to throw. The popularity of Hamlet among readers, hailing it as one of Shakespeare's best, even made itself into high school systems where students would read three of Shakespeare’s best plays: Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet. Where Shakespeare created new words and reformed English language during that time, many worship him as a god, spawning many conventions and websites. A question that many have found themselves

Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 filmic translation of William Shakespeare's Hamlet is a dramatic telling of the classic story which is as well acted as it is entertaining. Aside from these points, Zeffirelli's (and co-scripter Christopher Devore's) screenplay is an edited, and re-mixed version of the original which has many lines cut, as well as the entire sub plot concerning Fortenbras, completely removed. Franco Zefirelli's private interpretation of Hamlet, although divergent in some ways from Shakespeare's version, still remains a superior rendering, due to the continuity of the screenplay.

Many literary critics point to the considerable irony that exists in Shakespeare's Hamlet. This paper examines the play for instances of irony and surveys their interpretation by critics.

William Shakespeare's Relevance Today For as long as formal education has existed in Britain it has been a largely standard assumption that teaching the works of William Shakespeare is relevant and necessary. Perhaps the relevance of his writing is taken for granted, perhaps it is necessary to re-examine the role of Shakespeare for the modern audience. There are indeed many people who question the relevance of this 440 year old playwright to a 21st century audience, taking it even as far as perhaps the greatest heresy of all, questioning the necessity of GCSE pupils learning Shakespeare at all. This “proposed vandalism from the policymakers” (Guardian 09/02/01) is opposed wholesale by supporters