Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet

The characters in the cast are somewhat different in each of these movies as would be expected. Mel Gibson is very good in the role of Hamlet in Zefirelli's version. When he insults the king the insults are more pronounced and easy to understand. He also play's the part of Hamlet's insanity very well. This is the favorite part of the character for me. I think his face and presentation make it more realistic than when I read the play. Gibson was able to add suspense to the movie while chasing after the ghost with his sword held as a cross. Glen

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 is an acknowledging Shakespearean play that was later filmed in 1990 by Franco Zeffirelli and in 1996 by Kenneth Branagh. Both these directors interpret the play differently adding unique twists and turns of their own to help focus on one thing than the other. In their contrasting films, these two directors depict the character of Ophelia very differently. Through Zeffirelli’s film, Ophelia, played by Helena Bonham Carter is portrayed as a dreamy, naive, childish character, however in Branagh 's version; Kate Winslet portrays Ophelia as a more mature, sensible and strong willed character. These different portrayals of Ophelia can be further analyzed through cinematography, set and costume designs and through the actor themselves.

Hamlet, a tragedy by William Shakespeare shows a lot of adaptations to movies. Hamlet by Mel Gibson (1990) and Kenneth Branagh (1996) interpret and portray the play by Shakespeare in different ways. The two film versions of Act IV of Hamlet have many differences and similarities. Kenneth Branagh’s version of Hamlet is seen covering most of the original text of Shakespeare’s play of Hamlet unlike the Mel Gibson version which omits many scenes and dialogues. 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.

Kenneth Branagh made it seem like Hamlet was following his father’s orders even though in the play he wasn’t. This made the audience feel better about Hamlet because he was actually taking action. Although Kenneth’s version of Hamlet’s character took action it is not as tragic as Hamlet’s character in the play because by Hamlet not taking action it shows how sensitive and hurt he was.

I first want to dissect the 1996 movie in which Kenneth Branagh plays Hamlet. The “To be or not to be” scene is clearly one of the most important scenes of the entire movie, so the directors

From what I have seen inside and outside of class I thoroughly believe that the BBC version starring David Tennet of Hamlet was the best. Although my favorite version had to be the BBC version, I still enjoyed watching the Mel Gibson version very much. Starting with the mousetrap scene I was glued to the screen it followed the book to the tee, not only did Hamlet instruct the players on what play they were doing but also how they were supposed to act. This was something none of the other clips showed. Even more, in the BBC version hamlet not only sat near Ophelia but right on her lap making sexual jokes exactly like the book had shown. What the BBC adaptation managed to do was have hamlet flirt with Ophelia while having himself and Horatio both watch for the king's reaction to the

This clearly indicates that there is some sort of situation to be resolved, and that there is a reason for the king to be returning from the grave. From their speech, the reader learns that there has been a battle, and the result was the king’s death. "Such was the very armor he had on when he the ambitious Norway combated," introduces the conflict between Denmark and Norway. Through dialogue, it is also told that military preparations are taking place at Elsinore, because Fortinbras seeks to reclaim the Norwegian lands that his late father lost to King Hamlet. "So nightly toils the subject of the land, and why such daily blast of brazen cannon, and foreign mart for implements of war…"(p13, ln71) reveals that Denmark is intensely preparing for the war being carried out in Denmark. From this scene, there is also much to be said about the people of the land. It is quite apparent that they are very superstitious and wary of the supernatural. They fear that which they are unfamiliar with. If the reader is to read deeper into the plot, it can be seen that the people of the story are very closely intertwined. When Bernardo and Marcellus believe that they have witnessed a ghost, they decide that they must tell Horatio. After the ghost is observed, the three men decide to tell Hamlet of what they have seen. This indicates that the characters in the story are familiar with each other, and possibly

In comparing the David Tennant version of Hamlet to other movie adaptations, it is clear that each one has it’s own unique way of presenting the story. The Mel Gibson version of hamlet takes place in a more traditional and medieval time. In adapting the play, this take on

Although the movie did tell the baseline story of the play I don’t think the movie captured what Shakespeare would have liked it to. The story of the play followed the originally play but I think the overall mental image and picture has more to do with the story than the story itself. The movie didn’t capture any of the original settings, or anything in that nature. It kept the story line, but then decided to take its own twist and turn on the vision of the play. The movie version did not in vison what Shakespeare would have wanted or tried to portray in his original

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet there are many unanswered questions such as if Hamlet is really mad or if it is just an act. There are many film adaptations which use their movie elements in order to hint towards the answer of these questions. In Gregory Doran’s film interpretation Hamlet starring David Tennant, David Tennant truly shows the raw emotions of Hamlet. He shows how Hamlet feels through his movements and facial expressions. These little things allow the viewer to see the true meaning and intention behind Hamlet’s words.

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.

The film that surpassed all my expectations and gave me exactly what I wanted to see was Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet. The way I would picture King Hamlets great castle of Denmark came up exactly the way I thought it would. The 1800’s setting presented in this film gave it more of a professional feel to it and I loved the vibrant colours throughout the movie. So even though the play is suppose to give off a gloomy atmosphere, dealing with the concept of suicide, the vibrancy of every scene would grab your attention away from the themes for a few seconds. It lets you take in the beautiful scenery and how the play should’ve been set up if it did take place in the real world. Scenes such as the burial of Ophelia, where the imagery and setting change from the graveyard to Hamlets old memories of Yorick, the contrasts between such vibrant scenes and darker ones mix and interlace beautifully. This is something that neither Zeffirelli nor Almereyda were able to accomplish in their films. In Zaferelli’s Hamlet the imagery presented throughout was not more than what the settings it could not portray. It didn’t properly grasp more than the generic medieval atmosphere. It would’ve been a lot more successful to include more clips of what life would’ve been like for Hamlet and the people of Denmark. In Almereyda’s version it wasn’t really his fault for not presenting more imagery of the play because it was set in modern times, and we have seen countless movies and clips of

There are several film adaptions of the The Tragedy of Hamlet written by William Shakespeare, but I chose the 2009 film adaption of Hamlet directed by Gregory Doran. I did this because I am more interested in how old written texts can be applied to today instead of decades or even centuries back. This film was also only about 3 hours. It also features more people of color than Shakespeare probably imagined when he wrote the original text, which is great because then people of color won’t feel as left out. I chose to watch a film adaption of Hamlet because Hamlet is the most complex character in all of the plays I have read from Shakespeare. The audience gets to see Hamlet’s growing madness, or feigning of it, until things start really getting heated up in the second half of the play. The film makes many changes to the original text, but I think that the most significant changes are the movement of Hamlet’s “To be Or Not To Be Speech”, the omission of Fortinbras and his army at the end, and the appearance of video cameras. These changes work effectively to make the focus of the film on Hamlet.

There are several film adaptations of the The Tragedy of Hamlet written by William Shakespeare, but I chose the 2009 film adaptation of Hamlet directed by Gregory Doran. I did this because I am more interested in how old written texts can be applied to today instead of decades or even centuries back. This film is only about 3 hours long. It also features more people of color than Shakespeare probably imagined when he wrote the original text, which is great because then people of color won’t feel as left out. I chose to watch a film adaptation of Hamlet because Hamlet is the most complex character in all of the plays I have read from Shakespeare. The audience gets to see Hamlet’s growing madness, or feigning of it, until things start really getting heated up in the second half of the play. The film makes many changes to the original text, but I think that the most significant changes are the movement of Hamlet’s “To be Or Not To Be Speech”, the appearance of video cameras, and the omission of Fortinbras and his army at the end. These changes work effectively to make the focus of the film on Hamlet.