Mann 1

K. Austyn Mann December 7, 2020

One of Shakespeare’s most well-known, quoted, and overall famous plays is . It ​ ​ stands to reason that filmmakers have made and continue to make film adaptations of this work.

A unique adaptation of Hamlet was produced in 2000 by Miramax and will further be referred to ​ ​ as Hamlet (2000). Set against the backdrop of early 2000s corporate Manhattan, New York City, ​ ​ the general plot closely adheres to that of its source material with alterations to fit with the time period, such as technology, fashion, and Denmark being represented as the Denmark

Corporation. However, one of the big changes it makes is in its presentation of the titular character, Hamlet. In Hamlet (2000), the filmmakers alter Hamlet’s character and several of the ​ ​ events that take place around him to make him more bitter, determined, alienated, and sane than his Shakespearian counterpart in an attempt to make the material more appealing and engaging to viewing audiences.

Almereyda shuffles around several scenes and exchanges between characters throughout the film, including the first lines. Instead of beginning with the scene between the two guards, the film begins with an excerpt from Hamlet’s “What a piece of work is man” soliloquy from

Act II, Scene 2 (Hamlet 1:46 - 2:35). From the onset of the film, Almereyda makes the statement ​ ​ that Hamlet is not insane and he does this by making this soliloquy the first lines of the film. In the original play, this line is delivered to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as Hamlet learns that his two so-called “excellent good friends” visited him not on their own personal whims but at the request of the King (II. ii. 221). Hamlet is no fool and knows exactly why they’re here: to spy on him. So, Hamlet tells them exactly what the problem is. He tells him that he is depressed beyond belief because he feels that he and even humanity as a whole are worthless and nothing but a

“quintessence of dust” (II. ii. 303). This is a moment of clarity and confession for Hamlet that Mann 2

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern misinterpret and pass on to the King. Hamlet is intelligent and well-spoken. Posing this kind of philosophical dilemma is the furthest thing from madness.

Making part of this soliloquy the first thing that Hamlet says in the film is Almereyda making a statement on how he interprets Hamlet’s mental state, which he will demonstrate throughout the rest of the film. Almereyda’s Hamlet (2000) is the story of a “young man afflicted by sadness, ​ ​ ​ ​ confusion, and frustration” rather than a young prince of questionable mental state (Abbate 83).

Putting Hamlet’s intelligence on display right at the start of the movie is a way for Almereyda to establish Hamlet’s reliability as a logical character.

Hamlet is decisively lucid throughout the course of the film, unlike the play where the question of his sanity is up in the air. The best way to describe his character in the film is a young man who is going through a depressive episode. Though Hamlet’s soliloquies are largely left unchanged, the filmmakers chose to omit much of Hamlet’s rambling and confounding statements done in the presence of other characters. In doing this, Hamlet appears much calmer and collected, rather than being something approaching a raving madman. The idea of Hamlet being mad comes from Polonius' conclusions formed from witnessing Hamlet’s antics. These antics are few and far between in the film. In the play, Hamlet claims to purposefully “put an antic disposition on” but this claim is not included in the movie (I. v. 171). In the play, Polonius makes a remark of “how preg- / nant sometimes his replies are! a happiness that often / madness hits on” (II. ii. 205-207). Polonius speaks with Hamlet with the intent to prove that his presumed madness stems from his love for (in the film, this event occurs before Polonius brings this idea to Claudius, not directly after), but this specific quote is left out of the movie, largely because it would not make sense. Hamlet’s replies are not “pregnant”, in fact he’s quite short ​ ​ with Polonius (34:18-35:29). The entire exchange is barely a minute long and almost all of Mann 3

Hamlet’s responses are one sentence long. The brevity and venom of Hamlet’s responses in this film drips with anger and resentment, not madness. Inserting this scene before Polonius broaches the topic with Claudius is an attempt to strengthen his hypothesis. Ultimately, it holds even less water because he has such little evidence. Writing Hamlet as a character who is reasonably upset in his current circumstances and unfairly judged makes audiences more willing to cheer him on to right the wrong.

The theme of surveillance and monitoring is prevalent through the original play as

“nearly every character plays the role of watcher and watched at some point in the play” (Klett

102). The characters are trying to figure out what each other’s true intentions are, such as in the case of almost every interaction Polonius has with Hamlet, and even Hamlet himself with his play. This idea is exacerbated in the film with the repeated inclusions of camera, photographs, and footage. However, the final message in regards to the constant monitoring is ultimately that surveillance is not guaranteed to “reveal coherence, wholeness, and truth” (Klett 104). In the confrontation between Hamlet and Polonius in the Denmark Corporation building, Polonius turns directly to look at a surveillance camera and the scene cuts to CCTV screen where he delivers the line “How say you by that? Still harping on my daughter” (Hamlet 34:53 - 35:09). Polonius is ​ ​ satisfied with his findings. He believes this is all the evidence he needs to conclude exactly what

Hamlet’s issue is and that he has “[found] / Where truth is hid” (II. ii. 156-157). It is here that the film uses dramatic irony to show the weakness of surveillance. Not only is there dramatic irony in the audience knowing that the issue doesn’t lie with Ophelia, but there is also dramatic irony in what Hamlet is doing while Polonius is turned away. When the scene cuts back to the hallway,

Hamlet is shown fidgeting with a handgun which Polonius takes no notice of as Hamlet quickly conceals it within his jacket. Polonius is so sure that he has figured out what is plaguing Hamlet Mann 4 that he fails to notice the biggest piece of evidence being handled right in front of him. This idea is similarly presented with the use of reflective surfaces such as “metals, marbles, and windows”

(Abbate 83). Characters will look into them but see nothing but themselves, a “transparency through which one cannot see” (Abbate 83). The characters in the film seem unable to see the truth despite all the tools they have, such as surveillance cameras and hidden microphones. These ineffective surveillances and observations serve to show how misunderstood Hamlet is throughout the film. Polonius brings forth one bit of evidence and from that point on, everyone misinterprets Hamlet’s actions to further confirm the suspicions that he’s gone mad over his love for Ophelia.

Moments after Hamlet takes his leave of Polonius, another event occurs that reinterprets

Hamlet’s character, one where he takes action before gathering any real evidence. After leaving

Polonius, Hamlet heads straight to Claudius’ office, armed with the gun. When he reaches the room, he bursts in, gun drawn, only to find the office empty (35:39-35:50) . The film adds an entirely new attempt on Claudius’ life, overlooking the indecisiveness of Hamlet’s character in

Shakespeare’s version. Hamlet’s delivery of the famous “To be, or not to be” soliloquy in the

Blockbuster still holds weight as he doesn’t actually follow through with this first attempt.

However, the fact that he’s already tried once weakens the speech as a whole, as well before this moment in the film, he had already decided it was time for his “uncle-father” “[to not be]” anymore. The reason for including this is to add more action to the plot, as much of the play revolves around Hamlet deciding what he needs to do and if he can do it, morally. Narratively, ​ ​ Hamlet’s inner turmoil is justified, however to the general audience, action and physical conflict and drama performs better on-screen. Mann 5

Hamlet (2000) takes the idea of Hamlet being misunderstood to the next level in having ​ him be a film student. As metacinematic as that is, it’s a stereotype of art and film students to claim that they are misunderstood, before their time, and/or underappreciated. Both Hamlet in the play and Hamlet in the film don visual representations to “signify Hamlet's alienation”

(Fedderson 155). In the play, Hamlet wears an “inky cloak” that his mother, the Queen, encourages him to “cast off” (I. ii. 68-77). In Hamlet (2000), where black is a common modern ​ ​ suit color, Hamlet puts on a colorful ski hat that causes him to stand out (5:22 - 7:40). Hamlet is out of place in both works, but Almereyda’s adaptation emphasizes that idea even more, adding to the idea that Hamlet is a levelheaded victim of circumstances. The filmmakers further put this idea into visual use in Hamlet’s delivery of the “To be or not to be” soliloquy delivered in a

Blockbuster video renting store. As Hamlet wonders to himself, the camera follows him as he wanders down aisle after aisle of “Action” movies, occasionally cutting away to the screens on the wall playing scenes with explosions and violence. Hamlet is the main character in this film but he is by no means a hero of an action movie. He is “trapped within a genre in which he feels uncomfortable and inadequate” (Fedderson 156). According to Fedderson and Richardson, Ethan

Hawke was chosen to play Hamlet “precisely” because his previous roles “represent the

‘Generation X’ version of the brooding alienated young men” (157). Audiences sympathize more with Hamlet as he seems even more self-piteous than his Shakespearean version.

Hamlet (2000) keeps the general tone and tragedy-ridden plot of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, ​ ​ but allows for less question on who Hamlet is. In the play, his true state of mind is unclear and he seems both capable and incapable of murder at the same time. The film, however, takes a clear stance on both subjects, presenting Hamlet as sane, vengeful, and misunderstood. Hamlet yearns for the decision to be out of his hands and for things to slow down or stop. It was one event after Mann 6 another with his father dying, his mother marrying, his friends betraying him and even his own lover betraying him. As Abbate states, his biggest problem is that he does not seem to understand that he cannot simply stop life” like he can the footage on his recording devices. This is in stark contrast to Shakespeare’s Hamlet who wonders and wonders if he wants to go on. While both ​ ​ works end in the same bloodbath, the at the center of it all are different people.

Mann 7

Works Cited

Abbate, Alessandro. “‘To Be or Inter-Be’: Almereyda's End-of-Millennium ‘Hamlet.’” Literature/Film Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 2, 2004, pp. 82–89. JSTOR. ​

Fedderson, Kim, and J. Michael Richardson. “Hamlet 9/11: Sound, Noise, and Fury in Almereyda's ‘Hamlet.’” College Literature, vol. 31, no. 4, 2004, pp. 150–170. JSTOR. ​ ​

Hamlet. Directed by Michael Almereyda, performances by , Kyle MacLachlan, ​ Diane Venora, and Liev Schreiber. Miramax Films, 2000.

Klett, Elizabeth. “The Heart of the Mystery: Surveillance in Michael Almereyda and Gregory Dorans’ Films of Hamlet” Literature/Film Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 2, 2013, pp. 102–115. JSTOR. ​ ​ ​ ​

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. The Norton Introduction to Literature edited by Kelly J. Mays, ​ ​ ​​ ​​ 13th Edition, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2019, 1396-1495.