UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE – FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTA
ÚSTAV ANGLOFONNÍCH LITERATUR A KULTUR
BAKALÁŘSKÁ PRÁCE
Tetiana Kurtiak Hamlet on Screen: William Shakespeare's Play in Film Adaptation
Vedoucí bakalářské práce:
PhDr. Soňa Nováková, CSc., M.A..
Praha, Srpen 2015
Declaration:
Prohlašuji, že jsem tuto bakalářskou práci vypracovala samostatně, že jsem řádně citovala všechny použité prameny a literaturu a že práce nebyla využita v rámci jiného vysokoškolského studia či k získání jiného či stejného titulu.
Souhlasím se zapůjčením bakalářské práce ke studijním účelům.
Prohlášení:
I declare that the following BA thesis is my own work for which I used only the sources and literature mentioned, and that this thesis has not been used in the course of other university studies or in order to acquire the same or another type of diploma.
I have no objections to the BA thesis being borrowed and used to study purposes.
V Praze dne …………… ……………
Acknowledgement:
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to PhDr. Soňa Nováková, CSc., M.A., my supervisor, for her support, encouragement, valuable guidance, and most importantly patience throughout my studies.
Keywords:
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, film adaptation, Laurence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh, Franco Zeffirelli, Michael Almereyda, theatre, film.
Klíčová slova:
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, filmová adaptace, Laurence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh, Franco Zeffirelli, Michael Almereyda, divadlo, film.
Abstract: The purpose of my thesis is to study the process of a play-to-film adaptation of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark. It deals with the issues concerning film adaptation, the complexity of transferring drama onto the screen, and, consequently, analyses the individual filmic readings of Shakespeare’s play. The four British and American film adaptations discussed in this thesis are: the black-and-white version of Hamlet by Laurence Olivier (1948), the popularized Hamlet by Franco Zeffirelli (1990), the four-hour Hamlet by Kenneth Branagh (1996), and a modern version directed by Michael Almereyda in 2000. This study will focus on the comparison of two forms of art, theatre and cinema, and explore the given adaptations not only as an instrument of transition and improved audio-visual experience, but as a separate work of artistry. The thesis demonstrates how one play alters and redefines its narrative depending on the time period, cultural factors, and enhanced technologies.
Abstrakt: Cílem mé práce je zkoumání procesu filmové adaptace divadelní hry Williama Shakespearea Tragédie o Hamletovi. Zabývá se otázkami týkajícími se filmovou adaptací, složitostí přenosu divadelní hry na plátno, a tedy potažmo také analýzou jednotlivých filmových čtení Shakespearovské hřy. Čtyři filmové adaptace probírané v této práci jsou: černo-bílá verze Hamleta Laurencea Olivier (1948), zpopularizovaný Hamlet Franca Zeffirelliho (1990), čtyřhodinový film Hamlet Kennetha Branaghy (1996), a moderní verze natočená Michaelem Almereydem v roce 2000. Tato prace se zaměřuje na srovnání dvou forem umění, divadla a kina. Zkoumá dané úpravy nejen jako nástroje přechodu a lepšího audio-vizuálního prožitku, ale také jako samostatného uměleckého díla. Konkrétní provedení mění a nově definuje svůj příběh v závislosti na časovém období, kulturních faktorech a zlepšené technologii.
Table of content:
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………….…..7 CHAPTER 1:…………………………………………………………………………………...... 8 1.1The Play……………………………………………………………………………………….8 1.2 Theatre and Film……………………………………………………………………………...9 1.3 Adaptations………………………………………………………………………………..…11 1.4 Potential Problems in Adapting a Play………………………………………………………12 1.5 Jorgen’s Adaptation Topology………………………………………………………………13 CHAPTER 2: HAMLET BY LAURENCE OLIVIER………………………………………………...... 15 2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….15 2.2 Manipulations with the Text………………………………………………………………...16 2.3 The Forth Soliloquy…………………………………………………………………………17 2.4 The Setting and the Style of the Adaptation………………………………………………...18 2.5 The Protagonist……………………………………………………………………………...19 2.6 The Closet Scene…………………………………………………………………………….20 2.7 The Ghost……………………………………………………………………………………20 2.8 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………...21 CHAPTER 3: HAMLET BY FRANCO ZEFFIRELLI…………………………………………………..23 3.1 The Cast …………………………………………………………………………………….23 3.2 Film …………………………………………………………………………………………24 3.2.1 Appearance……………………………………………………………………….24 3.2.2 The Dichotomy of Gibson’s Hamlet……………………………………………..24 3.2.3 Gertrude…………………………………………………………………………..26 3.2.4 The Closet Scene…………………………………………………………………27 3.3 Fidelity and Film Techniques……………………………………………………………….27 3.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..29 CHAPTER 4: HAMLET BY KENNETH BRANAGH………………………………………………….30 4.1 Widescreen Opulence Four Hours Long……………………………………………………30 4.2 The Setting…………………………………………………………………………………..31 4.3 The Cast……………………………………………………………………………………..32 4.3.1 The Protagonist and his Milieu…………………………………………………...33 4.3.2 Ophelia……………………………………………………………………………35 4.4 Insets………………………………………………………………………………………...35 4.5 “To be or not to be” and Mirrors……………………………………………………………36 4.6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..37 CHAPTER 5: HAMLET BY MICHAEL ALMEREYDA…………………………………………...... 38 5.1 Alterations…………………………………………………………………………………..38 5.2 New Take on Familiar Figures……………………………………………...... 39 5.3 Signs, Tone, and Cinematic Devices………………………………………………………..41 5.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..43 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………..45 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………………..47 Introduction
This thesis deals with film adaptations, based on the eminent play by William Shakespeare. Its aim is to acquaint the reader with the concept of adaptation, provide an insight into two different forms of art such as play and a film. Moreover, to demonstrate how and in what way their specific devices are utilized in the following adaptations, corroborated by the various examples. This work will reference Shakespeare’s renowned tragedy Hamlet as its primary source. As this play continued to intrigue the minds of filmmakers, it resulted in a wide scope of cinematic works to examine. This thesis will analyse four selected English-speaking adaptations filmed by Olivier, Zeffirelli, Branagh, and Almereyda, as they offer diversity in their adaptation technique, style, and a date of production. The purpose of this work is to analyse four given adaptations, compare and contrast them with the original play and in relation to one another. To be more precise, the first chapter provides a shortly summarized central theme of the given play and some of its motifs. It describes the theatrical and cinematic methods and techniques used in the respective forms of the performing art, as well as its comparison, the material for which is provided by the representatives of the world of the Cinema. It introduces certain topologies of adaptations and theorists devoted to this subject, such as Linda Hutcheon, Jack J. Jorgens, Timothy Corrigan, who are referred to in the thesis. Successive chapters deal with the analysis of the chosen film production, cross-comparison with the other works along with the assertion of the effect the alterations have on the plot. The analysis of each adaptation will focus on points idiosyncratic for a specific film. The second chapter is concerned with Hamlet, directed by Laurence Olivier in 1948, the peculiar aspect of which resides in the Freudian interpretation of a mother-son relationship. The third chapter explores Franco Zeffirelli’s Hamlet (1990), whose main purpose was to bring this literary work to the masses again. Hamlet (1996) by Kenneth Branagh, the fullest film production of the play, is reviewed in a chapter four. His adaptation is usually compared to Olivier's Hamlet, and juxtaposed to Michael Almereyda's film (Hamlet (2000)), noted for its time and place transition.
7
CHAPTER 1
1.1 The Play
Hamlet, the play, deals with the excruciation of a human soul in a state of helplessness and capability to make choices regardless of a possible failure. Hamlet’s ideas of moral principles are distorted and destroyed. He was betrayed by his family and important women in his life, which resulted in an inner conflict that manifested itself into a state of constant hesitation (whether his actions were justified or not). The kaleidoscope of human emotions is a prime concern. Hamlet is shrewd, sincere, and passionate. He is a true friend, a loyal son and has a strong sense of justice, since he cannot get his revenge and kill Claudius until he is completely certain of the King's guilt. There are several interesting factors, which influenced the text, and one has to bear them in mind and make use of them for further interpretation of the play and its cinematic versions. Shakespeare was an adherent supporter of the Renaissance Humanism and demonstrated a great interest in human nature, which can be observed in many of his works. He tried to get below the surface of a human being and extract the complex diversity of man’s virtues and flaws. These ideas are also present in Hamlet, which does not lack an assortment of allusions to Ancient Greece, its mythology and history. Shakespeare’s plays, in general, are typically “saturated with his favourite classical authors, especially Ovid, Virgil, Seneca, Plautus, Cicero, Terence and Plutarch.”1 A point to remember is that the notion of a ghost was treated differently during the Elizabethan period than it is nowadays. They were an ordinary topic of discussion among superstitious commoners, and a subject of study in science. Without engaging in the matters of religion, the communication with the supernatural spirits and powers did not imply any mental illness, but the connection between life and death. Hamlet does not question the news from Horatio, but rather expresses a surprise when he hears about the Ghost. However the phantom’s partial visibility leaves others confused on the subject of Hamlet’s sanity. This topic was effectively adopted into the texts, though Shakespeare does not use them as a source of fear, but handles them
1 Brian McClinton, “Shakespeare’s Humanism,” The Freethinker, July 2006.
8 as “the same individuals, mentally and morally, after bodily death as before it, with the same kind of thoughts and emotions as they had during physical life.”2 It is essential to focus on several recurring structures in Hamlet such as loyalty, incestuous relationships (between Claudius and Gertrude), misogyny, etc., as those will later be a matter of dispute and interpretation in the adaptations. One of the aims of this thesis is to understand which Renaissance ideals and ideas stood the test of time and were retained in adaptations, and which were altered as a vestige of the past. However, before elaborating the process of transferring one medium to another, the notion of a medium itself has to be defined.
1.2 Theatre and Film
Theatre and cinema have their specific methods of creating a performance. Both use visual and auditory stimuli to get the message across, and connect with the audience, however, each has its unique set of attributes and elements, which contribute to the development of a different kind of sensory experience. Prior to immersing into the specificity of a particular adaptation, one should familiarize with the differences and common features of two media, and the ways in which they cooperate. Both are aural, but the communication with the audience differs. In a play the task of addressing the viewer is allotted on the actors, whilst in a film it largely resorts to the aid of the cinematic techniques. This allows the actors to concentrate on the performance only, and the rest of the cinematic context is managed by the cinematographer, design crew, sound department and editors. Theatre is a live interaction, where communication can be considered as a dialogue between the actor and the audience. They are aware of each other and as John Malkovich noted, “actors should be in a constant connect with the audience, because they help to lead”3 and show the direction the performer should proceed with. Film, on the other hand, is still, as there is no possibility to see the audience reaction, but merely post factum in reviews. A good delivery on stage relies on the actors’ ability “to retain the truth of their characters while finding a level, often slightly larger than life, that will project that reality to the large watching
2 Louis William Rogers, The Ghosts of Shakespeare, (Chicago: Theo Book Company, 1925) 19. 3 John Malkovich, Actor, “John Malkovich: The Dynamics of Screen and Stage,” Video Interview, 2011, 14 Jul. 2015
9 audience.” 4 The actors should approach their viewers as one entity and should be able to disseminate their message in such a way, that it reaches the furthest located person in a theatre. They should be heard and understood. It is usually achieved by a loud and clear enunciation, confident posture, amplified body language and exaggerated facial expressions. However, on screen the performance should be subtle and natural, not detracting from the screen presence. Stage actors have all their emotions on the surface, heightened by the extreme gestures for the purposes of a dramatic effect. Opposite to it, the task of a screen actor is to convey the feeling without actually showing it. “The audience has to feel what the actor does in order to relate to him.”5 The emotions are reserved for the close-ups, and are imparted by the eyes, not face. Too aggressive and prominent mimicry should be omitted, because it obliterates a required realism. Actor, Michael Caine, points out that look or gaze is regarded as the integral part in film acting, as it becomes the most powerful medium of communication between actors, who unlike stage performers are deprived or a privilege to converse with the audience.6 A control on stage is in the hands of the actor. He can build up his performance the way he finds it preferable and favourable for his character, judging on the audience reaction. This gives a play the sensation of continuity, where actor’s performance has its beginning and its end, resulting in a gradual development. The approach in the filming process resides in fragmentation, where the cast has almost no control over their characters’ evolvement. Hence, the director becomes the main figure entrusted to lead and navigate the filming process, which consequently reflects his vision of the story. The technical side of the film creation rests on the director of photography, music department, and editing. Together with the director these ‘components’ are in charge of the visual and audio artistry of the result. A shot, factors of which are categorized by “distance, focus, angle, movement, and point-of-view,”7 is the most influential tool in film formation. A close-up assists in the demonstration of characters’ emotions, or focuses one’s attention on details, however too
4 Lenore DeKoven, Changing Direction: A Practical Approach to Directing Actors in Film and Theatre, (Taylor & Francis Group, 2013), 16 Jul. 2015,
10 many close-ups in a sequence “deprive us of setting, and are […] claustrophobic.”8 A long shot allows one to appreciate the scenery/surrounding and a medium shot does both. The camera angle might diminish or strengthen the perception of the subject or object, whereas eye-line matching or eye-level is the one that is used most often. The responsibility of editing, as one of the final and important steps in filmmaking, is to unite the shot material into sequences that would represent a consistent and coherent narrative. There are several theatrical devices that contribute to ‘reading’ a play. Stage requisites, or props often carry symbolic references, and if recognized, guide the audience within the plot. The setting gives tone and style to the production, sets time and space. Costumes help to orientate among the characters, and provide a visual development of one. Additionally makeup tends to be heavier for the dramatic and visual purposes.
1.3. Adaptations
The art of adaptation is an intricate work, but takes its origin long before the advent of the cinema. Shakespeare’s status in literature does not stop directors from some relatively unconventional experiments with his works both on stage, and on film. This in turn promotes numerous types of adaptations bent under various angles in its interpretation, adjusting the text in respect to the stressed topic, incorporating and amplifying the amount of violence, sexual references and profanity. Their range and diversity can be commensurable only with the artists’ fantasy: a play, a film, a musical, a song, a dance, etc. The creativity usually manifests where artists do not try to confine themselves within the limits of the text, or fuse it with the other arts. Popular culture is suffused with the allusions to Hamlet in countless works of literature (Ulysses by James Joyce, I am a Moscow Hamlet by Anton Chekhov), cinema (Monty Python's Flying Circus (1974) Renaissance Man (1994)), animated films (The Lion King (1994), Coraline (2009)), comics (Calvin and Hobbes (1994)), etc. Those who are not ultraconservative advocates of the fidelity and are open to alternative adaptations, might enjoy The Fifteen Minute Hamlet (1995) – a humorous production based on the abridged version by Tom Stoppard and directed by Todd Louiso, where the first thirteen minute rendition
8 Monaco 221.
11 seems to be too long to the ‘producers’, and the author is forced to shorten it even more (to two minutes). Some find their inspiration in sci-fi films, translating Hamlet to non-existent languages like Klingon. Others parallelize Shakespeare’s blank verse with the nowadays rap. 9 An extraordinary bold understanding of shortening is presented in the play The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged) by The Reduced Shakespeare Company, who recite all 37 plays in 97 minutes. Regardless of the method, that amount of adaptations only consolidates Shakespeare as an unquenchable source of inspiration.
1.4 Potential Problems in Adapting a Play
The word ‘adaptation’ already implies its critique on the ground of comparison. The central and most sensitive problem of any adaptation resides in changes of scale, i.e. abridgement of the text. It raises a question of faithfulness regardless of how minor the changes are. For the thorough appreciation of the adapted work, one should preclude any attempt to refer to the film as a “lesser” art. Texts such as Shakespeare’s have an advantage in establishing their superiority, because of the canonical status and the historical longevity, there is a little chance for adaptations of usurping their authority.10 Although an adaptation derives from the source of a different medium, it ought to be treated as a separate domain of visual experience. One of the scholars of literary theory, Linda Hutcheon argues, that “an adaptation’s double nature does not mean that proximity of fidelity to the adopted text should be the criterion of judgment or the focus of analysis.”11 It is crucial to distinguish a play script and a film transcript. The screenwriter is obliged to adjust it, considering the qualities of the cinema and cannot simply substitute one with another. Despite the similarity with a prepared script, a play’s manuscript follows principles and requirements of the theatre. It is a common practice that a script for stage performance has many indexes, which indicate a character or inform the audience about an action. In film, these indications are apprehended through a character’s close-up, and instruction to act are replaced with an actual action, hence any descriptive element is redundant. Therefore, it is an incorrect
9 For further information, see the webpage of The Hip-hop Shakespeare Company
12 presumption to think that a stage-to-film transition is easier than a novel-to-film transition because of having a “ready” text available.
1.5 Jorgen’s Adaptation Topology
The classification by Jack J. Jorgens in Realizing Shakespeare on Film was opted for this thesis, as his topology explains the relationship between theatre and modes (styles) of drama adaptations in a better way. The identification of the gap between theatre and film on the subject of comparison and consistence of two narratives, urged him to differentiate the film adaptations “by measuring their relative distance from the language and conventions of the theatre”12: the theatrical modes, the realistic mode, and the filmic mode. These modes simplify the process of designation and determine the expectations of the applied cinematic elements. In the theatrical mode “the performance is conceived in terms of the theatre, and the text does not need to be heavily rearranged,”13 thus keeping the integrity of the text. The mode operates with the theatrical elements and is usually referred to as a television adaptation, because time and space do not follow cinematic devices and practices. Referring to the performance techniques, it is safe to say that in this mode a cast is usually “more demonstrative, articulate, and continuous than actors are usually permitted in films.”14 This mode considers the text to be of central focus. It rarely violates a notion of fidelity, and does not allow itself major discrepancies, which implicates a static performance. The realistic mode is the most preferable choice for an adaptation, because of its shift towards objectivity. The distinctive feature lies in a reorganization of the source text in a manner to disguise or omit overacting and artificial nature in a presentation with the help of the non- theatrical elements. It tends to withdraw from the histrionics towards naturalism. The author also reminds us that “details must be given the proper emphasis, be powerful and significant yet also subordinated to an overall resign, lest they obscure what is important.”15
12 Jack J. Jorgens, “Realizing Shakespeare on Film,” Shakespeare on Fim, (New York: University Press of America, 1991) 7. 13 Jorgens 8. 14 Jorgens 8. 15 Jorgens 9-10.
13
The adaptations generated within a framework of the third, filmic mode, deviate from the features of the realistic one, sometimes undermining a generally accepted and established perception of the play. These adaptations are unrestricted in interpretation, they “take advantage of the film power to tell the story […] and acknowledge the importance of everything that is not literal in Shakespeare's plays”16 yet provokes criticism on both sides of public opinion.
16 Jorgens 10-11.
14
Chapter 2: Hamlet by Lawrence Olivier 2.1 Introduction
The adaptation by Olivier is the first solid rendition of the Shakespearean play released in the cinema. It is noted for its substantial reduction of the text and filmed leaning towards the theatrical elements during its production. In respect to its interpretation, Olivier implemented several emphases, some of which were not explicit in Hamlet. He decided to build his film around an insight into a mother-son relationship, exploiting the Oedipus complex17, and make it the principal issue. The Freudian reading becomes the central reason for Hamlet’s motivation in his revenge, and explains his indecisiveness and his behaviour in general. In his work “The Oedipus Complex as an Explanation of Hamlet’s Mystery: A Study in Motive” Ernest Jones, the student of S.Freud, expanded the definition of the third stage of the psychological development, which enabled Olivier to proceed with this theory and provided him with more information on this delicate matter. The principal reason for this direction in a treatment of the text is mentioned the interview with Kenneth Tynan, where Olivier claimed that,
It was an absolute resolution of all the problems, concerning Hamlet. At least it gave one a central idea that seemed to fill the great vacuum left by all the crossed ideas about Hamlet.18
It is speculated, that another possible predicament for that representation of the play could be the accident that happened during Olivier’s childhood. Combined with the conflicted relationship with his father, continual arguments and doubts regarding his sexuality could influence this decision.
17 The Queen’s sensual nature, and her passionate fondness for her son corroborate the assumption that as a child Hamlet had experienced the warmest affection for his mother, and this, as is always the case, had contained elements of a more or less dimly defined erotic quality. (Ernest Jones, “The Oedipus Complex as an Explanation of Hamlet’s Mystery: A Study in Motive,” The American Journal of Psychology (1910) 98. 18 Kenneth Tynan, Laurence Olivier, “Great Acting”, Video Interview, 1966, 7 Jun. 2015.
15
2.2 Manipulations with the Text
During the adaptation process, the usual manipulations with the text are rearrangements, eliminations and additions. The selected approach and a time frame demanded all types of these readjustment to assert the implicit idea and fit the production requirements. The text had to be abridged to fit a two and a half hour limit requested by producers, which constricted the amount of the text twice its size. Subsequently, it had to eliminate certain characters (e.g. Cornelius, Voltimand, Reynaldo, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Fortinbras), several soliloquies had to be deleted (‘O, what a rogue and peasant slave I am’, ‘How all occasions do inform against me’, etc.) and some scenes had to be rearranged to create the desired tone of the film. Later Olivier said that this was “a downsized version of Hamlet for those who have no possibility or are not capable to grasp the original.”19 The filmmaker deleted the political dimension by eliminating of The Norwegian King. Hence the seventh soliloquy has to be omitted because it follows the conversation with the Captain and reminds Hamlet that the consequences of the King’s, his father’s, death influence the entire country. Yet the chosen concept treats the act of revenge as a personal matter only, which appeals to the self-exploration and inner meditation more than physical conflict and war matters. Compared to the play, the role of the King is limited exclusively to that of a father, though during the Elizabethan period, it was a universal symbol of the nation and represented his subjects and their well-being20, thus would be the major reason for his country’s distress. The decision to leave out Rosencrantz and Guildenstern deprived the interpretation of almost all the humour. The dialogues and verbal confrontations between these two characters and Hamlet fill the play with mockery and demonstrate the protagonist’s aptitude for satire. However, Olivier strives to grant his protagonist the sense of alienation to the greatest extent possible. This extraction removes the “evidence of clever royal scheming against Hamlet,” 21 which makes Polonius, ironically the only source of a comic relief, the initiator in plotting against the Prince. Another example of the text alteration occurs in a scene of Hamlet eavesdropping on Polonius and Claudius. The former offers the King to use Ophelia as a provocateur, which later
19 Alexandr Lipkov, Šekspirovskij ekran (Moskva: Isskustvo, 1975) 118. 20 William Shakespeare, Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, trans. Martin Hilský (Brno: Atlantis, 2005) 21. 21 Patrick J. Cook, Cinematic Hamlet : The Films of Olivier, Zeffirelli, Branagh, and Almereyda (Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2011) 36.
16 serves as a reason for the excessive cruelty towards her, as he becomes aware of her betrayal. This leads to an immediate reaction on Hamlet’s part, hence justifies the of positions between the fourth soliloquy, and the ‘nunnery scene’ confrontation. The following course of events presented this reposition as logical one and moved the plot closer to the climactic scene with Gertrude. It also changes the perception of the eminent ‘To be or not to be’ monologue.
2.3 The Forth Soliloquy
In the play Hamlet concentrates on the matters of human nature in general and continues to reflect upon action and inaction, whereas in the film he makes it a personal matter, supported by the recurring motif of betrayal, especially by women. It was realized as an inner monologue, and created an ambiance of the situation accompanied by William Walton’s elaborated musical score. It helped to develop the connecting thread with the protagonist’s unbearable pain and torment. Holden notices that Olivier’s Hamlet,
was to discover the stunningly simple truth that Shakespeare’s soliloquies might have been written for the cinema, which can solve all the old problems of staging them effectively by presenting them as ‘spoken thought’ – the words heard from unmoving lips, as the character’s face reflects the inner emotions.22
Technically, it was accomplished by the circling camera, which made its way around the castle perimeter and throughout its interior during the recitation. It followed Hamlet to the top of the castle, “to a shot of the cloudy sky, and then to an extreme close-up of the whorl at the top of his head, as if entering his skull”23 represented by a transition from rage to depression and back to passivity and self-analysis.
22 Anthony Holden, Olivier (Suffolk, Sphere Books Limited, 1988) 263. 23 Peter Donaldson, “Olivier, Hamlet, and Freud”, Society for Cinema & Media Studies (Texas: University of Texas Press, 1987) 34
17
2.4. The Setting and the Style of the Adaptation
Olivier is noted for balancing the elements of both media in his adaptation, to capture and recreate the atmosphere of Elsinore and at the same time to make it relevant for his interpretation. To benefit the picture and its tone, Olivier was inclined to film in black and white. The dark and grim surroundings allowed him to integrate the deep-focus24 as a dominant technical feature of the film, which is achieved much easier with black-and-white photography than with colour. It allowed the cinematographer, Ray Sturgess, to experiment with the shadow, which led to delicate visual compositions. For large ensemble scenes, lengthy takes and atmospheric long shots, deep focus seemed an especially invaluable tool in building a feeling of doom around the castle; “it was essential to create a sense of space and variety even though the action of the play barely gets beyond the moat.”25 Its repeated use also benefits the image of Hamlet’s alienation, which is its main advantage. On the other hand, it requires a viewer’s constant attention to details in the background and might distract from the main character in a frame, resulting in a theatrical mode of presentation. Supporting this statement, the set is not overburdened with decorations and props as it is done on stage, the light stays in sync with the events, and corresponds with the features of the theatre. Everyone speaks loud and clear and never stands with their back to the camera (audience). Emotions and movements are ostentatious. Some visual decisions did not seem to be justified and relevant, considering substantial rearrangements of the text. Olivier’s intent to focus on Hamlet’s inner emotions requires him to spend surprisingly a lot of time ‘walking through the castle’ and ‘going up the staircases’. The lengthy sequences of the set complemented by the actors’ words, did not add anything substantial to the plot.26 The castle interior looked unrealistic and empty, while its exterior reminded more of a fortress or a prison. Its labyrinth structure and Hamlet’s constant wanderings through the hallways and up and down the stairs reflect his state of self-flagellation, his confusion and incapability to find the answer. However, bearing in mind the length of the script, these sequences could have been shortened.
24 The style of photography that strives for sharp focus over the whole range of action is called ‘deep focus’ photography. While there are a number of exceptions, deep focus is generally closely associated with theories of realism in film. 25 Holden 264. 26 Lipkov 115.
18
2.5 The Protagonist
According to the script, the Prince was not older than thirty, ten years younger than the lead actor. In order to conceal that fact, the audience was introduced to the first blond Hamlet. As an alternative reason for this change was actor’s reluctance for this role to be associated with his persona, than a character.27 As a result, this restyling hid ‘Lawrence Olivier’ but emphasized the prominence of the main character of Hamlet. Hamlet was always the central figure in the shot while the rest of the cast created a background. In the play, Hamlet is usually in a short proximity from someone and stays alone only to meditate. This film, however, separates him from the others to pursue a directorial goal, which holds an idea that “the frequent absence of human figures from the image was related to Olivier’s interest in Hamlet’s self-absorption.”28 The absence of action is very rare in film, and long silence resembles a theatre performance. Regardless of pauses indicted by the long setting sequences, it served as a translation of Hamlet’s emotions of doubt to the audience, and meant to enhance the feeling of Hamlet’s loneliness. The general impression of Hamlet is ambivalent. As the film epitaph suggests, he is a man ‘who could not make up his mind’, which is misleading. Olivier explained apologetically that he needed a simple cue for the many film spectators who normally would not see Hamlet, but the phrase did certainly not apply to Olivier’s powerful prince. 29 The director represents his protagonist as a thinker, fulfilling the expectations of the audience who entrusted him with the melancholic and indecisive traits of character. It is present, but in a rather passive-aggressive form. Hamlet can never take a simple view on any question, but always sees a number of different aspects and possible explanations of every problem.30 It reflects his nature of a warrior, whose volatility does not deprive his behaviour of the dynamism, but cannot demonstrate it fully due to the elimination of the political subtext. Whatever he does – runs, talks, fights, thinks – he is holding a dagger in his hand. Putting Jones’ interpretation of these objects, it proposes Hamlet’s readiness to fight. The inability to express this in action made him aggravated, and encouraged cruelty (e.g. with his mother, Polonius and Ophelia).
27 Holden 260. 28 Donaldson 37 29 Jay L. Halio, et al., Shakespeare, Text and Theater: Essays in Honor of Jay L. Halio (Delaware: University of Delaware Press ,1989) 126. 30 Jones 76.
19
2.6 The Closet Scene
The most controversial modification of the text occurs in Act III, Scene IV, ‘the closet scene’, alluding to the Freudian interpretation, and manifesting the Oedipus complex. After Gertrude invites her son to talk in her bedroom about the King, and Hamlet kills Polonius mistakenly taking him for Claudius, their verbal dispute escalates into a physical confrontation and abuse. The central object implemented for this climactic event is the bed of the royal couple, a symbol of their intimate relationships, where Hamlet demonstrates his intention to take a place of the husband. Hamlet’s discontent, resentment and anger with his mother’s behaviour reach its peak and result in “a blatantly erotic violence, where Hamlet convinces his mother to refrain from sexual intercourse with Claudius,”31 culminating in a passionate incestuous kiss. In this scene, the Freudian reading is explicit and manifests a ferocious-erotic pattern of the Gertrude-Hamlet relationship. It is full of various examples of semantic codes aligning the film with oedipal interpretation: the royal bed, which is an “abstract symbol, overstuffed, decorated with labial curtains”32; “Hamlet’s rapier and dagger are often treated in a way that underscores their potential phallic significance; and Hamlet and Gertrude kiss like lovers.”33 The Ghost evokes Hamlet’s repressed anger towards Claudius/father figure and love towards his mother that transgressed into pseudo-incestuous relationships.
2.7 The Ghost
In this adaptation, the Ghost image digresses from the usual presentation as a phantom of Hamlet’s murdered father, but is treated as one of the impediments for Gertrude’s attention. This derives into his visual presentation, which coincide with Shakespeare’s ‘conqueror’ ‘in complete steel’. His apparition is preceded by cock’s crow, as in the play, but is intensified by the musical
31 W. Reginald Rampone Jr, Sexuality in the Age of Shakespeare (California: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2011) 119. 32 Jorgens 27. 33 Donaldson 25.
20 component and “the pulsing, non-diegetic sound of a heartbeat that accompanies it”3435 and guides the emotions of the audience. Olivier’s Ghost explicates the demonstration of Hamlet as a solitary man by the appearance and demeanour that denotes both real and figurative distance between the father and the son. Such positioning and a lack of interaction and body language demonstrate no indication of close family connections. Despite the presence of two characters on the castle battlements, the camera focuses mostly on Hamlet’s head, identifying his consciousness. Compared to the play, it is very impersonal.
2.8 Conclusion
The Oscar-winning adaptation was a commercial success and carried out Olivier’s principal aspiration to restore public interest in Shakespeare and to popularize the renowned playwright and his work. Olivier was able to create “an exciting ongoing narrative and the film achieved unprecedented popular and critical success.”36 Regarding his ability to transfer theatre world on screen, it concluded well by James Agee:
In the strict sense, Olivier’s films are not creative works of cinematic art […], his films set up an equilateral triangle between the screen, the stage and literature. And between them they establish interplay, a shimmering splendour of the disciplined vitality which is an art.37
It is difficult to assign a definite mode of presentation to this adaptation, as Olivier utilized methods from both media during film production. It is not a full-scale cinematic work, due to the excessive mannerism, which he was criticized for, but it captures the main ideas of the original, adjusted to
34Kendra, “British Cinema History: Hamlet,” 20 Feb. 2011, 25. Oct. 2014
21 the selected interpretation. It is a thorough adaptation with an elaborate ideology and Olivier’s judgment on its aesthetics produces a distinctive example of cinema influential among other directors.
22
Chapter 3: Hamlet Franco Zeffirelli
The Italian director, producer, and screenwriter Franco Zeffirelli had already been involved with several Shakespearean stage to screen adaptations, like Romeo and Juliet and The Taming of the Shrew before he even considered Hamlet. This film, just like his previous ones, has “a highly distinctive style, suited to fulfilling its goals as a populariser”38, both of the play and its eponymous male character. Zeffirelli’s cinematic approach of pursuing that objective leans towards the realistic mode of presentation as opposed to the theatrical one by Olivier, who wanted to restore viewers' interest in Shakespeare too. Olivier was more concerned with the ability of the audience to understand the eternal classics of the renowned author, and attempted to simplify the text. Zeffirelli, however, strived to make his film a part of the popular culture, thus gambled on the cast, Hollywood style of narration, and tempo, which accelerated with time. He wanted to cast off the shackles of the theatrical performance and to explore its development on the open set.
3.1 The Cast
Zeffirelli set a goal to rediscover and create Hamlet engaging to the audience. By the end of the eighties and the beginning of the nineties, the main stress in the film industry, especially in Hollywood, was put on action films (so called “blockbuster movies”), and strong male characters (e.g. S.Stallone in Rambo, Rocky and Cobra (1986), A.Schwarzenegger in Commando (1985), The Running Man (1987) or B.Willis in Die Hard (1988)), who undoubtedly contributed to the approach and interpretation of the Hamlet persona development and his behaviour. The main purpose of such films was to entertain without posing any serious questions. To the general shock and surprise, this responsibility was put on Mel Gibson – a representative of the mainstream cinema (e.g. Lethal Weapon (1987), Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome (1985) etc.) and of Australian descent. Many were prejudiced about this choice, but in corroboration of his decision, Zeffirelli claimed that he was amazed by Gibson’s performance in Lethal Weapon (1987) as a policeman, who came back from the Vietnam War. Martin Riggs, who was exhausted by the constant pressure, being in a state of mental instability – was exactly the “walking on the edge”
38 Robert Hapgood, “Popularizing Shakespeare: The Artistry of Frenco Zeffirelli,” Shakespeare, the Movie eds. Lynda E. Boose and Richard Burt (London: Routledge, 1997) 84.
23 type of character Zeffirelli was looking for. He opted for Glenn Close (Fatal Attraction (1987)), as the leading female actress, who was not a stranger to intensive thrillers, drama and complicated characters. Her Gertrude was given a larger significance than in the play. If in the Shakespeare’s text she personifies infidelity, alluding to Biblical Eve and a man’s (Adam) fall, in the adaptation she focuses on her son. Gertrude becomes an antithesis to Ophelia (Helena Bonham Carter) in regard of every feminine attribute. If Ophelia was a symbol of purity, virginity and passivity in her relationships with Hamlet, Gertrude radiated sexuality, passion, experience, and was not shy to initiate physical contact. Zeffirelli will demonstrate the Lethal Weapon and Fatal Attraction ambivalence based on yet another presentation of the Oedipus complex, explicated in the ‘closet scene’. It was possibly a case of a pure calculation to attract younger viewers, which led to the criticism that his eagerness to gain sympathies in the eyes of the audience and fulfilment of their expectations was set as a prime goal overshadowing the artistic one.
3.2. Film 3.2.1 Appearance To change Gibson’s appearance, meant to lose the appeal of an established character Zeffirelli was counting on. Therefore, there was no bleached hair or any other transformations of his look. His clothes are untidy and poky, he has baggy eyes, wrinkles, his beard is untended and he does not produce an impression of a prince or anyone of a high rank. As a result, he does not excel above the rest of the cast, yet he disguises his future outburst filled with anger, passion and over the top masculinity intensified with the oedipal motif. Hamlet's behaviour corresponds to a commoner’s than the Prince, whose status demands to follow rules, accepts limitations, and restrictions. The dominant colour is grey – in the setting, decorations and costume design. The only attire, which is distinguished in the general background, is Gertrude's and Ophelia’s disposition to white (Ophelia’s dress, or Gertrude’s long blond hair), which is ironic because being a colour of purity, it is associated with ‘infidelity’ and ‘betrayal’ of the female characters.
3.2.2 The Dichotomy of Gibson’s Hamlet The 1990 Hamlet challenges one’s traditional anticipation. Gibson presents the protagonist as a strong male figure, but difficult to interpret, not so much because of the emotional disorientation in his own intents but rather what became its motivation. The protagonist is a young
24 man, obsessed with his wish to revenge his father’s death. However, will this statement remain true till the end? His performance resides in outbursts of rage and ‘insanity’ realized by frequent vocal manifestations and multitudinous facial gestures. Gibson’s Hamlet generates many expressions complemented by the body language and accentuates every emotion with his gaze, mimicry, sounds and movement. To the audience’s delight, he went all “Mad Max” in his rendition, yet critics were overwhelmed with his excessive expressiveness, which was not in accord with the realistic mode this interpretation fell under. The psychological intensity of his character was inferior to violence and sexual tension. Zeffirelli’s Hamlet exploits the notion of duality regarding character's temper. He is an observer and an action figure. One moment there is an introspection, then once again an action. Therefore, the first half of the film is slightly slow and sluggish. It is deprived of a fast rhythm, energy and any enthusiasm. Instead the camera follows a pensive hero who hides himself from others to observe. Isolation becomes the main motif in the first part of the motion picture. On the subject of Hamlet’s behaviour and a general impression of this character, there is a slight homage to Olivier, who also isolates his protagonist from the general commotion. This alienation allows him to observe usually from above, e.g. looking down from the battlement or through the window, when he oversees the feast while hiding under his cloak,39 which suggests his reluctance to engage in any conversations. While Shakespeare’s Hamlet is given an opportunity to reveal the truth during the observations, Zeffirelli makes his protagonist realize some things on his own (e.g. in a ‘nunnery scene’ he did not eavesdrop anything but understood that Ophelia was in cahoots with Polonius and his uncle) to indicate his aptitude. The second part gathers its pace after the inciting incident of the Ghost apparition, when Gibson is allowed to finally act and go to an extreme with his expressiveness and madness. This sudden change of his behaviour puzzles the audience, regarding Hamlet’s mental state (whether he was really of unsound mind or not). Zeffirelli excluded almost all scenes with the Ghost, except for the one where he speaks to Hamlet, reveals who killed him, and asks for the retribution. The presentation is opposite to Olivier’s version. Zeffirelli introduces a Ghost, who resembles a human being more. This implies an existence of the more intimate connection between the father and son.
39 Kristen S. Kurzawski, “Hamlet and Hollywood: Using Film Adaptation to Analyze Ophelia and Gertrude,” (Yale: 2002), 7 Nov. 2014
25
However, this presumption is mistaken. The further analysis shows that in spite of the Ghost’s friendly spirit and his human form, Hamlet does not strive to lessen the distance between them. “The power of this scene is heightened by the unusually extensive separation40, after using the technique minimally before this privileged moment of father-son communication.”41 By the end, the attempt of the ethereal phantom to reconnect, while reaching out to his son, is unreciprocated, and met with rejection (Hamlet tries to cover his face). The audience sees no attachment whatsoever, which goes with the Oedipus complex theory. As the scene progresses, Hamlet’s emotional state is changing exponentially. From this point onward, his acts of violence start to occur more often. The incorporated violence become a dominant part of the narration, letting the plot accelerate, whilst granting the audience their anticipated dynamic course of events. Hamlet’s hot temper and constant unrestraint echo Gibson’s preceding film characters. He is ferocious with his mother, Ophelia, Polonius and even becomes physically aggressive with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, which actually did not take place in the play. In this scene, which occurred after the ‘To be or not to be’ monologue, Zeffirelli set their good humour against Hamlet’s rising anger, which explains the later entailed physical abuse. The aftermath of their actions was a rather brutal portrayal of the killing of his former friends.
3.2.3 Gertrude In this interpretation Gertrude is juxtaposed and at the same time complements Hamlet. She becomes his prime object of interest, surpassing Claudius, who killed his father, and Ophelia, whose character is not even entirely developed in favour of Hamlet and Gertrude’s relationship. The emphasis was shifted to concentrate on the development of the Oedipus complex. The created synergy between the Queen and her son is much stronger and palpable than with Polonius’ daughter. The fact that Glenn Close was the one to play this role was no coincidence. It gave away who was supposed to be a centre of the confrontation. The audience tends to entrust actors with the certain features typical of the characters they played before and relies on these expectations. Glenn Close, as the representative of the mainstream cinema, was of them. Zeffirelli tries to bring together two worlds of different types of psychological disorders interspersed with psychotic
40 A sequence of subjective shots/reverse-shots that alternate presenting one interlocutor alone on screen. (Cook 17). 41 Cook 17.
26 breakdowns based on sexual disturbances. Regardless of the audience, the awareness of the Freudian interpretation on a subliminal level, they expect some sort of a distortion emanating from the Queen. In Zeffirelli’s, interpretation, she is the initiator of the physical intimacy with Hamlet and acts upon it, crossing the boundaries typical for a mother.42 In a scene where she asks Hamlet to “cast thy nighted colour off, And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.” (Act I, Scene II), while proceeding with her request she embraces him and bestows on him too many kisses. His attempt to avoid it and distance himself from her are not successful, as she continues to compel with physical contacts that indicate intimacy beyond family relations, the anticipated climax of which occurred during the ‘closet scene’.
3.2.4 The Closet Scene The interaction between Hamlet and Gertrude in the bedroom is the most expressive and longest sequence in the film. Many assign the similar reasons Olivier had, which led to the implementation of the Oedipus complex. The bedroom scene becomes the climax of Zeffirelli’s film through its cinematic intensification of violence, both ‘lethal’ and ‘sexual’43. This scene is based on Hamlet’s advances towards his mother, accompanied by anger, and frustration. Either intentionally or not, Gertrude’s actions and appearance eloquently denote seduction. The present ambiguity of the scene is up to the audience to decide on what they see. Regardless whether the mother-son intense argument moves from “metaphoric to physical”44, it results into the pivotal shot, which prompts Gertrude to cardinally change her object of trust and love. “Unlike Olivier’s Gertrude, she seems to sense the truth of Hamlet’s claims.”45
3.4 Fidelity and Film Techniques
As Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationships are not of a primary concern in this adaptation, Zeffirelli decided to change places Hamlet’s fourth soliloquy and dialogue with Ophelia. The displacement of a rather aggressive re-enactment of the ‘nunnery scene’ lays ground for the future confrontation with Gertrude and distances Ophelia’s character from the importance of the Queen.
42 Cook 69-70. 43 Cook 89. 44 Cook 90. 45 Cook 91.
27
Zeffirelli took the emphatically-charged text of in the ‘nunnery scene’ (“Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?” (Act III, Scene I)), and moved it to after the ‘Mousetrap scene’. Hamlet addresses his last words to Ophelia with a haste, carelessly, interrupting her, and as everything happens during the general chaos, caused by a ‘play-within-a-play’, the disrespectful tone lingers here. It finalizes Ophelia’s and his interactions, and permits him to continue with the revenge. To concentrate on Hamlet’s madness and its consequences, as well as to speed up the pace of the adaptation and shorten the running time, the director either changed certain scenes, places, or omitted them entirely: there is no Polonius and Reynaldo dialogue, no introduction of either Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, or the ambassadors. Most of the directors work only with the ‘tragic’ aspect of Hamlet, forgetting about its comedy elements. Zeffirelli cuts a section of Act V, Scene II involving redundant messages of Osric and the unnamed “lord” to a mere fifth of its original length, eliminating all satire. Same as Olivier he excludes Fortinbras, leaving no place for the political side of the play and keeps it all strictly between the family members. To meet the time limits, shortening or eliminations of the soliloquies (even if they belong to the protagonist) are justified. The realistic mode, it was filmed in, is not against these modifications as the abundance of dialogues makes it look artificial and the audience cannot relate to it. Contrary to the theatre, in this mode of presentation emotions usually are accompanied by the non-verbal cues. In this motion picture, much of the information (character’s inner turmoil) is brought about with the help of the ‘gaze’. This type of non-verbal communication plays a critical role from the very beginning. The director invites his audience to look more rather than to listen. The very first scene is a vivid example of how one’s gaze can express various emotions and thoughts, such as Claudius’ interest in Gertrude, and her sudden change of the object of her affection once after the coffin is closed (all assisted by the musical score which differentiates the couples). Hamlet’s suspicions are evident from by the change of his facial expression, even though his face is almost all covered under the cloak. The main statement and the direction of the given interpretation are defined in the first scene. Zeffirelli reordered it to start with the King’s funeral, instead of the Ghost scene. Based on its visual organization, music accompaniment and dynamics between certain characters, it recaptures a familiar scene under the new angle, and indicates three principal personages. The
28 scene, as well as the rest of the film revolves around Hamlet, Gertrude and Claudius. As it has already been pointed out, this interpretation follows the Freudian analysis, but compared to Olivier, Zeffirelli takes it to another level in the actual execution, making it more explicit. The funeral along with various death omens and symbols imbued the entire narration. It becomes a central motif which tied these three characters together. Zeffirelli’s decision to put this scene first was to cycle it with the death of the protagonist.
3.5 Conclusion
Zeffirelli set himself with a difficult task – to handle Shakespeare’s work in a manner, which would be in accord with the trend of the public opinion on films. His approach resulted in the multiple rearrangements and abridgments of the text, a specific cast, which provoked many complaints, but most importantly, he changed the focus of Hamlet and the main reason for emotional confrontation between the characters. “Unlike Olivier, Zeffirelli’s film has fully replaced the play’s Renaissance mystique of kinship and power with the more accessible values of oedipal attraction”46, and evolved it. The director introduced the characters who could make a decision without any assistance, the real action heroes (especially Hamlet and the King), who prefer to act rather than meditate or reflect about a possible outcome. Not to over-elaborate the viewers with the unfamiliar lexis, he exchanged it with the body language and facial expressiveness, which was easier to read and left it to the audience, and not critics, to assess the result.
46 Cook 103
29
Chapter 4. Hamlet by Kenneth Branagh
4.1 Widescreen Opulence Four Hours Long
It is a straight adaptation of Shakespeare’s play, which is usually described as beautiful, epic and tragic. Branagh is notable for his ability “to mix Olivier’s attention to the spoken text with Welles’s fascination with camera angle and editing, and Zeffirelli’s visual and musical romanticism”.47 The focal idiosyncratic features of this version are its length and format it was filmed in. Branagh was the first director who entrusted himself with an ambitious and intricate task to transfer all of Hamlet on screen text to share with others the power of Shakespearian dramaturgy. This liberated him from typical accusations regarding the faithfulness to the original script, but set a range of other problems caused by its duration. The decision was also motivated by the curiosity and wish to “see how much an audience might be encouraged to take it or to sit through it, and the reaction […] to that amount of dialogue.”48 This is the only motion picture of four that does not require its audience to address the original. Needless to say, the words lead the play, but image leads the film. The second peculiar feature – 70mm format – allowed to introduce a more elaborate presentation of the familiar play, and to provide it with the visual grandiosity and pompous tone, but kept it within the margins of the realistic mode. This format allowed to produce a magnificent quality of every frame and close- up which engaged the audience into the dramatic turmoil impossible to recreate in theatre. The recitation of the last soliloquy illustrates this technique. The protagonist is seen standing outside, while the camera is zooming out for a pullback shot. A vast landscape is revealed to be covered with a numerous army of Fortinbras, implying an imminent danger which approaches the Prince. This deliberate overlapping “contrasts the heroic deeds of Fortinbras and Hamlet’s own lack of action”.49
47 Samuel Crowl, “Flamboyant Realist: Kenneth Branagh,” The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film, ed. Russell Jackson, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2000) 224. 48 Cook 106. 49 Martin Coyle, “The Tragedies of Shakespeare’s Contemporaries,” A Companion to Shakespeare's Works, A Companion to Shakespeare's Works: The Tragedies, eds. Richard Dutton and Jean E. Howard,Vol.1, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003) 44.
30
Simply put, Branagh was able to experiment with an image in a higher resolution. Widescreen technology opens new possibilities “for horizontal movement and composition50” and aside from a significantly better picture, it helps the aesthetic eye of a viewer to notice a larger scope of cinematic details, thus reduces the need of constant close-ups – a film device which assists in conveying the emotions of the characters. The full script implicates the preservation of the political issue, impersonated by Fortinbras, omitted in the preceding works. This relocate the focus from the family matters only, as it was done in Olivier’s and Zeffirelli’s. This adaptation also treats King’s death as a private matter, which yet led to public consequences. It implies that the King was not only a father, but a head of the country. Fortinbras’ presence is realized by the means of insets, which Branagh uses in abundance, throughout the narration. It comes to the fore every time the main characters submerge into the matters of Elsinore or forget about the external unrest, conducted by the Norwegian King.
4.2 The Setting
The story was moved to the nineteenth century, and the reason behind this is explained in the interview to Michael Bergeron, where Branagh states that,
Our Hamlet setting is impressionistic. We're not going for a particular year and particular country. We borrow shapes and images from the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs. Just a general sense of a period where large, extended royal families rule Europe, and were always arguing, always changing the borders, and there's always intrigue and scandal, mad princes. Hamlet is not about 1850 in Russia; it is just a good point to start from.51
The intent of such alterations was to deviate from the time and space constraints and to demonstrate the versatility of topics brought up in the Shakespearean work. The period is not of a main concern, but the events are.
50 Cook 106 51 Michael Bergeron, “Kenneth Branagh Reflects on Hamlet,” (Houston: Huston Public News, 1997), 22 Mar. 2015,
31
According to Branagh the image on screen should be memorable. Provided with the visualization devices of cinema, he could divide the space into two, and juxtapose them, which obliquely reminds of Hamlet’s inner confusion. The most prominent and noticeable example is the Blenheim Castle, which was altered into the ostentatious Castle of Elsinore, set against the cold and gloomy exterior, hold by the gates. The splendour and grandeur of the interior can be observed in every shot, with the mirrored hall, where the notorious soliloquy is recited, among other places. Every shot inside the castle holds the aura of the royal family: a bright light, vivid colours and elegantly tailored men and women, whereas the outside is associated with the death and danger: a bloodcurdling encounter with the Ghost in the woods, a conversation with the Gravedigger, and a place where the political threat was coming from. However, an attentive viewer is capable of noticing the juxtaposition inside the castle as well. On the outside “it is majestic and its public rooms are ‘light and airy’, yet a ‘murky underside’ is revealed in the ‘darker and seedier’ look behind closed doors.” 52 This way Branagh confronts private and public matters, which are sometimes fused, but stay divided for the audience due to the use of visual and cinematic elements (e.g. in the scene, which corresponds Act I, Scene II, Hamlet’s arrival disturbs the King’s address to his subject and initiates a conversation on family matters. It is executed by the “separation close- ups that draw the viewer into the suspense of shifting reactions communicated largely through the character’s eyes” 53). Hidden passageways or rooms of the castle identify protagonist’s inner thoughts and emotional confrontation – a place where he can observe others, and think out loud (soliloquies). This style of performance returns us to the site of Olivier’s adaptation and his labyrinth-castle, sustaining his adaptation as influential.
4.3 The Cast
Branagh was fortunate to feature a stellar cast of eminent actors, whose faces were familiar to ordinary cinema-goers: Derek Jacobi as King Claudius, Julie Christie as Queen Gertrude, Kate Winslet as Ophelia, Michael Maloney as Laertes, and others.54 Despite this plethora of actors was referred to as irrelevant, the director simplified the task of navigating among the numerous faces,
52 Robert Hapgood ed., Hamlet, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 94. 53 Cook 113. 54 The cameos were notable as well, including Robin Williams, Gérard Depardieu, Jack Lemmon, Billy Crystal, Rufus Sewell, Charlton Heston, Richard Attenborough, Judi Dench among others.
32 especially for those who have never seen Hamlet. Even though he was following the steps of Olivier in multitasking (a lead role, a director, and a screenplay writer), his persona was guiding the viewer through the collaborations with the rest of the cast which had even screen presence, and encouraged the development of every character, regardless of their contribution. The actors’ delivery is sharp, emotional, but not dramatic (though half of the cast are theatrical actors) nor oversteps the realistic presentation.
4.3.1 The Protagonist and his Milieu Every close-up demonstrates that Hamlet is a strong, decisive (to an extent), straightforward and serious man, whose robust presence and masculinity is observed throughout the entire picture. Compared to the play, Hamlet’s first lines are not verbalized, but realized as a voice-over statement. This entails that they are meant for the audience, as the only trustworthy recipient. As a tribute to Olivier, Branagh bleached his hair platinum blonde, however it did not segregate him from the rest of the cast as it did with Olivier. Hamlet’s appearance finds its counterpart in another Dane, his uncle. It can be written off to their ethnicity, but the doubling approach coincides more with the theme of mirrored structures, implemented and demonstrated during the film either literally or as a subtext. In this adaptation the relationship between Gertrude and Hamlet occupies an inferior position, as Branagh does not speculate about any feasible sexual innuendoes between these characters, but keeps close to the text and concentrates on Hamlet’s relations with Claudius and Ophelia. There is neither inappropriate physical contact, nor meaningful glances. His mother becomes a concern solely during the closet scene, merely to demonstrate Hamlet’s faithfulness towards his father, and his determination to wreak vengeance upon his uncle. Compared to the previous feature films Branagh’s Hamlet shows a different spectrum of emotions towards Ophelia. He demonstrates a genuine affection, and has faith in her virtue, till the moment when she withholds the information about her father’s whereabouts. If Gibson was showing disgust in this scene and beneficial termination of any relationships, Branagh showed disappointment and later anger, provoked by her betrayal, but not against women in general. This interpretation added the flashbacks of their intercourse, to eliminate the ambiguity of their bond in the play, and indicate more intimate connection between those two characters, justifying Ophelia’s madness later.
33
The diversified mimicry typical to the cinema was intrinsic to the protagonist, but was not overstated, as in Zeffirelli and Olivier, and maintained the realistic mode of the performance. During the first dialogue with the King, Hamlet’s body language was already signalling that he does not approve of his uncle’s actions and might even suspect something. Also, as a person who tries to conceal his awareness of the murder, his facial expressiveness is very legible and exposes his emotions. Branagh provides his audience with a down-to-earth Hamlet whose mental state does not raise any questions, yet his mind stays sharp in order to follow the events in the castle. Hamlet’s ongoing uncertainty is caused not by the weakness of his character, but because of the moral torments. The desperation to find someone he can trust and realization of how many people betrayed him urges Branagh to deepen into Hamlet’s psyche.55 Claudius is counterpoised on two levels: against Hamlet on private matters, and Fortinbras in the political world. The need to manoeuvre between both explained the alteration of his presentation to an efficient and resourceful politician, who hardly ever loses self-control (well- defined by the end of ‘the Mousetrap scene’), his proneness to stay calm and handle unforeseen tasks (reaction to Polonius death). Furthermore, Branagh digresses from the original by implementing a slap Claudius gives Hamlet. Being hardly the only public display of his temper indicates the tension and Claudius suspicion that Hamlet is aware of the truth. The confrontation is finalized with a kiss interposed to mock the King and make him stop. Hamlet’s relationship with the Ghost sets a hard task in a sense of re-enacting his reaction once he sees his father again, and as the Ghost is the only character who insists on Claudius’ implication in a crime, the justification of such has to be strong. Hence, Branagh decided to divide the sequence into three consecutive parts: progression from frightened, to move after their reconciliation; and appalled by the occurrence of the murder, an illustration of which was dramatically important as the familiarization with the grotesque rendition of the Ghost’s experience laid a foundation for the revenge.56
55 Hapgood Hamlet 94. 56 “Kenneth Branagh talks Hamlet ~ The Ghost Scene,” Video clip, Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., 6 Aug. 2009, 22 Mar. 2015,
34
4.3.2 Ophelia The character of Ophelia underwent certain transformations, comparing to the other adaptations and a play regarding her relations with Hamlet. Nevertheless, she kept an image of vulnerability. Winslet’s character is not a naïve girl, or an obedient daughter, but an adult, whose feelings for Hamlet are not that innocent and chaste. A series of insets, which show a consummation of their love, lead to believe that the physical relationship of these two characters reached its turning point, elided in the play. However, David Sauer suggests that “these insets are ambiguous, interpretable as either flashbacks or fantasies”57. There is no certainty if they are a projection of Ophelia’s desires or past events. Therefore, the audience is not entirely sure whether they can acknowledge that new level of their relationship development, yet the realization of this possibility makes their subsequent confrontation perceived in a more serious manner. In favour of it being a flashback testifies everyone’s assumption to look for Hamlet (after he killed Polonius) in Ophelia’s bed, supporting the idea of their extramarital relationships. Branagh also intensifies Ophelia’s madness by adding scenes of her being sprayed with water hoses. He refers to her as to a patient with mental disorders. It heightens a strong awareness of the problem and reminds of the tragedy and realism in that film.
4.4 Insets
In his adaptation, Branagh largely relies on the insets, film-within-a-film sequences that appear as flashbacks, or sometimes as hallucinations (e.g. The Prayer King’s speech).58 Such device is difficult to incorporate on stage due to the violation of continuity. The audience can follow the narration not only by the means of an audio perception, but also observe an actual recreation of the events that are described. Though not being favoured by many critics, Maurice Hindle disagrees with it, stating that intercuts,
not only offer an imaginative method of enabling the director to blend together the elements of film and theatre, they can also be seen as the cinematic equivalent of Shakespeare’s own
57 Cook 117. 58 Deborah Cartmell ed., “Kenneth Branagh’s ‘Definitive Film Adaptation’ of Hamlet (1996),” A Companion to Literature, Film and Adaptation (West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2012) ???
35
dramatic insets, film-within-a-film in dumb show which inform and entertain at the same time as a homage of the silent screen to the silent stage is presented.59
Interestingly the director resists visualizing the events that other films have made standard – Hamlet’s appearance in Ophelia’s closet, Ophelia’s drowning, Hamlet’s sea voyage and escape.60 This technique tends to mirror the words and intensify the scene, but the film director outplays some of those flashbacks by adjusting certain events, like in the scene with Hamlet’s letter addressed to Polonius’ daughter. Branagh’s Ophelia is the one who recites it (later overtaken by Hamlet), which alone with the imbedded flashbacks/fantasies provides it with a more personal and deeper meaning, and stresses the importance of the Hamlet-Ophelia relationships, while Polonius’ unceremonious behaviour towards her personal matters strengthens the negative perception of this character. If in the play this episode is treated as an example of a comic relief, in the motion picture Branagh deprives this character of any humorous undertone to make Polonius an embodiment of human sins and a symbol of slyness, which makes his later comparison with a rat justified. For that purpose there is a prostitute integrated into a scene with Reynaldo, to portray him as a person who mixes business with pleasure while smoking, drinking and giving instructions to spy on his son.61
4.5 “To be or not to be” and Mirrors
As most of the Hamlet’s soliloquies, ‘To be or not to be’ is filmed as one long take, to prevent anything to interfere with the stream of his thought. Branagh decided to step away from the classical manner and stage it as a dialogue with oneself. The execution of this scene would have been hard to achieve on stage as the camera dollies Hamlet, until he stands in front of the mirror reciting the monologue, and slowly eases into a close-up to focus on his reflection. (On stage an actor would have to either stand with his back to the audience, which is unacceptable, or use a prop in front of his face, but the intensity as well as the desired perspective would have been
59 Samuel Crowl, Screen Adaptations: Shakespeare's Hamlet: The Relationship Between Text and Film, (London: Bloomsbury, 2014) 125. 60 Samuel Crowl The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film 234. 61 Cook 122.
36 lost.) Not only by the means of the close-up shot the importance of his musings is stressed, but that seamless transition between ‘two Hamlets’ illustrates a confrontation with himself. Mirrors distort the reality and Hamlet’s absorption in his meditation erases the boundaries between the reality and his reflection. The perception of the scene is many-sided and raises a doubt whether he is addressing himself, or suspects someone’s presence behind the wall. Due to the distortion of the reality implied by mirrors, one cannot decide on who is the recipient, “for the dagger moves forward the men on both sides of the mirror”.6263 The mirrors, as a connotation of the source and symbol of truth, fit within the context of the succeeding ‘nunnery scene’, where Hamlet is forcing Ophelia in an aggressive manner to admit her betrayal, or “Go to the nunnery!” (Act III, Scene I). The scene of Claudius listening to Hamlet’s revelations is mirrored with the later sequence in the Confessional. Both times two characters are separated by a see-through obstruction, one unaware of another.
4.6 Conclusion
Branagh’s adaptation is an example of the grand approach to the text of the play. Its length and a wide high-resolution film gauge are designated as differential peculiarities, regarding the presentation, both exterior and interior. Keeping in mind than a usual span of concentration of the audience is twice shorter, Branagh was required to keep the pace rapid, the story emphasis clear, and to visualize as much as possible. However, it did not intervene with his intention to introduce his version of the play, altering several detail and scenes. He did not change substantially the theme of the original work, but intensified some particular events and characters, staying faithful to the text. Branagh stands away from the Freudian interpretation of the events. The only incestuous relationships he underscored were between Claudius and Gertrude, while Hamlet’s prime concern was to find the offender. Branagh does not keep his story confined within the grounds of Elsinore, but balances both private and political worlds, and demonstrates what repercussions one can have on another.
62 Cook 129. 63 For further information on Elizabethan notion of a ‘mirror’ see Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, tran. M.Hilský.
37
CHAPTER 5: HAMLET BY ALMEREYDA
The end of the twentieth century was productive in film adaptations based on Shakespeare’s works. The innovative approach resided in a modernization of the classical version in terms of its time element (e.g. Romeo + Juliet (1996) by Baz Luhrmann, featuring Leonardo DiCaprio; or Richard III (1995) by Richard Loncraine, featuring Ian McKellen). The final adaptation to analyse is the interpretation of Hamlet by Michael Almereyda, starring Ethan Hawke as the Dutch prince that takes place in contemporary New York – the main discrepancy motivated, not least, by cinematic tendencies. It is an account of young Hamlet who has difficulties with self- identification, perplexed by his father’s death, which, subsequently, aggravated his sense of alienation and self-confinement. Almereyda views Hamlet as a ‘son’, a part of a family unit, who is not an adult yet. He offers the audience a possibility to examine the nature of Prince’s actions, which obtain physical form in his video diary, the films he makes, the books he reads, and people he admires.
5.1 Alterations
The opening scene is modified. Almereyda immediately summarizes the preface of the story both visually, introducing the setting, and with the textual device, and proceeds with the soliloquy “I have of late, wherefore I know not lost all my mirth” (Act II, Scene II) readdressed from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (original text) to the audience, heightened by the means of a close-up. The relocation of this monologue suggests that Hamlet’s generic state of sadness is not influenced by the encounter with the Ghost. In the film, this alteration is intended to change the addressee of his words and impart them with a greater meaning. In contrast to the play, the main protagonist is the first person to appear in the frame. Hamlet’s first encounter with the Ghost takes place in his apartment, without the presence of the ‘guard’. This creates a sense of intimacy and grants Ghost a possibility to share this moment and information only with his son. The demonstration of the close proximity between two characters, results in a mutual embrace, though the progression of the dialogue, which indicates an imposition of power and strength on intimidated Hamlet, does not designate it. The Ghost exposes polar extremes in his feelings towards his son: love and aggression. The tone of the scene and
38
Hamlet’s defensive reaction is parallelized with the horror films, and Ghost’s anticipation of invitation prompts a vampire theme. “In accordance with the film’s emphasis on the private family, most of the postvisitation part of the scene is deleted.”64 This places a higher degree of significance on the Ghost, the father, than on Hamlet, opposed to the play. Hawke’s Hamlet is not presented as a typical action hero, a tendency which was the main interest ten years ago, however there were instances (absent in the play), motivated by his determination, e.g. a resolution to act immediately after his confrontation with the Ghost. This deviation from the original script provides the ground for the disclosure of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s real intentions, whose betrayal was intentionally delayed, due to Almereyda’s removal of the King’s request to spy on Hamlet. There is almost no contextual significance of the graveyard scene, which was abridged to several lines. It loses its function of a comic relief, and one of the signature features of the play – Yorick’s skull. Almereyda, however, foreshadows its appearance by insertion of the respective scene with John Gielgud, a Halloween skull, and later incorporates “a musical substitute for the material embodiment”65 of this object conveyed by Bob Dylan’s song ‘All Along the Watchtower’, a complex implicit narrative of which addresses topics like destiny, death, and mortality among others. This reduction also implies Hamlet’s awareness of Ophelia’s death, hence downplays the role of the deceased in a forthcoming graveyard scene and physical confrontation with Laertes.66
5.2 New Take on Familiar Figures
The main directorial decision regarding Hamlet’s appearance was the change of his age. He is a young aspiring filmmaker, “deeply disaffected by his parents’ corporate world.”67 In the interview, Ethan Hawke commented that the intent was to make Hamlet’s character as accessible as possible, and to allow the audience to experience the character's emotional life in a new way.68 Hawke’s portrayal of the Prince conveys the impression of a sensitive introverted character, who
64 Cook 180. 65 Mark Thornton Burnett, “To Hear and See the Matter”: Communicating Technology in Michael Almereyda's Hamlet (2000)”, Cinema Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, (Texas: University of Texas Press, 2003) 55. 66 Cook 210. 67 Cook 167. 68 Ross Anthony, “Interviews with actor Ethan Hawke and director Michael Almereyda of Hamlet”, 2010, 7 Sep. 2014,
39 is neither melodramatic nor fictitious, but compared to the other adaptations and the play, the most melancholic, prone to the behaviour untrue to his age, or even infantile. The core of his representations lies in the image of the contemporary youth. Aside from the personal matters in his family, his feelings indicate a general sense of disconnection entailed by the ambience of the postmodern New York. An original approach was applied to the character of Marcellus, who was transformed into a woman, and most importantly a lady friend of Horatio. This gender manipulation creates a gap between two friends, and prompts Hamlet to concentrate on Ophelia instead. In the film, Ophelia and her connection with Hamlet are given a more dominant role than Gertrude’s. This brings forward the love line of these characters, omitted in Zeffirelli’s and Olivier’s interpretations. To address this issue and to indicate their prolonged relationships, Almereyda offers the audience ‘letter sequences’. He incorporates the silent communication between Hamlet and Ophelia into Act I, Scene II. She seeks an opportunity to hand him her letter after the conference, but Laertes, Claudius, and Polonius preclude the possibility of this to happen, constraining her and her movements. Later, a coffee shop sequence follows Hamlet’s attempt to write a letter, sustaining the image of an enamoured person by the set of facial expressions. Furthermore, their emotions are conducted through the multiple examples of gaze during the close-ups and medium shots, by body language and gestures. To accentuate the importance of Ophelia, Laertes is positioned as another character to compete for her affection. Their sibling status impose an ambiguous impression upon his disposition towards her, observed in the scene of his departure. They are sitting in a too close proximity, while he is “pressing concern with his sister’s sexuality”69 and contemplates her with an equivocal look, perplexing the viewer on the nature of their relationship on his part. During their farewell embrace, Laertes discreetly steals her hairpin, most probably to keep it as a memento. Hamlet replaced the emphasis from the incestuous relationships between Gertrude and Claudius (in the play), or Gertrude and Hamlet (in Olivier’s or Zeffirelli’s adaptations) to the amorous advances of Laertes at his sister to contribute the cordial tone between Hamlet and Ophelia. The presentation of Polonius underwent significant alterations. Comparing to the play, his character is no longer referred to as the one who was employed for the comic relief, but as a father figure. The film “reshaped the Shakespearean narrative in accord with modern expectations about
69 Cook 177.
40 the primacy of private life”70 and family. The instructions he gives to his son, while Laertes is packing, or his urge to fasten Ophelia’s shoelaces during their almost one-sided dialogue about Hamlet, resemble and may be interpreted as a genuine concern about their well-being. His death is portrayed as an unfortunate course of events. His presence in the Gertrude’s bedroom was not motivated by pry, as in the Shakespeare’s text, therefore his death marks a more tragic general undertone, a change of perception, and outcome for Ophelia. The character’s ambivalence is expressed during the extensively cut dialogue scene with Hamlet. Maintaining the theme of paternalism, Amereyda deletes most of Hamlet’s lines. The same technique was used with Ophelia and Polonius, to establish the superiority of the Father character. The inability to confront their parents verbally reminds the viewer about their immaturity and dependence. Hamlet refers to his father with a mix of fondness, and fear, which is not associated with his ethereal form. Hawke’s character seems to disregard the Ghost’s supernatural origin, an opinion congruent during the Elizabethan times, but not in a modern-day New York, and treats him as a person. The retelling of the events of the murder is executed by the employment of a mimetic method similar to Branagh’s (Ophelia tells her father about Hamlet’s visit and his inadequate behaviour) adapted to the situation with the Ghost. Body gestures, coupled with his advantage on a verbal level, divert the focus from the protagonist.
5.3 Signs, Tone, and Cinematic Devices
The time and place shift is the first and furthermost discrepancy that affects the tone of the production. The contemporary New York City, specifically Manhattan, becomes a stage for Denmark. Its cinematic imagery is conducive to support the director’s argument of the protagonist’s inner state of mind, and confrontation with the city, noted for its globalization and urbanization. Almereyda refuses to begin with the opening scene written by the bard, in favour of the city seen through the skylight of the car. “The opening minute has abundantly characterized the world to which Hamlet is returning.”71 Compared to Branagh, whose method of filming constructed a linear continuity of the narration, Almereyda’s style is fragmented, aligned with Hamlet’s manner. Together with the camera movements, it “contributes to a better comprehension
70 Cook 178 71 Cook 166.
41 and an unravelling of a postmodern fractured reality.”72 The big city correlates with Hamlet’s emotion of detachment and isolation. On the way to the ‘Elsinore’ he drives through recognizable locations in Manhattan. The sequence is saturated with multiple advertisements, billboards, and company logos (e.g. Samsung, Panasonic, TDK Corporation), and illustrates the reality established on materialism and consumerism. This subject is also reminded by a constant use of product placement, which addressing the case, but interferes with the tone of the film. It diverts viewers’ attention from the narration, as they involuntary seek for the brands names. The presence of the city’s strong influence is enhanced by a low-angle shot, a cinematic device used to convey the power aspect. This recurring cinematic element is also used to assert the authority of Claudius, who holds a conference in the ‘Elsinore’ Hotel, and is shot from a lower angle. Almereyda incorporated Shakespeare’s polysemy into Hamlet aided by the cinematic devices that rely on intertextuality. However the elaborate symbolism demands substantial knowledge of attentive, and fully informed viewers. The following allusions surround the protagonist during the entire film to foreshadow the tragic outcome or parallel the melancholy Dane with many doomed and damaged heroes73: a book by Wiktor Woroszyski Life of Mayakovsky, Curt Cobain (both committed suicide), photos of Che Guevara and Malcolm X (forewarning Hamlet’s death by a bullet), an insertion of a non-Shakespearean text verbalized by the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh (guiding to the forth soliloquy), etc. The use of technology is constant and excessive. It is the main attribute of modernization and digitalisation, therefore all communication in the film is ensured by technically advanced devices. This method emphasizes Hamlet’s and Ophelia’s correspondence, consequently, their relationship even further. It subverts the familiar viewpoint on the Shakespearean text and allows to shorten the script more. Almereyda confronts the issue of technology as the evolving medium that lessens human contact, but at the same time is used by Hamlet to preserve the past memories. Hamlet “probes both the strengths and limitations of different memory technologies, including photography, film, video and digital video.”74 Ophelia treasures the childhood photos of Hamlet;
72 Monika Sosnowska, “New York City of 2000 as Pars Pro Toto in Michael Almereyda’s Hamlet”, Images of the City, eds. Agnieszka Rasmus and Magdalena Cieślak, (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009) 136. 73 Abigail Rokison, Shakespeare for Young People: Productions, Versions and Adaptations, (London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2013) 50. 74 Katherine Rowe, “Remember me”: Technologies of Memory in Michael Almereyda’s Hamlet”, Critical Commons, 7 Jan. 2015,
42 the Prince constantly re-watches home videos of his father, citing this as the only method capable to revive their memories. The ‘Mousetrap’ sequence exhibits yet another example of fragmentation emblematic to the postmodern representation of the thought. It is quick, disintegrated and rich with symbolic concepts, metaphors and associations. Its experimental execution complies with the filmic mode of presentation, the most compelling in realization, which usually generates a varied range of responses. Its form was no longer a play-within-a-film, but a film-within-a-film, which eliminated any necessity in players, and their respective dialogues. It allowed to disregard more of the original text. In the play, there is an unidentified part of ‘some dozen or sixteen lines’ (Act II, Scene II) added by Hamlet, which leaves the audience wonder which words are the expression of his thoughts. Although it is not an original motion picture, but an accumulation of extracts from various films and animation, the entire product is filmed by Hamlet, which annihilates similar speculations that were in the play. The ‘Mousetrap’ can be referred to as Hamlet’s apprehension of the family, or the portrayal of his idealized family life prior to the murder. It transforms Shakespeare’s dumb play-within-a-play into a dreamlike narrative based on Conner’s 1978 Valse Triste and set to classical music of Tchaikovsky.75 It begins with a slow pace display of a boy and his father, but as the film progresses the alternation of shots accelerates, which intensifies the effect on Claudius (an animated poisoning scene) and Gertrude (a pornographic film Deep Throat (1972)). The location of the main characters was rather disadvantageous, as Hamlet had to twist his head back and forth to follow Claudius response that disclosed his intentions completely. Additionally it implied an infantile behaviour fortified by his jump up on the chair, to demonstrate his brief superiority.
5.4 Conclusion
Almereyda’s adaptation of Hamlet is an interesting example of experimental filmmaking, a fusion of the realistic mode supported by the filmic one. It introduces the familiar story under a new angle, and explores the ways a time and place transition can change its perception. The adaptation is noted for its concentration on private matters with enveloped social issues of
75 Cook 194
43 consumerism and urbanization; the young generation, and their relationships within a family, especially father figures. Almereyda’s Hamlet is the youngest and most melancholic compared to three previous adaptations and the play. The faithfulness to the original script is not preserved, however it does not interfere with the fragmented style of the film and its main themes. This version has almost no signs of humour, and the character of Fortinbras is always referred to but never vocalized, which leaves the political subject undeveloped. One of the problematic issues is in combination of the Elizabethan vocabulary and the contemporary setting of New York.
44
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
The central focus of the thesis are four film adaptations based on the play The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare. It examines two types of media: theatre and cinema, their differences and features they have in common. The primary concern of the adaptation process is the ability to translate a play from its theatrical form into the product, which belongs on the silver screen. As a groundwork for comparison, the thesis uses film adaptations by Laurence Olivier, Franco Zeffirelli, Kenneth Branagh, and Michael Almereyda. Their directorial works assist in the analysis of the main aims and problems of adaptation. They address the issue of complexity of textual, and cinematic manipulations, required to produce an independent work of cinematography, the work that captures ideas of the author, yet provides a new interpretation indented by its director. The thesis introduces us with the complicated process of the transformation of the play. Due to “their structural similarities, theatre and film interact more often than do other arts,”76 however it does not entail a simplification of the transition for the filmmaker, especially the screenwriter. It is evident from a common misconception that a film screenplay equals the original script. The comparison of two media, film, and theatre, provides with the basic insight about the narrative devices. Those techniques help to navigate within the specific production, and their elaborate use results in a solid cinematic product. The proposed topology by Jack J. Jorgens differentiates between three modes an adaptation can be filmed in. Each consists of defining attributes that allow to classify the film interpretation. This topology is important as it assigns the adaptation a status of the cinematic work, and as Jackson argues,
Only by placing them in the cinematic traditions that make their production possible and that shape and inform their meaning can we engage the actual film product before us, rather than our preconceptions, based on knowledge of the Shakespearean text and its critical and performance traditions.77
76 Monaco 62. 77 Harry Keyishian, “Shakespeare and Movie Genre: the Case of Hamlet,” The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film, ed. Russell Jackson, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 73.
45
The length of the play poses a problem for filmmaker, as it necessitates elimination of the characters, subplots, and concepts to follow the required film conventions, thus affects the outcome. Four cinematic examples demonstrate their treatment of the events. They present how a time component, a theme focus, a mode of presentation, and its devices manifest in the adaptation. The adaptation by Olivier filmed in 1948 is the first cinematic adaptation of Hamlet. It is defined by a considerable use of theatrical techniques, like mannerism, externalized actions, and gestures. The performance is built around the protagonist, which impedes the development of the other characters. Despite the noticeable exclusions, elimination of several soliloquies, and disregard of certain motifs, Olivier keeps the intended ‘a man who could not make up his mind’ tone of the film. The implementation of a new one, that explores Oedipus complex revolving around Gertrude and her son, obliges reorganization of the original script. This ideological change becomes the influential, and recurring theme in the adaptations that followed, including Hamlet by Zeffirelli. The adaptation filmed by the Italian director develops the oedipal undertone more and intensifies its presentation. The film alienates from the melancholic demeanour of Olivier’s protagonist, and presents his Hamlet as the action hero (the director largely relies on Gibson’s perception by the audience), which was a tendency at the end of the nineties. Comparing to the previous rendition, Hamlet’s behaviour bears in mind the similarity with his eponymous character in the play. Zeffirelli frequently uses the film device – gaze. It conveys and identifies the information about the emotional state of the characters visualised in a close-up. The adaptation also removes a subplot concerned with Fortinbras to concentrate on private matters. The filmmaker handles the main topics in a different way than the play did, but manages to preserve the continuity of the narration and works within a frame of cinematic techniques, and realistic mode. Branagh’s adaptation (1996) is by today the only full translation of the play on screen, and maintains the integrity of the text. He incorporates insets and flashbacks to keep his full-text adaptation visually intensified. The film’s grand tone is complemented with the widescreen shots, and the picturesque setting. This adaptation focuses on a juxtaposition of two spheres, private and public, their reciprocity, and interaction. Branagh is not faithful to the time and place element, and introduces the multinational cast, to heighten the universality of the play. In terms of the cast he argues that “the man belongs to everyone […] across the cultures, across sexes, [which explains]
46 the accent-blind, nationality-blind, colour-blind casting.”78 The idiosyncrasy of this adaptation is the representation of Claudius, as a clever, rational and provident leader of the country, whose imperturbable equanimity is almost undisturbed. His character is often contrasted with Hamlet. The problem of such a time-consuming adaptation is set in the ability to provide a relatively climactic scene, or cinematic stress (neither the Ghost scene, nor the final duel produced an anticipated effect). Regardless of it, Branagh keeps the centrality of the revenge till the end. The fourth interpretation of the Shakespeare’s play has the largest quantity of alterations, especially regarding its time and place component. Branagh illustrated his idea of the universality of the text using the cast and an undefined place, while Almereyda redirects the events of the play in the urbanized New York City. Compared to the play, the presentation of the main character is changed. The protagonist is rejuvenated, and the Ghost and Polonius characters develop in a context of a father figure to stress the family unit. Hamlet diverges from the retaliation, in favour of the love theme. These factors, subsequently, entail a ‘reconstruction’ of the original script enhanced by the visual instruments. Almereyda’s use of multiple examples of the cinematic allusions reflects and defines the emotional state of the characters, especially Hamlet’s, and foreshadows the approaching events. As a result, this adaptation is marked as the filmic one. The literary legacy of the ‘Bard of Avon’ attracts both English-speaking and international directors. His works, Hamlet in particular, continue to be adapted into films and television series, become a source of inspiration, not only on screen, but on stage, in animation, songs and literature. Some adaptations tend to exploit different topics than their predecessors, integrate obscenity, expand the concept of violence and indecency. Others follow the subject matter of the play and stay within its context (e.g. a television adaptation Hamlet (2009) directed by Gregory Doran and featuring David Tennant as Hamlet). Regardless of the premise, Hamlet continue to fascinate even after five hundred years.
78 Denise Albanese, “The Shakespeare Film and the Americanization of Culture,” Marxist Shakespeares, eds., Jean E. Howard, Scott Cutler Shershow, (London, Routlege, 2001) 225.
47
Bibliography: Primary Sources: 1. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark. Trans. Martin Hilský. Brno: Atlantis, 2005. 2. Hamlet. Dir. Michael Almereyda. Prod. Andrew Fierberg and Amy Hobby. Universal- International. 2000.
3. Hamlet. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. Prod. David Barron. Columbia Pictures, 1996. 4. Hamlet. Dir., Prod. Laurence Olivier. Universal-International. 1948. 5. Hamlet. Dir. Franco Zeffirelli. Prod. Warner Bros. 1990.
Secondary Sources: 1. Albanese, Denise. “The Shakespeare Film and the Americanization of Culture.” Marxist Shakespeares. eds. Jean E. Howard and Scott Cutler Shershow. London, Routlege, 2001. 2. Anthony, Ross. “Interviews with actor Ethan Hawke and director Michael Almereyda of Hamlet.” 2010. 7 Sep. 2014.
48
9. Corrigan, Timothy. “Literature on Screen, a History: in the Gap.” The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. eds. Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan. Leicester: De Montfort University, 2007. 10. Coyle, Martin. “The Tragedies of Shakespeare’s Contemporaries.” A Companion to Shakespeare's Works, A Companion to Shakespeare's Works: The Tragedies. eds. Richard Dutton and Jean E. Howard.Vol.1. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003. 11. Crowl, Samuel. “Flamboyant Realist: Kenneth Branagh.” The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. ed. Russell Jackson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2000. 12. Crowl, Samuel. Screen Adaptations: Shakespeare's Hamlet: The Relationship Between Text and Film. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. 13. DeKoven, Lenore.Changing Direction: A Practical Approach to Directing Actors in Film and Theatre. Taylor & Francis Group, 2013. 16 Jul. 2015.
49
22. Kendra, “British Cinema History: Hamlet,” 20 Feb. 2011, 25. Oct. 2014
50
35. Sosnowska, Monika. “New York City of 2000 as Pars Pro Toto in Michael Almereyda’s Hamlet.” Images of the City. eds. Agnieszka Rasmus and Magdalena Cieślak. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009. 36. Tynan, Kenneth. Laurence Olivier. “Great Acting”. Video Interview. 1966. 7 Jun. 2015.
51