In Zeffirelli's take on Hamlet, actor Mel Gibson portrays a frantic and
vengeful protagonist. Hamlet was extremely grief stricken from his father’s
death and was not comfortable with his mothers quick remarriage to his uncle.
With that being said, Hamlet’s mood throughout the scene was irrational. The ghost however, talked in a very
informative tone. The lighting in the scene was very dark, it definetly took a
way from the importance of the scene because I could barely see the ghost’s
facial expressions. However, I think Zeffirelli used this type of lighting to emphasize how
deep the scene truly was. Near the end of the scene, Hamlet’s anger builds up
and he becomes very distraught. His prop, a sword is what he uses to release his
anger. During a monologue, he swings it back and forth and stabs it in rocks as
he watches his mother and uncle display their affection. I believe that this is
symbolism and foreshadows something tragic that will occur in the future.
Branagh’s version of Hamlet was the most dramatic out of the three.
Surprisingly, Branagh did not use Hamlet as a major contributor to the scene. Majority of the
excitement came from the special effects and the ghost of Hamlet. As Prince
Hamlet ran through the woods to find his fathers ghost, he anxiously shared his
thoughts (that was most of his words throughout the scene). On the other hand, the ghost of King Hamlet had A LOT to say. He spoke
in an eerie type of whisper as he told Hamlet about how he died. The lighting
was perfect, there was a bluish type of tint the complemented the special
effects really well. The flashback of King Hamlet being poisoned provided a
graphic visual of his death. It also showed a quick glimpse of how Claudius
felt after he murdered his brother; guilt.
Almeryda’s version differed from the other two in many ways. This scene was really bright and I felt like I could believe this one more. The ghost looked like an average man and the setting was in a messy NY apartment. The director added many delicate things to the scene that added to the climax. The ghost kept wiping his ear because that's where Claudius placed the poison. The ghost was very touchy feely, consistently pushing Hamlet into the wall. The ghost also hugged Hamlet at the end of the scene (making the scene more realistic). Hamlet's fear played a big part in this. Since he was being pushed and shoved he had this look of fright in his eyes. You weren’t able to tell if he was going to act on what his father told him to do or if he was just going to continuing mourning his fathers death.
In conclusion I believe these effects made each of the versions unique. I disagree with some of the decisions made by the directors but it is kind of hard to say because i did not watch the whole movie.
I agree 100% with what Jordanne has to say about the first film. The lighting definitely takes away from viewing and understanding of the facial expressions of the characters. In the third film, I disagree about being able to believe in that film more. It just did not feel like a Shakespeare play and how Shakespeare, himself, would have wanted it.
ReplyDeleteYes Jordy I feel the same way about everything. They were all unique in their own way but when it came down to it was all about the same scene. Yeah I agree definitely on the third video it was more realistic and you could relate to it more. You talked a lot on this topic but you always do great job Jordy!
ReplyDeleteI Agree with your thoughts on the first two film. However Almeryda's version did not appear to me the way it did for you. I thought his version was done without taking a second to think. Great commentary on the films and keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying completely. They each provide a different point of view. The first video's lighting did take away from the mood. The third video however was easier to relate to because of how it was interpreted.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with everything you said except for the Almerdya's version. I felt like the fact that he could touch him and was allat made it feel less real. But I love how you described each aspect of the film in great detail
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis. You synthesize all three versions well to compare and contrast them. I am interested in how you view this scene, though, and what you consider to be most important about it.
ReplyDelete