I have watched two interpretations of Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, one by Kenneth Branagh and one by Franco Zeferelli. The two interpretations are very contrasting and have very different styles. Branagh’s 4hour long version follows the script exactly whereas zefferelli’s only contains around 30% of the original script and is considerably shorter in length. In Branagh’s version all of the soliloquies are available to the spectator and this makes for a more accurate character portrayal. We can see all of Hamlet’s character, his confusion, melancholy, love and grief. In Zefferelli’s we miss some of these facets of the characters personalities and the audience would find it had to capture the whole of Hamlets character. Similarly, Branagh follows the Shakespearian tradition of using intonation and iambic pentameter to give the actor’s words rhythm and pace, whereas Zefferelli does not. Both directors have used colour, lighting, costume and surroundings to different effect. Branagh uses bright and contrasting colours like black, white and red. The black and white could perhaps symbolise the struggle between good and evil in Hamlets mind. On the other hand Zefferelli version is done in drab grey tones. Zefferelli uses eyrie lighting and shadows to create mood, atmosphere and tension in his setting. I think that branagh’s version is the better however a combination of the two would be outstanding. Zefferelli’s version lacks the in depth portrayal of the characters but he has got the settings almost perfect. Branagh’s version allows the audience to fully understand the characters feelings and personality. The problem is that the interior shots are too brightly lit, and never convey the aura of most castles we have seen in the movies. Considering all the dark, foreboding double-crossing transpiring, it would be more fitting that characters plot in the shadows and immerge in the grim forces they must face in an authentic looking atmosphere.
Hamlets character is shown through out all of his soliloquies. He is shown to be revengeful, cunning, plotting and deceitful. I also believe that hamlet is in turmoil. He is disturbed and shows this by insistently questioning himself. I have picked three soliloquies that show his character, personality and feelings best. Hamlets passionate first soliloquy reveals the reasons for his despair. In a disjointed outpouring of disgust, anger, sorrow, and grief, Hamlet explains that, without exception, everything in his world is either futile or contemptible. His speech is saturated with suggestions of rot and corruption, as seen in the basic use of world like “rank” and “gross”, and in the metaphor associating the world with “ an un-weeded garden”. The nature of his grief is soon exposed, as we learn that his mother, Gertrude, has married her own brother-in-law only two months after the death of her husband, Hamlets father, The King of Denmark. Hamlet even negates Gertrude’s initial grief over the loss of her husband. She cried “unrighteous tears” because the sorrow she expressed was insincere. Another striking juxtaposition in the soliloquy is Hamlets use of Hyperion and a Satyr to describe his father and his uncle. Hyperion, the titan god of light, represents honour, virtue, and regality; these are all traits belonging to Hamlet’s father, the true King of Denmark. Satyrs, the half-human half-beast represents lasciviousness and overindulgence, much like Hamlet’s uncle Claudius. It is no wonder that Hamlet develops disgust for Claudius. A final important contrast in the soliloquy is seen in Hamlet’s self-depreciating comment “ but no more like my father/than I to Hercules” This remark indicates Hamlet’s developing lack of self worth.
In addition to revealing Hamlet’s plot to catch his uncle in his guilt, Hamlet’s second soliloquy uncovers the very essence of Hamlet’s true conflict. For he is undeniably committed to seeking revenge for his father, yet he cannot act upon this due to his own revulsion toward extracting cold and calculated revenge. Hamlet’s sense of himself as a coward is derived from a crude, simplistic judgement turning on whether or not he has yet taken any action against the man who murdered his father. Determined to convince himself to carry out the premeditated murder of his uncle, Hamlet works himself into a frenzy. He hopes that his passions will halt his better judgement and he will then be able to charge forth and kill Claudius without hesitation. He then returns to an idea that had earlier crossed his mind, that of staging the play “The Mousetrap”. Hamlet is convinced that, as Claudius watches a re-enactment of his crime, he will surely reveal his own guilt. Hamlet cannot take the word of his Father’s ghost, who really might be “the Devil”, tricking him into doing evil. Thus, he must have more material proof before he takes Claudius’s life, he must “catch the conscience of the King”.
Unlike Hamlet’s first two major soliloquies, the third and most famous “to be, or not to be” speech seems to be governed by reason and not frenzied emotion. Unable to do little but wait for completion of his plans to “ catch the conscience of the King”, Hamlet sparks an internal philosophical debate on the advantages and disadvantage of existence, and whether it is one’s right to end his or her own life. These thoughts relate heavily to one of the main themes, suicide. Hamlet asks himself a question, is it nobler to live miserably or to end one’s sorrows with a single stroke? He knows the answer would be undoubtedly “yes” if death were like a dreamless sleep. The “rub” or obstacle Hamlet faces is the fear of “what dreams may come”, “the dread of something after death”. Hamlet is well aware that suicide is condemned by the church and is seen as a mortal sin. Ophelia who is saying her prayers interrupts hamlet’s soliloquy. Hamlet addresses her as “Nymph” and requests that she prays for him. This could perhaps be perceived as Hamlet being sarcastic, or perhaps as he emerges from his intense moment of personal reflection, he is genuinely implores the gentle and innocent Ophelia to pray for him.
Shakespeare stops using soliloquy after act 4. I believe he does this because he has no more time for thought. Hamlet has finally accepted his duty. He has driven himself to the conclusion that he has to go to war, to exact revenge on his uncle. At first he was greatly distressed over having to take revenge, but by act 4 he has overcome these feelings and commends the “imminent death of twenty thousand men” for a ludicrous “fantasy and trick of fame”. Another reason for Shakespeare not using soliloquy after act 4 may be his consideration for his audience. Hamlet is a very long play and the groundlings that were the part of the audience that had to stand at the foot of the stage, would find it very hard to stand for such lengthy periods of. Perhaps Shakespeare stopped using soliloquy to shorten the length of the play for his audiences benefit. By stopping the use of soliloquy Shakespeare had no way of informing the audience of events unseen to them. He used the characters instead. The characters told the audience what had happened and kept them informed for the last act.
