The best evidence of this would be the final scene, with a predictable fencing showdown between Hamlet and Laertes. Thus, it made it very hard for me to be able to read the expressions on Hamlet’s face, and sometimes it was impossible to tell whether he was angry, happy or sad. If I were the director, I would try to be more creative and maybe have a more contemporary climax, even possibly a digital 3D showdown (since it was supposed to be a big money company) where say, for the ‘poisoning’ of the blade could be interpreted as an electrocution of Hamlet during a short circuit in the 3D digital suit.
The acting and portrayal of the characters in the movie version I felt was superficial and the characters were not profound. Contrast that to TNT’s version, which at least exhibited a smattering of delight in Ophelia (the singing and playing with Laertes). I felt that to a large extent, the play by TNT Britain was exhilarating and innovative and expressed their characters very distinctively. The movie version on the flipside, I felt was dreary and insipid. It was also very disappointing as I anticipated relating the version set in our modern world better.
Ethan Hawke as hamlet is more subdued and would frequently converse in whispers, even before the discovery of the ghost. Both versions however, execute a number of common themes. Ophelia and Hamlet’s relationship was romantic rather than two best friends. Polonius portrayed almost like a jester in both films, with similar themes of ironic humor in both.
I also felt that TNT’s version of Hamlet instilled a segment on humor to relax the live audience, using the two ‘malicious friends’ of Hamlet, Rosancrantz and Guildstern as comedians with ridiculous antics on stage, similar to that in Macbeth with the drunken porter. I feel that this is excellent in plays, as it helps relax the audience compared to the movie, where it was too serious.
The movie, being set in 2000, gave me a strange feeling to see Shakespearean characters and speech played out in our modern world. A play with many different sets would have too much waiting time in between scenes. The costumes used in TNT’s play also demonstrated some knowledge of the garments donned during that period, with the King and Queen, Polonius, in garments adorned with purple, symbolizing royalty. There however, was an exception, that being Hamlet. However, I feel Hamlet not clothed like a royalty was done on purpose, showing the little influence he had and the ignorance of the King and perhaps as well as his unwillingness to join the monarchy.
The death of Ophelia in TNT’s version was very original, with her draping a blue cloth while running across the stage. I felt this was appropriate, as a genuine drowning would be too hard to enact. I feel that the blue sheet not only symbolized water but also meant to be something similar to the sheet the police or morticians use to cover dead bodies.
In a way, TNT’s version was more appealing and unique in contrast to the predictable background music, which all movies possess. However, music did help me to a small extent to comprehend several segments of the play better. Making use only of a guitar, violin one or two percussion instruments and singing, it also flaunts the many talents of the seven actors, with them doubling up as musicians.
Rather than just simply draped in sheer white garments, the King was enfolded in nondescript white rags like a mummy, much like a King who had died in Egypt in ancient times. In TNT’s version, the characters felt much more alive and real, especially since it was live and acted out inches from my face. I feel that the director is unsuccessful in an attempt to sensitize the Hamlet play to non-literature people and in fact could even have made people in that category to detest Shakespeare even more.
The stage for TNT’s play was a little dull, with only an uncomplicated choir stand to perform most of the scenes. However, this cannot associate with the movie production, which has access to hundreds of sets, which can interchange without us seeing it. Thus, the setting was dull but successful in bringing fluidity. The movie alternatively used special effects to present a ‘half transparent’ actual actor, which was more fitting as it imitate the script, in the sense that the ghost actually bear a resemblance to his Father, rather than a bare and faceless mummy. On the flipside, even though the movie version depicted today’s world, the use of Shakespearean tongue did not made it easier to relate to but made it feel out of place.
In conclusion, I felt to a large extent the TNT’s version was better then the movie version. It was exciting and original and the characters were profound. Furthermore, for a person who has never read even an abridged version of ‘Hamlet’ it gave me sufficient understanding. The absence of creativity in the movie version could be because of the director’s reluctance to stray to far from the actual script, (but Shakespeare in the year 2000?) For example, all we saw about Ophelia was a crying woman with a depressed countenance the entire length of the movie. It was also very disappointing as I anticipated relating better to the movie version, as it was closer to us as it had a modern setting.
