The Portrayal of Shakespeare's Hamlet in Cinema

Authors Avatar

Chapter One

Introduction

This dissertation is an exploration of William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, on film, looking into the beginnings and history of Shakespeare on film and studying three famous and very different films of Hamlet; Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet made in 1948, Franco Zeffirelli’s Hamlet made in 1990 starring Mel Gibson in the title role and Kenneth Branagh’s full text Hamlet made in 1996.

I have decided to look at Hamlet on film because I believe film is relatively new medium and is interesting to see Shakespeare that was originally written for the stage to be brought to a mass audience in different and innovative ways.  It is also important to discuss the different interpretations of Hamlet by different directors. I have chosen my three focus films because Olivier’s was the first big cinematic work of Hamlet, Zeffirelli’s was the first all-star Hollywood Hamlet and Branagh’s was the first full text Hamlet. This therefore shows the various original ways in which Hamlet has been exposed to the film world. I also intend to illustrate why film is an appropriate medium for modern day Shakespeare fans and critics.

My first chapter will outline and explore the dawn of cinema, the transition from theatre to cinema and the role of Shakespeare’s plays in early cinema referring specifically to Hamlet. I will look at the earliest films of Hamlet and how they were considered by contemporaries and what obstacles were encountered in early cinema. The following chapters will discuss each of the three Hamlet films in turn and explore how they differ from each other and the stage Hamlet, the representation of Hamlet himself and other main characters mainly Ophelia and Gertrude and their relationship and reactions towards Hamlet.  I will also consider location, set and casting issues; who was cast and why specific actors were chosen and why they work well in the role. My final chapters will investigate other modern Hamlets their differences and similarities to my three focus pieces and less obvious adaptations of Hamlet. My conclusion will reiterate what I have found and discussed in the essay and bring it to a close.


Chapter Two

Shakespeare in the Theatre

The plays of the 16th century dramatist William Shakespeare have regularly been performed on the stage in various different disguises, stagings and productions since they were originally written.

For Shakespeare’s contemporaries, theatre was a largely classless form of entertainment. The differentiated style of building was evidence of the organised way various classes of person were catered for in box, pit and gallery. Although the styles of theatre building remained relatively similar over the next 200 years, the classlessness within became less obvious, with a greater range of performances which were aimed specifically at upper or lower (as referred to within Shakespeare’s time) class audiences often in the same venues. By the end of the 19th century, theatre for the lower classes was quite different to that enjoyed by the culturally elite. Opera and ballet and the classical theatre compared with music hall, comedies and revue.

The plays of Shakespeare were performed but often were unrecognisable from their original form. The plots often remained and stayed as part of a national cultural heritage for many but the text was frequently adapted in extreme. They were often vehicles for the star performer of the day and had endings which did not reflect the original intentions of the author.

The actor Richard Garrick had no qualms in cutting and changing the texts of the numerous Shakespearean plays he performed in, although he did at least, refer back to the early texts in his work.

‘Garrick frequently went back to the early text to restore certain lines and to insert original readings which had been ‘improved’. But at the same times he was quick to re-write Shakespeare as it pleased him – something he not only did with Hamlet…but with Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing and The Winters Tale, among others.’  

(Anthony B. Dawson. 1995. pp. 33-34)

Edmund Kean also liked to put an entirely new spin on Hamlet. In the 18th – 19th century Hamlet became subject to the Romantic spirit of the time. Goethe, Coleridge and Hazlitt were the influences for Edmund Kean’s innovative new Hamlet who seems to have an element of Bipolar Disorder as shown in this quotation;

‘He screamed the final ‘to a nunnery, go’ and rushed off, only to stop at the very ‘extremity of the stage’, pause and then return slowly with an ‘almost gliding step’. A ‘pang of parting tenderness’, wrenched his vehemence from him and he bent softly with a ‘deep drawn sigh’ to ‘press his lips to Ophelia’s hand’.

(Ludwig Tieck, quoted in Mills, cited by Anthony B. Dawson, 1995. pp. 47)

The American actor Edwin Booth transformed Hamlet again to meet the needs of American audiences with a more responsive Hamlet and focus on the poetry that Americans love;

 

‘The great American actor Edwin Booth, scion of a theatrical family and brother of the notorious John Wilkes Booth, brought a deeply sensitive Hamlet to an admiring public…His acting of Hamlet produced a “steady light which illumines the beauties of [Shakespeares] magnificent poetry.’’

(New York Times 1870, quoted in Shattuck, cited in Anthony B. Dawson 1995. pp. 49)

        


Chapter 3

The Early Days of Shakespeare on Film.

        The arrival at the end of the 19th century of a new medium, moving pictures, provided a stimulus to the artistic community to adapt Shakespeare’s works for a new screen audience.

Film was seen as a way of reintroducing Shakespeare to a mass audience by its makers. There was already a source of well known plots and much of the early films merely shot the current theatrical versions.  Many early films also only shot one or two scenes, for example the duel scene from Hamlet as in Sarah Bernhardt’s 1900 film. Film reels were very short and audiences would often watch more than one piece during a visit to the cinema. This might include a comedy, a news reel, local views or national events.  The wonder of cinema in the early days was often just being able to see the moving photographs and the novelty of such. The creative and cultural aspects of cinematography had yet to be realised.

Early cinema screenings were made inexpensive and accessible to encourage participants to visit; local photographers would make films for a local audience. Film makers, would often make films of everyday activities, it drew people to the screenings because film was fascinating and seeing everyday people doing everyday things made it exciting especially if there was the possibility of seeing themselves and their friends. Films of factory workers leaving their work at the end of the day or small children playing on the beach were popular but contributed to the perception of cinema being mass entertainment rather than high culture.

The recently re-discovered work of Mitchell and Kenyon are fascinating examples of social history but would not contribute towards a contemporary reviewer’s impression of cinema as an art form equivalent to the theatre. Travelling cinema companies would take their equipment into village halls, theatres and even people’s homes to show several different films for a few pence admission. For these reasons early films were regarded as not particularly cultural experiences by the educated intelligentsia;

‘While theatre remains the legitimate expressive medium for authentic Shakespeare kept alive by a scattering of theatrical companies playing to audiences for who theatre is both accessible and familiar, only comparatively recently has it become respectable to concentrate serious discussion on the media of cinema, radio  and especially television.’

(Anthony Davies. 1994. pp. 1)  

Film makers used the Shakespearean plays as means of elevating the perception of their medium to their contemporaries. The earliest of these works was in 1899, a silent version of King John. The insertion of material by well known playwrights into an evening of cinema entertainment was an attempt by film makers to address the criticisms made by contemporaries and perhaps suggest the reasons for a large number of Shakespearean film adaptations in the earliest years of moving pictures, there were seventeen Hamlet films produced before 1930 and numerous other examples of his other works. Early cinematic productions of Shakespeare were of course silent, which creates obvious obstacles for the portrayal of Shakespeare’s great characters for which the language is so important.

Film was often regarded as merely a means of recording factual evidence, news and public affairs or as entertainment and there was a widespread feeling amongst the cultured elite that it was not a medium that would rival theatre or literature. An example of this is clear in the review by the theatrical correspondent of the London Times of the eminent, Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson’s Hamlet in 1913;

‘Few could have failed to feel last night how in its somewhat audacious effort the cinematograph has exposed its limitations, It not only that Sir J.Forbes-Robertsons voice was gone, but that no voice was left to take its place, and that for all the majesty of Shakespeare’s verse there were only the cold snippets thrown on the screen.’

As an afterthought the reviewer does seem to acknowledge the possibilities of mass distribution;

                

        ‘Two performances of Hamlet are to be given daily for a period of four weeks.’

The earliest cinematic portrayal of Hamlet occurred in 1900 when renowned theatre actress Sarah Bernhardt reprised her stage role as Hamlet, a role which she played 32 times in 1899, duelling with Laertes played by Pierre Magnier.  The film was produced for the Paris Exposition and only lasts one minute and twenty five seconds. It shows the two actors duelling with swords on a stage with a curtained backdrop and three other unnamed actors. It is probably showing exactly the same performance that she was famous for on the stage and shows little evidence of being adapted for the cinema.

The camera is fixed and does not change at all, which leads to the disappearance of Laertes from the screen for lengths of time on two occasions. This is perhaps because the stage actors are accustomed to being able to move about freely on stage whereas this is not appropriate with a fixed camera. There are no close ups or attempts to show clearly the face of the star and there is not even an attempt to portray dialogue. Technological developments came later to provide lighter more mobile equipment, but in this 1900 picture, there are more elements of stagecraft than cinematography apparent. The fact that such a widely renowned stage actress was prepared to participate in a filmed piece was a coup for the embryonic film industry and was used to publicise the cultural possibilities of cinema.

Join now!

By 1913, the craft of the filmmaker had advanced and innovations can be seen. The film of Hamlet so cruelly reviewed above featured the reputed stage actor J. Forbes-Robertson and it is clear that there is more evidence of camera panning and keeping a focus on the main character. The set is more advanced and there is limited but definite use of the text. The translucent and almost unnoticeable ghost would have been filmed separately and then superimposed on to the film. Because it was only possible to use a few choice lines of text the story is not ...

This is a preview of the whole essay