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 very clear and audiences would have to be familiar with Hamlet or any Shakespeare play that was shown at this time.
Sarah Bernhardt was not the only woman to play Hamlet; the role was brought to the screen once again not only by the famous Asta Nielson in the 1920 silent film Hamlet: The Drama of Vengeance directed by Svend Gade and Heinz Schall but twice more by Joy Caroline Johnson (1971) and Fatma Girik (1977). The reason for casting a woman as Shakespeare’s tragic prince was the scholar Edward P. Vining’s theory that the Danish prince was in fact a princess, with Horatio as a rival for Hamlets love. Rothwell said of Neilson’s Hamlet;
‘This screen version of Hamlet is based upon the ancient legends from which Shakespeare drew his first conception for his immortal tragedy… It also reveals the contention of the eminent American Shakespearean scholar, Dr Edward P. Vining…that Hamlet was a woman, who for reasons of state, was compelled to assume the guise of a man.’
(Kenneth S. Rothwell, 2004, pp.22)
The ‘reasons of state’ appear to be that Hamlets mother assuming his father had died in battle against Norway forced her daughter to grow up as boy in order to protect herself and her throne. It is my belief that there is no textual indication that Hamlet is a female; his love for Ophelia as shown in the burial scene and even the occasional oedipal tendencies are far too apparent for this theory to hold weight in my own interpretation of the play.
Chapter Four
Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet, 1948
Despite Laurence Olivier’s 1948 Hamlet being the most memorable and probably most famous portrayal on film, he played Hamlet on stage only once in 1937 at the Old Vic. Olivier was Britain’s epitome of a Shakespearean actor, he has done it all. Seven Shakespeare films in total from As You Like It in 1936 to King Lear in 1984.
‘As talented an auteur of Shakespeare film as ever existed, Laurence Olivier at mid century reclaimed the British role as guardian of its national poet… A virtuoso actor with a thousand faces, he could banter with Rosalind in the Forest of Arden, rally the troops at Agincourt, scold Gertrude at Elsinore, send the little princes to the tower, smother Desdemona (in blackface), demand the bond from Antonio, and reject Cordelia.’
(Kenneth S. Rothwell, 1999, pp.47)
Olivier’s Hamlet was supposed to be the first full commercial Hamlet although the text had to be extensively cut in order to conform to the cinematic conventions of maximum length and make it marketable.
‘By being ‘ruthlessly bold’ and turning it into ‘An Essay in Hamlet’ rather than a compressed version of the play, Olivier kept it down to 155 minutes, losing more than half of Shakespeare’s lines.’
(Neil Taylor in Davies and Wells, 1994. pp. 181)
Olivier also cut three whole scenes and five characters out of Shakespeare’s original play. He removes 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 and edited out Reynaldo, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Voltemand and Fortinbras. Olivier did this because he felt that the relationships which these characters represented would detract from Olivier’s object of interest; Hamlet’s own mental and psychological state. The elimination of these characters does keep the focus firmly on Hamlet. The psychological Hamlet and the idea of getting inside his head is shown by using voice-over for many of his soliloquies.
‘The impression that the film as a whole explores Hamlet’s inner life is reinforced by using voice-over in order to realize almost the whole of Hamlet’s soliloquies’
(Neil Taylor in Davies and Wells, 1994, pp. 182)
Olivier couples this with shots of the striking landscape, the rocks and the rough sea and the cloudy sky, opening with a scene of the castle partly obscured by mist. It sets the beautiful scene of a medieval castle atop a cliff, by the sea, where a story like this could very well have taken place. These landscapes are also used in the Zeffirelli film although not so much, but not in the Branagh film. Olivier’s film includes little visual splendour apart from the landscapes. Shots of the sea and sky help set the mood; they give the audience a pensive frame-of-mind to show that what we are hearing are Hamlet’s inner most thoughts and feelings. The contrast between the open, endless sea and the restrictive stone walls of Elsinore signify Hamlets feeling of being trapped in his own mind.
As many films of the time it was not filmed on location, the Olivier version was filmed entirely in Denham Studios, in Buckinghamshire. The set is very dark with the use of black and white, which may have been personal choice or may have been a financial decision. It may also have been an Olivier idea simply to show the age of the play as time was moving on, colour film was new, film itself was relatively new but the play is hundreds of years old and maybe he wanted to keep it there in the past. The reviewer in the Times in 1948 gave this explanation;
‘No virtuosity with lens or soundtrack can make a Hamlet, and so Sir Laurence Olivier seems to have felt by denying himself colour and working in the sober black and white of an engraving.’
The lack of colour enhances the darkness of the plot showing a beautiful contrast with Olivier’s pale skin and blond hair. He stands out more than any other character expect perhaps Ophelia who is also pale and blond. Despite him standing out, he is often concealed in shadows.
Hamlet’s rough treatment of Ophelia is apparent in each of the three full length films studied for this essay, but this appears more deplorable in the Olivier, for example he throws her onto the stairs and pushes her into a chair, this maybe because of the time or merely the age of the actress, beautiful Jean Simmons was only eighteen years old when she played Ophelia for Laurence Olivier but she was already a well established actress and earned herself a best supporting actress Oscar nomination for her role in Hamlet. The violence towards Ophelia is exaggerated by the youth and fame of the actress and must have resonated hugely with contemporary audiences who were more familiar with the chivalric and debonair Olivier.
There is little evidence of Hamlet’s love for Ophelia in the Olivier film until he declares it in the funeral scene, this gives the desired effect of Olivier’s Hamlet being a man who can not make up his mind as he is referred to in the prologue written and recited by Olivier himself. This indecisiveness is apparent again in this quotation from Rothwell (1999)
‘Prince Hamlet as misogynist is but one of the princes multiple masks that include avenger, wit, actor, manager, director, philosopher, murderer, duelist, soldier, courtier, “glass of fashion”, and almost every other imaginable human trait…yet in this movie a good deal of Fitzwilliam Darcy’s misogyny lurks behind the Hamlet mask.’
(Kenneth S. Rothwell, 1999, pp. 57)
Rothwell believes Hamlet to be an everyman (or everywoman, e.g. Sarah Bernhardt and Asta Nielson) and even manages to match him up to Jane Austen’s Mr Darcy as played by Laurence Olivier.
Hamlet’s anger comes through more in this film as in the Branagh film but not so in the Zeffirelli film. Olivier’s Hamlet is a very bad-tempered character; he paces around and lets his thoughts run wild (as Mel Gibson described Hamlet an introspective, who thinks too much). In the voices over’s of his soliloquies especially in the first you can see how his thoughts are affecting him quite strongly, his mind is in turmoil. There is even some indication that he may have been considering suicide during the ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy as we see he is holding a dagger to his abdomen.
Olivier chose a surprisingly young actress for his Gertrude, at the time of filming she was more than 10 years his junior despite playing his mother;
‘Eileen Herlie was only twenty-seven when the film was made (Olivier was forty), and she brought with her a decidedly sexy presence.’ (Anthony B. Dawson, 1995. pp.181)
Anthony B Dawson believes that Eileen Herlie was cast as Gertrude to create ‘a plausible rival to Ophelia for her son’s affections.’ It cannot be denied that there are one or two marginally overenthusiastic kisses but contrary to many critics I do believe that the Olivier film makes less of the oedipal interpretation in the closet scene, though it seems to favour the child-like portrayal of Hamlet. There is little sexual contact with his mother as could be used for the Freudian perception and is so in Zeffirelli’s film. Olivier prefers more to hug her and at one point lays his head upon her lap as would a child. This contrasts well with the Zeffirelli film, Olivier’s Hamlet is not physically violent towards his mother, but this once again may reflect more the views of the time rather than Shakespeare’s intention.
The duel scene contrasts with the Bernhardt film by lasting much longer and the use of camera movement, mainly high angle shots. The duel scene is very stagey; swashbuckling and flashy swordplay, unlike the thrusting broadsword of Zefferilli’s Hamlet and the structured and controlled fencing of Branagh’s. The final scene of this film imitates the first with Hamlet’s funeral procession up to the highest tower in the castle.
Chapter Five
Franco Zeffirelli’s Hamlet, 1990
Zeffirelli’s film is the only one of the three studied for this essay, which is not directed by the actor playing Hamlet. Zeffirelli cut, rewrote and rearranged much of his Hamlet; he only kept 1242.5 of Shakespeare’s original lines. The speech made by Claudius towards Hamlet in the text during his wedding in which he requests Hamlet sees him as a father is moved to the extra added scene of old Hamlet’s funeral and the ‘get thee to a nunnery’ speech is moved to the same scene as The Mousetrap.
Zeffirelli’s aim with all of his Shakespeare films was to make Shakespeare accessible and understandable to not only a wider but a younger audience hence his rewriting of some of the language, to make it more comprehensible for a modern audience although it is often thought that he underestimates his audience’s intelligence by changing words that really may not have needed changing.
‘Some of the changes indicate that Zeffirelli has a distressingly low estimate of his audience’s intelligence. At 3.2.49 for instance, ‘stirrups of no kindred’ becomes ‘stirrups of different families.’ At 1.1.84, Minerva is replaced by goddess.’’
(Ace Pilkington in Davies and Wells, 1994, pp. 168)
Zeffirelli was an enthusiastic devotee of Shakespeare. He felt that Shakespeare and his plays should be universally celebrated and everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy them. He chose his actors carefully, feeling that famous actors, especially Hollywood heart-throbs like Mel Gibson, would attract the younger generation. He was right, as we can see from the reference to Mel Gibson as Hamlet in the chick flick, Clueless (1992).
‘Zeffirelli is often criticised for the lavish spectacle of his productions, which are said to distract from the underlying play, but he has undeniably brought Shakespeare to a wider audience’
(Charles Boyce cited by Ace Pilkington in Davies and Wells, 1994. pp. 164)
I believe, Zefferelli’s Hamlet is slightly less lavish than his past productions. The ‘all star’ cast and the numerous stunning locations are the only spectacular aspects of this film, rather than the beautiful costumes or adorable but unknown actors (Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey) used in Romeo and Juliet. I do not believe that this lavishness will detract from the play, because adding visual interest can often attract more attention, as many young people are very visually orientated and in film the visual element lends itself to be easier to understand, it becomes self-explanatory.
Zeffirelli’s Hamlet unlike his other films was not filmed in Italy. It was actually filmed at various locations around the UK, including Dover castle in Kent, Aberdeen and several other castles, mainly in Scotland. I believe Scotland was chosen to create a setting with the typical Scandinavian weather but may have been cheaper than to film on location at Elsinore itself. Both Zeffirelli’s previous films ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ and ‘Romeo and Juliet’ had been set and filmed in Italy. The filming of Hamlet challenged Zeffirelli and took him out of his comfort zone by being set in Denmark and filmed mainly in Scotland;
‘He is simply not as much at home in Elsinore as he was in Padua or Verona.’
(Robert Hapgood in Boose and Burt, 1997. pp. 89)
Zeffirelli is Italian and uses his knowledge and love of Italy in his first two films. This is virtually impossible for his Hamlet. Zeffirelli was not familiar with Denmark. Scandinavians like Hamlet are very affected by their location. Northern Europeans are plagued by depression and seasonal affective disorder because of their cold, dark, wintery climate and this is shown in Hamlet’s character. Zeffirelli, as an Italian, may not completely understand this aspect of Hamlet as these disorders are much less common in Southern Europe where it is warm and bright. Like Branagh’s Hamlet, Zefferelli’s is filmed in colour but it still retains the element of darkness like Olivier’s. Zeffirelli was strongly influenced by Olivier’s Hamlet he is said to have renounced all other films of Hamlet between 1948 and 1990. Zeffirelli referred to Olivier’s Hamlet so much that Mel Gibson was offered Olivier’s actual shirt worn in the previous 1948 film of Hamlet;
‘A further example of the impact of the Olivier version comes from Glenn Close in the short HBO film The Making of Hamlet ‘The first day of shooting he [Mel Gibson] was given by one of the producers the actual shirt that Olivier wore in his famous Hamlet,’ And Gibson tells of making ‘sure that I was in the hotel room by myself, with the lights out and I tried this shirt on. Gradually I got the courage to turn the lights on and I found that it was probably a little too small, but it fit well enough’’
(Ace Pilkington in Davies and Wells, 1994, pp.166)
The film opens with a mix of high and low angle shots upon a crowd of traditionally black clad mourners and solemn knights leading into the crypt where Hamlets father is laid to rest. The scene is dark with the only lights on the faces of Claudius, Gertrude and Hamlet. Gertrude’s love for Claudius is more demonstrative in this film. In others it is not obvious and there has been much debate over Gertrude’s reasons for marrying Claudius; she may have just wanted to keep her own status and her son in line for the throne. Much more affection between the couple is shown in this film.
The ghost in Zeffirelli’s Hamlet is very different. It comes away from the text by not wearing armour as is stated in the text although this line and the whole scene in which it features has in fact been cut. Also to those who do not know the story, it may not be clear that he is a ghost and he looks very solid and human compared to those in Olivier’s and Branagh’s films, if a little pallid and unwell. There is nothing obvious to confirm the supernatural nature of the scene, no special effects; Hamlet could be talking to any other character had the text not stated that he is a ghost. Also Hamlet’s reaction to his father seems more emotional in Zeffirelli’s film; shock, grief, disbelief, emotional terror, as a son may react to seeing the ghost of his deceased father.
Contrary to the other two films, Zeffirelli readily, almost enthusiastically, takes up the oedipal interpretation of Hamlet. It is very obvious in the closet scene where Hamlet all but rapes his mother. The childlike interpretation is also apparent in other scenes. He starts carelessly waving his sword around in rage, he mocks Polonius in the madness scene and when he is killed. Hamlet openly flirts with Ophelia while professing he doesn’t love her, he also becomes tearful at various moments during the play. Ophelia is played by 24 year old Helena Bonham-Carter, her own innocence does not seem so genuine in this film, through her facial expressions, her comments and her unusual behaviour towards Banardo when she goes mad. This is as if she has already had some sort of sexual awakening and is returning his flirting in a slightly more meaningful way.
In this film much eavesdropping goes on; he witnesses the scene between Polonius and Ophelia when Polonius tells Ophelia to not be so freely accepting of Hamlet’s tokens. This may be a reason for going to Ophelia first with his pretend insanity because he knew she would tell her father. As it happens Ophelia does not need to tell him because Polonius is shown to witness this scene also.
Hamlet’s madness is less angry in this film and more comical; he laughs and makes the audience laugh. He mocks Polonius while reading and being questioned. He wears Polonius’s cap after killing him and comes out with some of the strangest comments to his uncle. Hamlet’s brief comical and flirtatious moments in the film contrast with the almost permanently angry or gloomy Hamlet played by Olivier and Branagh.
The fate of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is shown in this film, because the text that would usually indicate what happened to them is cut. We are shown Hamlet switching the letters but are only told by voice over what is said in the original letter.
The acting style of our Hamlet’s between the films is incredibly different. Mel Gibson is not a stage actor, although he has had experience on stage, he is famous for films; his acting is a more realistic presentation. He plays Hamlet as if he is Hamlet, he is this seriously disturbed, grieving young man whereas Branagh and Olivier are both more stage orientated and play Hamlet more as the usual larger than life Shakespearean character paying indirect homage to the writer rather than the story and character itself. Mel Gibson was chosen for the role of Hamlet after Zeffirelli saw him playing the character of depressed Sergeant Martin Gibbs in Lethal Weapon;
‘Zeffirelli’s sudden inspiration as he watched Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon, that here was a young actor who could play a new kind of Hamlet had paid off in a return to the roots of Shakespeares play – the revenge tragedy and Hamlet as a thriller.’
(Ace Pilkington in Davies and Wells, 1994, pp. 174)
Mel Gibson is probably our youngest Hamlet at thirty-four, Glenn Close, who plays Gertrude, was forty-three and his Ophelia is twenty-four. Olivier was forty when he played Hamlet opposite his twenty-seven year old Gertrude and eighteen year old Ophelia, both of whom are considerably young compared to the other actresses. Branagh was thirty-six in his film of Hamlet, Gertrude play by Julie Christie was fifty-seven a seemingly more appropriate age for Gertrude and Kate Winslet’s Ophelia was twenty-one. There is a reference to Hamlets age in the gravedigger scene, when we are told how long Hamlets childhood friend Yorick has been in the ground making early thirties a very feasible age for Hamlet.
The indecisiveness of Olivier’s Hamlet is almost non-existent in Zeffirelli’s film, though this does not make him a more understandable character. Zefferelli’s Hamlet is impulsive, he does not think about his actions until afterwards, if he thinks about them at all.
‘Gibson’s prince is not weighed down by ‘conscience,’ which means in Elizabethan usage ‘thoughtfulness’ rather than moral scruples…or what today might be called ‘guilt’.’
(Kenneth S. Rothwell, 1999, pp.132)
He is a spur-of-the-moment prince, as mentioned before he waves his sword around like a child in anger. He does not think twice about plunging his sword through the arras in Gertrude’s chamber not knowing who is behind it. He does not think how his actions are affecting the people around him Ophelia most of all is upset by his behaviour and the murder of her father tips her over the edge. He’s a very careless person and his desire for revenge is insatiable and selfish.
Chapter Six
Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet, 1996
Kenneth Branagh has performed and directed many stage productions of Shakespeare between 1987 and 2002, he played Hamlet on stage in 1988 directed by Derek Jacobi who himself played Hamlet in the BBC Shakespeare series and in turn plays Claudius in Branagh’s film.
The Branagh film is the full text. Nothing has been cut. Branagh struggled to obtain finance for his full length Hamlet because too many film companies did not believe that a full length Shakespeare, and of all things Hamlet, would be practical for a late 20th Century audience.
“’The perpetual reluctance of film companies to finance Shakespeare had frustrated each attempt’
(Branagh cited by Mark J. Casselo, 2004)
It is not difficult to see why film companies thought that. Youngsters and even some adults today are not interested in Shakespeare; the enjoyment is crushed out of them before they even leave school from being forced to study it. They maybe happy to watch a severely cut version but a four hour version of a play they do not know or like and barely understand, is hardly going to be box office blockbuster.
Branagh’s life-long dream project eventually received financing from Castle Rock Entertainment on the condition that he used a star-studded cast as is evident in the film, Julie Christie came out of retirement to play Gertrude and Kate Winslet received her casting for Titanic while on set and he included an abridged version for commercial release.
It was filmed at the beautiful location of Blenheim Palace in Woodstock and is set in the 19th century. Unlike the Olivier and Zeffirelli films Branagh’s Hamlet is very light and bright. This is not only so because it is filmed in colour, all the costumes, apart from of course Hamlet’s are brightly coloured, even Ophelia is dressed in colours, mainly red and yellow unlike the Olivier and the Zeffirelli films where she dresses mostly in white perhaps to signify her innocence. Hamlet obviously is dressed in black in all films; this is because Hamlet is in mourning for his father as his mother should be. The palace’s interior matches the 19th century setting with white and gold décor rather than the more traditional bare stone of the castle used in other films.
In the wedding scene the cast is set in blocks of white, red and yellow a colour scheme that is used throughout the film and of which colours almost all the costumes seem to be apart from Hamlet’s standard black and Polonius who wears a green military jacket as opposed to the red worn by everyone else. Blenheim Palace is not by the sea, this contrasts with both the Olivier and the Zeffirelli by not using sea views. The real Elsinore itself is on the coast of Denmark. Although The Branagh film does use the traditional Scandinavian feature of snow, unlike the others.
The ghost is also more substantial in the Branagh film although still amazingly ghost like, whereas in the Olivier he is little more than a shadow with indiscernible features. The appearance of the ghost is accompanied by special effects to create drama in the scene, cracking ground, mist, and eruptions of snow. This was probably easier for Branagh rather than Olivier because of the obvious developments in film and effects between the 1948 and 1996. Branagh uses lots of close ups and reaction shots in his film. We only see the face of the ghost from a side-on, low angle shot. The most significant close up is when Hamlet walks in on Claudius confessing, the camera draws in and stops with only Hamlet’s eyes visible as he whispers his soliloquy.
The Branagh film is the only film which indicates that Hamlet’s ‘tenders of affection’ toward Ophelia are of a more intimate and physical nature, Hamlet and Ophelia are supposed to have a much closer relationship in this film than in the others and she is more distressed by his admission that he does not love her. The later the film the less innocent Ophelia seems to be, the 21 year old Kate Winslet, the least innocent of them all.
Branagh speaks his soliloquies unlike Olivier’s voice-overs. This gives less idea of the thoughtful; pensive Hamlet, but I think for a stage actor it is easer to speak the lines well and use the poetry to create dramatic effect. Branagh uses the space he is given and there is more to watch while Olivier just stands in one place looking out at the raging sea. Branagh brings Hamlet into the future a little, in his scene with Ophelia, by having Claudius and Polonius spy on him through one way glass as opposed to a curtain as in the original text. Zeffirelli does not use a curtain either but they are not as well hidden. Like Olivier’s, Branagh’s Hamlet only really becomes aggressive towards Ophelia when it dawns on him that he is being watched.
‘He has Hamlet turn on Ophelia only when he notices that Polonius and Claudius are playing peeping toms.’
(Neil Taylor in Davies and Wells, 1994, pg 189)
Hamlet is very rough with his mother, more so than he is with Ophelia and like Olivier does not favour the Freudian interpretation of the closet scene but not the childlike either, he can seem childish in other scenes though. He holds his mother but does not make any sexual advances as Zeffirelli’s Hamlet does. He is much more antagonistic in his speech than his actions in many scenes, he shouts unnecessarily, possibly to emphasise his feigned madness or his increasing anger at his uncle and mother.
Unlike the Olivier and Zeffirelli films Branagh again favours the text by not showing Ophelia’s death. As in the original text Laertes and Claudius are told of it by Gertrude. This does not change the story much; it is still quite clear what has happened to Ophelia, without being shown.
This is the only film which includes Fortinbras, the Norwegian prince and his own sub-plot in which he invades Elsinore and enters to find the grisly scene in the aftermath of the duel, the film ends upon him taking up the throne of Denmark. He is not a vital and necessary part of the play; his omission does not change the basic plot, but it does leave Denmark at a loss for a ruler, he provides Hamlet/ Claudius’s successor.
Chapter Seven
Other Modern Hamlets
Many writers over the years have shown that they like to ‘play’ with Shakespeare. There have been scores of adaptations, from the enchanting West Side Story (1961) to the sadistic Tromeo and Juliet (1996) and from 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) to Throne of Blood (1957). These are all adaptations of famous Shakespeare plays. (Romeo and Juliet x 2, Taming of the Shrew, Macbeth) Directors seem to have surprisingly steered clear of Hamlet when it comes to adapting, twisting and performing extensive cosmetic surgery on the plays of Shakespeare despite the large amount of Hamlet’s that there are. Very few change the story, language or even the setting too much. There have also been several foreign Hamlets, French, Indian, Japanese and Russian among others, including several UK and USA films. There have been in total 47 film adaptations of Hamlet made in the last 100 years.
Probably the most recent big screen adaptation of Hamlet is Michael Almereyda’s 2000 modern day version of Hamlet starring Ethan Hawke and popular teen movie actress Julia Stiles. This film has not been well received by Shakespeare fans.
‘Though Almereyda’s intriguing adaptation cuts great chunks of the text while still sticking faithfully to Elizabethan English, the end result is low on dramatic bite.’
(Stephen Dalton, 2006)
This film is set in modern day New York although much of Shakespeare’s language is unchanged. Claudius is a big business tycoon, Ophelia; your average teenage girl, Laertes is an overbearing, overprotective brother and Hamlet; an oppressed, depressed movie enthusiast. The whole film is centred on gadgets and films. The Mousetrap play is a film produced by Hamlet. Some of his soliloquies are videoed in a similar way to Olivier’s voice-overs. Ophelia’s innocence and above all obedience does not come through on this film as it should, her facial expressions; rolling her eyes, indicate that she resents her brother’s warnings against Hamlet. Her madness is incredibly loud and attracts a lot of attention, as screaming in the middle of a large, busy hotel in which it is set is bound to.
In the early to mid 20th Century Russians were very taken with Hamlet by the comparison between Claudius and their own tyrannical leader Josef Stalin. Grigori Kosintsev’s Russian Hamlet rejected the ‘stereotype of a fragile Danish Prince filled with doubt, vacillation, split personality and the predominance of reflection over to action.’ (Kenneth Rothwell, 1999, pp. 175) Kosintsev also uses the powerful imagery of sea and stone walls like Olivier. Kozintsev cuts a lot more text than Olivier and reinstated characters which Olivier cut. Also Hamlet’s isolation is less literal he is never alone in Kosintsev’s movie. Kosintsev cast Innokenti Smoktounovski as Hamlet, a man who had suffered imprisonment by both the Nazis and the Russians, so Smoktounovski was able to act Hamlet’s feeling of imprisonment through experience. Although still following Olivier’s original idea of captivity Kosintsev showed a more attainable world outside Elsinore, he shows tracking shots of Fortinbras’s army and shows Hamlets return from England along side a peasant village; ‘Beyond Olivier’s Elsinore there is nothing, but beyond Kosintsev’s there is everything else.’ (Neil Taylor in Davies and Wells, 1994, pp.187)
Tony Richardson made Hamlet in 1969 for Woodfall Films. At 112 minutes long it is the shortest film of Hamlet. Richardson made cuts in forty-eight per cent of the text, removed Fortinbras and thirty percent of almost every scene. Hamlet was played by Nicol Williamson and it is noted the speed at which he delivers his lines which contributes greatly to the length of the film. The ‘To be or not to be’ speech especially, which is done in 150 seconds whereas Laurence Olivier, Derek Jacobi and Mel Gibson all took over three minutes to complete this famous soliloquy. Richardson like Olivier favours the psychological Hamlet.
‘His idiosyncratic delivery - muttering nasally, sometimes gabbling – is an element of characterization: this Hamlet is full of a half repressed infantile anger which renders him a neurotic outsider, spasmodically distressed and overwrought.’
(Neil Taylor in Davies and Wells, 1994. pp. 188)
Richardson’s Hamlet although always intended for film was originally a stage production at the Round House theatre on London’s Chalk Farm. Ophelia was played by Marianne Faithful, a pop star and at the time seen as a accepted sex-object, having dated Mick Jagger. There is an incestuous nature to her relationship with Laertes perhaps to counter the relationship between Claudius and Gertrude. The final scene is frozen on a close up of Hamlet’s dead face while the credits are read rather than shown. ‘Hamlet is defined as being, not just the hero, but the total subject of the film.’ (Neil Taylor in Davies and Wells, 1994. pp. 189)
Between 1972 and 1985 the BBC did a series of the complete works of Shakespeare. Hamlet was made in 1980 directed by Rodney Bennett who had no experience in Shakespeare or stage direction. In this version Hamlet played by Derek Jacobi who previously played Hamlet in 1977 for the travelling Prospect Theatre Company, speaks his soliloquies directly to the camera. Ophelia was played by Laala Ward, who went on to find fame as Romana in Doctor Who with Tom Baker. Bennett wanted to step away from the naturalistic conventions of television. He approached Hamlet as a thriller and used non-naturalistic, almost monochrome settings and cycloramas (shadow plays) in large studios, making use of the wide, open, empty spaces. Anthony B. Dawson says of the camera work in this version ‘…long shots, pans and other effects of the moving camera, crowd scenes…are entirely missing.’ (Anthony B. Dawson, 1995, pp.215) Dawson is describing the minimal use of movement and extra characters, Bennett one again preferring and minimalist approach with mid-shots and grouping of the main characters.
Derek Jacobi was an older-than average Hamlet played as an immature adult which is countered by a younger Claudius and Gertrude. Until Branagh made his full text Hamlet, Bennett’s was the longest Hamlet ever made with a comparatively staggering eighty-seven percent of the play left intact. Bennett wanted to make a full text film but the BBC Shakespeare’s originator Cedric Messina thought that it would be tedious for modern television audience. The BBC Shakespeare’s Hamlet is the longest television version at three and a half hours long.
Shakespeare has not only been used in live action movies but has also been taken up by animators. Shakespeare: The Animated Tales chose to use various different forms of animation for each cartoon. Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Nights Dream used the familiar, recognisable form of cel animation. The Tempest and Twelfth Night were done in the stop-action animation with puppets and Hamlet which earned itself an Emmy used oil painting on glass animation. One journalist stated of the animated Hamlet ‘at times you almost believe that you are watching a kinetic unfolding of the Hamlet story etched by Rembrandt’ (Laurie Osborne in Boose and Burt, 2003, pg. 148)
Laurie E. Osborne also says that the animated Hamlet is very similar to Olivier’s in many aspects, such as the portrayal of Claudius, the camera angles and shadowy sets around Hamlet. Because of the animation technique used, much more of Hamlet has been cut and many lines are narrated over other scenes. For example Hamlet’s decision to feign madness and Reynaldo spying on Laertes is all narrated over the scene of Ophelia running to her father to tell him of Hamlet’s strange behaviour towards her. Again like the Olivier film the animated tale cuts Fortinbras and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Hamlet is considered the most artistically momentous of each of the Shakespeare Animated Tales
Many critics have noted that Disney’s The Lion King can be compared to Hamlet.
‘Similarly, Disney’s 1994 The Lion King (dir. Roger Allers and Ron Minkoff), reworked Hamlet for a younger generation.’
(Lynda E. Boose and Richard Burt, 1997. pp. 9)
It cannot be said that The Lion King is a complete adaptation of Hamlet but there are many aspects of the play used. Characters can be paired up, for example, Simba and Hamlet, Scar and Claudius, Mufasa and Old Hamlet, even the comical twosome Timon and Pumbaa as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Although various parts of the story are different; Simba’s disappearance from the pride for almost the whole of his teenage years is not repeated in Hamlet. Simba is a cub when his father is killed whereas Hamlet is an adult, there is little to suggest that the relationship between Simba and Nala is at all similar to that between Hamlet and Ophelia. Childhood friends meet years later as lovers, the quintessential romance. The Lion King as Hamlet although not instantly recognisable is an appealing new way to introduce Shakespeare’s storylines to children with the ideas of murder, betrayal and revenge.
There are many more adaptations of Hamlet; far too many to put in this essay, but here I have outlined a few of the most prominent and some unusual ideas of Hamlet adaptations not only The Lion King (1994) but films which could also include Arnold Schwarzenegger’s The Last Action Hero (1993) and John Ford’s My Darling Clementine (1946). The list of stars that have played Hamlet is endless; just some these stars include Christopher Plummer (1964), Richard Burton (1964), Ian McKellen (1970) and Kevin Kline (1990). Hamlet seems to be a milestone for many actors, an almost compulsory role that every great actor will come to fill when their time comes.
Chapter Eight
Conclusion
In conclusion, I have explained Shakespeare’s presence in theatres and the birth of cinema and its effect on Shakespeare’s plays. I have looked at the problems film-makers and Shakespeare critics encountered in early films and how those problems were remedied, or not, as the case maybe. The few occasional lines produced in silent films were really not adequate to a true Shakespearean. The camera work was mediocre, the pictures were blurred and the stage actors were over-qualified for silent films. I have discussed in detail my three focus films; I have compared and contrasted them with each other, their differences and similarities regarding casting issues, set and the representation of Hamlet himself.
I have shown that Shakespeare on film is an effective and appropriate ‘for the time’ way of supplying Shakespeare to a wider, younger and more modern audience. Cinema is the accepted form of visual entertainment today. Very few people except those genuinely interested will go to the theatre and it is expensive and still very much aimed at a higher class of people. Cinema is used to keep Shakespeare mainstream and at the forefront of famous British culture and literature. Shakespeare never goes out of style; his plots are very much as relatable today as they were four hundred years ago.
Baz Luhrmann’s famous Romeo and Juliet and Shakespeare in Love are Shakespeare adaptations adored by the masses. Hamlet does not have this same following not because it is lesser known but because it is less extensively studied, also the wide range of interpretations calls on the audience to make up their own mind, something modern people don’t like, having to think. The public interest is lost on Hamlet because they do not understand the play.
I have finally considered briefly other modern portrayals of Hamlet on film and television. I have discussed newer, foreign, lesser known and small screen Hamlets and shown how they differ to my focus works and how they have been done, even Shakespeare fans would lose interest if they were all done the same way, so new ideas and ways of analysing Hamlet are constantly being found and explored. For years Shakespeare has fascinated audiences and will go on to for many years to come.
I have displayed that no two Hamlet’s are the same. Shakespeare has always been exposed to extensive and sometimes even ludicrous personal interpretation. Hamlet is an ambiguous character. Is he sword-waving loon or is he the first ever action-hero? This is where interpretation comes into play, the actor, the director, the reader, whoever has control over the characters, whether it is playing on a screen, on a stage or in your own imagination. Shakespeare gives Hamlet to his audience as their own little action-man toy; to be whoever you want him to be. To play out his story however you want to play it. Shakespeare created his characters to be loved and hated and incredibly confusing. But he succeeded in creating a whole race of Shakespeareans; tyrannical rulers, heartless murderers, clowns, warriors, star-crossed lovers, friends and foes.
Reference List
Sarah Bernhardt (1900) Le Duel D’Hamlet [online] Available from; (Accessed 6th April)
Boose, Lynda E. and Burt, Richard (1997) Shakespeare The Movie. London: Routledge
Boose, Lynda E. and Burt, Richard (2003) Shakespeare The Movie II. London: Routledge
Hamlet: Branagh, Kenneth 1996, Castle Rock Entertainment
Michael Brooke (2003) BBC Shakespeare 1972-85: Hamlet [online] Available from; (Accessed 3rd May 2009)
Amanda Carter (2002) Films [online] Available from: (Accessed 21st April 2009)
Mark J. Cassello (1996) Hamlet: Branagh's Bildungsroman [online] Available from; (Accessed 10th April 2009)
Stephen Dalton (2006) Film Choice; Hamlet [online] Available from; (Accessed 23rd April 2009)
Davies, Anthony and Wells, Stanley (1994) Shakespeare and the Moving Image; the plays on film and television. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Dawson, Anthony B. (1995) Shakespeare in Performance, Hamlet. Manchester: Manchester University Press
Johnston Forbes-Robertson (1913) Hamlet [online] Available from; (Accessed 6th April)
Hamlet; Olivier, Laurence, 1948, Two Cities Films Ltd
Rothwell, Kenneth S. (2004) A History of Shakespeare on Screen: A Century of Film and Television. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Author Unknown (1913) “Hamlet” on the cinematograph [online] Available from; (Accessed 6th April 2009)
Author Unknown (1948) Hamlet; Sir Laurence Olivier’s new film [online]
Available from; (Accessed 6th April 2009)
Hamlet; Zeffirelli, Franco, 1990, Canal +
Bibliography
Wells, Stanley (1987) Shakespeare Survey 39: Shakespeare on Film and Television. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Silent Shakespeare: Various, 1899-1911, BFI