|
|
Post by haleyjensen on Feb 10, 2014 9:21:46 GMT
So as I am doing my homework, it is around 1:00 in the morning.. and watching the David Tennet interpretation of Hamlet totally freaked me out! Which is why I much prefer Tennet's version of this scene over Branaugh's version. As Ana and a few others have pointed out, Tennet's version really captures the insanity and madness that's going through Hamlet's mind at this point in the play. Considering the circumstances with his recently killed father, unsettling mother problems, and cruel uncle, I think it's an appropriate interpretation to portray Hamlet as if he is going to fly off the handle at any minute.
After becoming familiar with the text, I am starting to become tolerant to how intense and emotionally painful Hamlet's problems really are. Following the introduction of Hamlet's problems via his Dad's ghost, I have looked at this text so much that I have just accepted that these problems are a part of the story. But, familiarity can be dangerous. To me, Tennet's interpretation of Hamlet's soliloquy was an important reminder of how legitimate Hamlet's problems are. It can be easy to peg Hamlet as a drama queen or a "victim", but the passion in Tennet's Hamlet character really poked at an empathetic part of me. It's as if this scene were suggesting the viewer to stop, hold up, and really think about how bizzare and painful Hamlet's set of circumstances are. It made me want to write Hamlet a pass for his crazy behavior. I know personally when I am stressed, exhausted, angry or confused (like Hamlet), sometimes I just need a minute to decompress and review what has happened over a day, a week, etc. This "decompression" comes in different forms for different people, whether it's throwing things, crying, yelling, or sleeping. I think that Tennet's version really captured a period of emotionally laborious "decompression."
On a different note, one thing I really liked about both of these versions was their full uses of the text. Sure, there is a lot of text because this is a huge scene for Hamlet. But, I think soliloquy's lend themselves nicely to movie scenes because they leave room for so much interpretation. There is a lot of time for actors to fill when they are speaking these words. This can be a scene in which character's are heavily developed through their gestures, facial expressions, and tone of voice. With interpretation comes responsibility, which I do not think Tennet lived up to in the wardrobe aspect of version. I couldn't agree more with Morgan--what the heck is Hamlet wearing?! He is dressed like a disgruntled seventh grade boy. I would love to hear any justification for why he is wearing a shirt with abs. Although he is dressed in "younger" clothes, he only appears like an adult who went shopping in the junior section. I agree that the music in Tennant's scene was a bit cheesy and the Braunaugh house-thing was really cool. |
|
|
|
Post by amysohlberg on Feb 10, 2014 19:38:25 GMT
Branagh's interpretation of this scene was much better than the ghost or the scene with the king. His devotion to including every line didn't sound as forced, because every line was important to following Hamlet's shifts in attitude. He delivered the lines beautifully, and I really followed his emotions ("like a whore, unpack my heart with WORDS!"). Some other people are saying that talking to the furniture and his violent ranting was cheesy, but I liked it! I think it added to the insane frustration and shame Hamlet is feeling. I liked Branagh's energy and his madness, but the last bit where he had a little king on the little stage was stupid. It set the whole thing off for me. Why does he have that little doll set? It was just weird for me.
From the very start of the Tennant version, all I could think was: "What the heck is on his shirt?" When I finally figured out that it was fake abs, I had missed half the soliloquy and spent the other half distracted by how out of place it seemed. I get that he was trying to do an alternative interpretation, but his stupid shirt took it too far. Too distracting for me. Besides that, though, I liked how he destroyed the surveillance camera at the beginning. That was a cool interpretation of "now I am alone." I also liked how the set was really plain. It set all the focus on Hamlet and made you really listen to what he was saying, until you looked at his shirt. For some reason, I just didn't believe him. When I listened to Branagh do this soliloquy, I believed that he was Hamlet. Tennant just didn't take me in. Not sure why.
I think Branagh did this one better and his scene was closer to the one I imagined. Tennant had an interesting interpretation, but I just didn't buy it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gracepark on Feb 10, 2014 23:19:16 GMT
Wow – where to even begin! First off, I just want to put it out there that no matter how many critiques have been made, no one can deny that these two actors nailed the emotion of Hamlet that none of us could possibly fathom to imitate.
But obviously the two scenes interpret Hamlet’s soliloquy in rather different manners. Kenneth Branagh went through extreme lengths to get to the heart of Hamlet and to bring his audience members with him too. The spattering of words, the mournful cries and the violent tosses all added to this wholesome character of Hamlet that I somewhat envisioned for this scene. The props, like the doll-house stage and the curtained windows, all enhanced Branagh’s symbolic interpretation. But occasionally, I would get this weird twitch on my side while watching Branagh’s acting and his interaction with the setting of the scene. And that twitch on my side is an all-too-familiar symptom of my body reacting to a cheesy situation. The doll-house stage and the final fall of Claudius’s puppet is a typical and, unfortunately, waaaay-too-overused foreshadowing method that gave off an uncomfortable cheesy vibe. Not to mention the curtain windows that only hinted back towards Hamlet’s previous statement of the castle being like a gilded prison. All such props were clever but let’s be honest – it was all called for. But beside the props, one lacking point of Branagh’s interpretation of the entire film is his tendency to rush the speech. Fortunately in this scene, the cramming of lines sort of acted in favor of Branagh’s interpretation of Hamlet yet the ultimate after-taste of this scene is that it was undeniably excessive… and cheesy.
The other interpretation with David Tennant starring as Hamlet was definitely different and entirely unexpected. First off, Dr. Who reciting Shakespeare lines was uncalled for. And secondly, Hamlet wearing an orange, 10-pack-looking-tee with jeans was most definitely unpredicted. I did anticipate a modern interpretation of Hamlet, but BBC’s twist on this ancient Shakespearian play took it to levels I did not expect – both in good and bad ways. First off, I loved how they decided to install a CCTV. It was a familiar touch of modern day parent-teenager relatioships that was most welcome to audience members around our age. The present-day details definitely bridged the gap between Hamlet and modern viewers – something that was not fully accomplished in Branagh’s version. However what kind of threw me off was the harsh visual juxtaposition between Tennant’s clothing and the interior of what I assume is his bedroom. At first glance, it looked kind of off – almost as if this scene was just a rehearsal where Tennant wasn’t in his costume. But what really threw me off by the middle of the soliloquy was the thought that such an unforgiving juxtaposition seemed to fit perfectly with the context. In the midst of this castle where everything seems to be just right, corruption and vengeance rot the spirit Denmark. And Tennant’s clothing represents exactly that: Hamlet’s isolation, his frenzy, his wild vigor and the symbol of something that is not quite right.
Overall, however, both interpretations were great. Branagh proved his immense skill in acting as did Tennant. But I think of the two, Tennant portrayed the authentic image of Hamlet: an active and immensely engaging character that embodies the classic poetic tragedy that has surpassed the test of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by madisonarmst on Feb 11, 2014 0:07:20 GMT
I agree that having Hamlet stare down and destroy the security camera in the Tennant version is unsettling and a bit scary, but I don't think it adds a lot to the play, especially given its modern setting. Dismantling security cameras is usually followed by committing a heinous crime--which Hamlet is not about to do--but gives the audience the wrong impression about him and makes him seem like the bad guy. Tennant's acting also does not help the audience sympathize with Hamlet, who after all is the protagonist. Tennant is disheveled, young and crazy and does not appear as if he could lead a country effectively. Yes, the throne should be his, but if I were watching this movie without having read the original play, I would question Hamlet's ability to be king. Overall, I did not like the Tennant version because of the way in which Hamlet was portrayed, highlighted by his abrupt and messy exit at the end of the soliloquy.
I liked the Branagh version a little bit more, but it was still not my ideal interpretation. It was much more traditional, but some of the elements felt overly exaggerated. I did not, for example, like when Hamlet was slamming on the windows and books or playing with the doll house. I understand that the intention was to show his anger and insanity, but it was so obvious without those actions that they felt like too much. It contributed too much to the notion that Hamlet's decision to show a play depicting his situation to his uncle was spontaneous and sudden, when I think it was well thought out in reality. Neither of these interpretations were my favorite because I do not agree with the portrayal of Hamlet as spontaneous, disheveled and overly insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by garygates on Feb 11, 2014 0:49:41 GMT
To begin with the Branagh version, I found it once not containing the correct mise-en-scene elements. For one, the setting, a study, did not seem to fit in well with Hamlet's rant. It neither captured Hamlet in his appropriate element (meaning it did not fortify his crazed mental state) nor did it contrast his emotions properly. I believe I understand what Branagh was trying to do with the setting, this being establish Hamlet as a scholar, but this in itself is redundant because Hamlet demonstrates his affinity for the theater in the prior scene. The lighting and colors of the setting also did not match up with the mood that I believe the soliloquy deserves. Rather than use a bright, white and red coloration as Branagh did earlier, or instead capture Hamlet's brooding emotions with a dark and ominous background, Branagh settled for a medium-lit and brown, very boring lighting and coloration. It just did not work for me.
Now to advance to Branagh's acting skills: Yes, Branagh did portray Hamlet as an angry character, but there was something that was not quite on. I am not sure of the largest contributor to the discord. It may have once again been the pacing of the film due to the tremendous amount of dialogue that Branagh attempts to use, which in turn results in a lack of dramatic pauses and space for emotion, void of dialogue, to fill the screen. It may have also been Branagh's facial and tonal expressions. I was not a fan of Branagh's first couple of minutes of dialogue; he seemed angry, not crazy as I imagine Hamlet. I was, however, quite happy when Branagh began his change of pace and tone with the "what an ass am I" sequence. He slowed down and was quieter, producing more of an emotional depth. Despite the brief moment of "accurate" acting, (I place quotation marks around accurate because of its subjectivity) my happiness was transitory, as Branagh launched to quickly back into wrathful and rambunctious Hamlet, even as he should be, in my mind's eye, more painfully quiet and calculating, not angry. He bounces around between calculating Hamlet and loud Hamlet, the prior the better of the two, the latter the less profound. I just wish Branagh was more consistent with his acting.
As seems to be the general consensus on the forum, I enjoyed watching the Tennant version more than the Branagh version. Some of this appreciation come from the fact that Tennant's adaptation is refreshing and new, but when I break down Tennant's work into both mise-en-scene and performance I can see my real reasons why I prefer it. While Branagh's version made a mistake when it came to setting, I quite liked Tennant's setting. There is a perfect juxtaposition not only between the character and the background, but within the background itself. To begin, the background contains some royal elements, such as the chairs, chandeliers, and candle holders that are gold and ornate. Yet, while we would imagine beautiful and vivid reds and purples to go hand-in-hand with the royal setting, Tennant's version instead makes use of a dark and ominous lighting and coloration. Then there are the contemporary vs old-fashioned juxtapositions, those being Hamlet's wardrobe when compared to the setting and the acknowledgement of modern technology (video cameras) in what seems like a fairly medieval, candlelit room. These contrasting elements lend themselves to echoing Hamlet's deteriorating mental state. And finally, the part that I was probably most intrigued by was the feeling the setting and acting created. Though it began with the simple act of Hamlet destroying a camera and saying something along the line's of "now I am alone," the space of the setting (generally zoomed out from Hamlet) simultaneously made it seem like Hamlet was alone in a big room, but was also being watched, as the camera and his crazed appearance and demeanor show.
I also had a greater appreciation for Tennant's acting than Branagh's. I will admit, Tennant was not perfect. At one point he stood front and center and gestured like an Italian in an argument, which seemed rather pointless, seeing as he is in essence alone and talking to his self. Tennant, however, made up for this minor glitch with his accurate depiction of wide-eyed and crazy, bent-over emotional Hamlet. Everything Tennant did aided the depiction of a psychotic and emotionally wrecked youth. He was raving mad before his "what an ass am I" segment, but then perfectly segued into plotting side of Hamlet. I especially liked this minute of the film. Tennant comes near to breaking the fourth wall, and circles around the camera, seeming to acknowledge an audience's existence, but does so in such a manner that could just as well be characterized as the realistic portrayal of a demented person (without intending to break the fourth wall and literally talk to an audience).
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on Feb 11, 2014 2:38:59 GMT
At first I just focused on the strictly visual differences between both plays. I find it interesting how much attire can affect the interpretation of the play. Branaugh’s dress elevates him and separates him as royalty. David Tennant’s dress contrastingly assimilates him into modern society and for lack of a better word, makes him more relatable to a contemporary audience.
When I was watching Branaugh’s version, there was a wall between the character and myself—I never forgot I was watching a play. One of my favorite parts about this scene was the end, when Hamlet opened up the mini stage and peered into it as he plotted to expose his Uncle’s guilt through a play. Although this action seemed scripted and planned, I liked the added interpretation. During this version, I felt like I was watching the text unfold in front of me. I am not confident whether this is entirely negative or positive. From a Formalist perspective, it is great. However, at times it feels like Branaugh is rushing to get through all of the text. Ultimately I think this pays more of a disservice to the text.
David Tennant’s interpretation, I felt transported into the room with Hamlet. I found myself paying closer attention to his words. I appreciated how Hamlet’s distraught mental state was mirrored in his clothing with his t-shirt and bare footedness. In my eyes, however, Hamlet lost his “royal status”. In the second version, I do not feel the weight of Denmark influencing Hamlet’s madness. I merely see Hamlet’s conflicted feelings concerning his familial discord.
Although I enjoyed watching the second version better, I think the first version captured a greater extent of Hamlet ‘s depth. A huge part of Hamlet’s struggle is his position in society, which is reflected in his clothing and mannerisms. I think the second version loses the archetype that is essential to developing Hamlet’s character.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47 
|
Post by amychen on Feb 11, 2014 6:58:49 GMT
I preferred the Tennant version to the Branagh version for many reasons, and perhaps the best way to point this out is through going through each of them. Starting with Branagh:   "Branaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggggggggggh"
My main beef with the Branagh version is that it just didn't seem right. The meaning of the words in his interpretation didn't come across well, which was, unfortunately, one of the few things he had going for him in his version of the ghost scene (with the flashbacks). The overall tone of the scene came across, but it wasn't until after Branagh's Hamlet got over his period of "touching everything in the room while speaking very quickly" that his actions acutually added clarity to the text. Even then, I wanted to groan. Hamlet's conveniently pre-set up stage model was a little much, as was the entire set up of the room. Never mind the random scary masks at the beginning of the scene---some of the objects in the room clearly should not have been where they were. Take, for example, the table in front of the dresser. Why would you put that there? Maybe that's why Hamlet pushes it over. Humor aside, the biggest fault with Branagh's version is that I was too aware that it was an interpretation. Branagh's performance assumes that the reader already knows what Hamlet is saying, and does the bare minimum of conveying Hamlet's emotions. It appeared as though the set-up of the room was more conscious of the text than Branagh, which isn't saying much, considering it's primary purpose was to be Branagh's playground, only to show Hamlet's play idea in the last five seconds.
 "I WORK OUT."What Branagh's performance lacks, Tennant's performance has. Tennant's performance gave meaning to the text, not relying on props or the setting to make clear what the text is about. And, as Steve mentioned: I also loved that Tenant broke the fourth wall and spoke directly to the camera. Soliloquies are meant to be spoken to the audience, so it seemed natural for Tenant to talk to the camera. Tennant's use of soliloquy as, well, a soliloquy, made Tennant's Hamlet seem more real---making his insanity appear legitimate. The thing to take note of, however, is that Hamlet starts off the scene upset about how an actor seems to convey grief more honestly than he has. Which begs the question: should Hamlet's emotions seem legitimate in this scene? While Tennant's performance tugs at our heartstrings, Branagh's performance might seem overly-deliberate to stay true to Hamlet as a character. And, while I still think the Branagh version needs help when it comes to getting the meaning of the text across and its overuse of props, I can't help but think Branagh's acting appears unnatural for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Feb 11, 2014 20:27:54 GMT
Branagh's Hamlet: I didn't like this version very much. To me, Hamlet appeared to be over-performing his soliquey. He enunciated very clearly, which helped me as a the viewer to understand his words, but made his soliloquy seem less natural. And his movements were smart, but so deliberate that I perceived them as calculated, which was distracting. His movements and eye contact made it seem like he was delivering his speech to an audience when he is supposed to be talking to himself. But, I did like the dramatic move with the king figurine at the the end of the scene. That was pretty intense, and an interesting way to really dig the idea that Hamlet is going to act on the King.
Tennant: YES. I loved this interpretation right from the get-go, when he tore to cameras off the wall and sassily announced "Now I am alone." At first I wasn't sure about having Hamlet look into the camera, but this worked so well! Everything about it really enhanced the soliloquy. From Hamlet's boyish "ab" t-shirt, the way he delivered the lines as if he was mulling over his anguish and frustration, to the cinematography and music selection with the spinning camera and ringing pitches in the end. This definitely captured Hamlet's intensity, and the modern dress helped connect the story to present day while the regal furniture tied the story to its old roots.
For me, the Tennant version is a big-time winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilybrinkmann on Feb 11, 2014 23:28:12 GMT
I am going to go ahead and call it the Gilderoy Lockhart edition, because that is what I think of every time I see him. As some of my peers have mentioned the pervious scene we watched from this movie I really did not enjoy. I didn't enjoy it because it was almost completely opposite of the image I painted in my head. But this scene I really enjoyed. Starting with Hamlet walking into the off-white bluish grey room (which set the light to match the soliloquy) to when he opened the doll house. The doll house was by far my favorite part, it make me think of house Hamlet and his family are all just dolls-puppets of their emotions. I would never picture someone like Hamlet to be playing with a doll house but it is a nice node to his characters love of theater. Although the acting was a little overdone, I think it worked in this particular scene. When Hamlet is pacing back and forth I pictured a little devil and angel on his shoulder resembling his inner emotions. If I was directing this I would definitely not have had Hamlet have so many dramatic movements because I thought it took away from what he was saying, but overall, the message got across in an artful way.
Now the David Tennant version.....At first I thought I was watching one of the commercials that comes on before what you really want to watch, but once I got passed that I really liked this version. The modern take made the message more relatable for me. At first when Hamlet goes up to the close camera and rips it down it symbolized to me his paranoia and portrayed his choice to act crazy. The setting was very romantic to me; the chandeliers and elegant black floors that reflected, and the delicate detailing on the chairs. I really liked it all, but I think it had to be balanced with the nonchalant t-shirt and jeans. One thing that I think set the Hamlet's apart is their blocking. Lockhart was constantly throwing himself around where Tennant is much more calm on the outside and lets his words tell the story.
Both versions have their charm along with their annoying features but I enjoyed each version and it definitely brought a different image of Hamlet to my mind. To go back to the question at the beginning of the year (what is art) Both of these versions, under my definition, constitute as art because they challenged my image of the story and brought a new dimension to the character.
|
|
|
|
Post by austinellerbruch on Feb 11, 2014 23:50:13 GMT
Personally, I find Branagh's portrayal of the soliloquy to be more satisfactory than Tennant's. I think that Branagh did well at capturing the Hamlet's gradual fall into the insanity, while still maintaining some conscious awareness of himself. I also like how Branagh portrayed Hamlet's inner war with himself, and found his struggle over the justification of murder to be a believable struggle. I think that Tennant is putting a little too much insanity into the soliloquy. My interpretation of Hamlet at this point is that he is slowly being driven insane by the notion of murder, yet still maintains a fairly rational thought process. I think that Tennant is overpowering the rational side of Hamlet with the insane side, creating an imbalance in the character that I personally do not envision when reading this soliloquy.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahlewman on Feb 11, 2014 23:57:29 GMT
lol @branagh
Seriously though, that Hamlet interpretation was hilarious. The first component of the scene that stood out to me was the set. Has anyone ever seen that SNL skit where they are trying to make a really serious movie, but there is super cheesy taxidermy everywhere because the director's cousin or someone like that was a taxidermist? Yeah, that's what this Hamlet scene felt like. The masks and everything in the background were so cluttered and distracting I couldn't even handle it. The delivery of the soliloquy itself was pretty intense and had a lot of power behind it, though by the end I wish there had been more variation in tone. Speaking of the end, did anyone else double over laughing when they realized Hammy had a puppet theater of his own life? Because I did. How many old ish dudes do you know who play with puppets custom designed for their lives? Hopefully not too many.
The Tennant version on the other hand was pretty cool. Granted, I would have like some context (I know, I know, "but context contextualizes things") to explain the era-clash between his clothing and the set. But in terms of the soliloquy itself, Tennant seemed to understand it better than Branagh. He understands that silence can be more powerful than volume and pauses stronger than speed. I'll admit that the ending was a bit cheesy and didn't seem to fit the tone of the rest of the scene, but I think that's in part because the rest of the soliloquy was so perfect that it would be hard to match. This version gets my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by cassiecumberland on Feb 12, 2014 0:26:53 GMT
Bran:
I understand that Branaugh's setting during his Hamlet Soliloquy is consistent and appropriate with the setting that he chose for the entirety of the play. Still, however, it isn't quite doing it for me. Although I like the juxtaposition between the dark play and the light setting, I still think that it looses a sense of the times, because, as many historical critics will agree, the history of the play is extremely important. Since Branaugh (I'm going to call him Bran) has decided to make the play in a more modern setting, wouldn't it be more appropriate to also make the soliloquy in Hamlet's head instead of spoken? Because who, in modern day, talks to themself? I guess this underlines the fact that Hamlet may or may not be crazy (to be determined....), but it seems that things could be different to keep the overall consistency between the chosen time period and the actions of those in the time period. I especially like when Bran is leaning face-forward against the book shelf, I think that he should remain in that way for longer to show true insanity instead of pacing. The acting is impeccable though! The whole thing just isn't exactly what I wanted (how selfish ;P ). I think that if Bran didn't keep every line, this truly would be more powerful, especially toward the end of the soliloquy! I LOOOVE the scoring and I do appreciate that it is more contemporary because that creates some sort of ability for me to relate more but the two (setting and the soliliquy) just don't jive! Does this make sense?
Tennant:
First off the bat... watching the beginning of this scene is abrupt and confusing without more context unto what the rest of the film looks like. I like that Hamlet is casted as a more "youthful" Hamlet. I do not like him sitting so casually like that because it does not add up with the dialect of Shakespeare's play!!! His facial expressions are much better than Branaugh's he is more expressive with his face, which contributes to angst and sass. I like that he sounds like a whining teenager when saying "for Hecuba?!" I appreciate that this actor's performance is more "stage" like than Branaugh's (where Branaugh is just trying a little too hard). This version really amps up the "insanity" aspect of Hamlet. I think that this version plays up, overall, the whole potential insanity thing WAY better than Bran's, so I'd be very interested to see who interpreted the play which way (aka insane or sane).
Cool contrast of video clips! Overall, I'm loving Hamlet!
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38 
|
Post by rishi on Feb 12, 2014 1:07:18 GMT
Unlike many of my peers, I preferred Branagh's version of Hamlet's soliloquy over Tennant's version.
At first, I thought that, just like the scene we watched in class, the Branagh soliloquy would be excessively dramatic. It is dramatic yet bearable. I actually like it. Hamlet's almost excessive passion accurately describes his emotions, and I think that this should be the goal of any interpretation of a play. For instance, I enjoyed the part when Hamlet starts screaming at the window and suddenly squats on the ground in distress. This accurately describes Hamlet's emotions and shows that he is slightly insane. Hamlet's restraint in taking out his anger also seems realistic. An example of this is when the shouting Hamlet almost smashes the window but restrains himself. I can relate to this right now: I accidentally closed my Lincoln's Heaven tab a few minutes ago and lost my response to this question, and I feel like smashing my computer for not clicking where I told it to click, but I am restraining myself. This emotion is the same feeling that Branagh has as he speaks Hamlet's soliloquy, but it is understandable that he takes the emotion up a notch because he just found out that his uncle murdered his father. This leads me to another aspect of Branagh's interpretation that I enjoyed: Hamlet's spiteful attitude at the end. Although Hamlet's contriving paints him in an evil light, this is precisely what make Branagh's version so great. Branagh is accurate. How else would Hamlet feel and what else would Hamlet want to do in response to his father's murder?
One of my favorite parts of Tennant's version of Hamlet's soliloquy was the beginning when Hamlet confirms that he is alone by destroying the security camera. In other words, I did not like Tennant's interpretation very much. A security camera in a castle? Jeans and a fake ab shirt in a dark room with Gothic architecture? I thought that Hamlet was part of the royal family. Shouldn't he be dressed more fancily? Some of my peers commented that they enjoyed the fact that Hamlet addresses the audience in Tennant's version of the soliloquy. I didn't enjoy this. A soliloquy is merely a vocal version of one's thoughts; it did not seem necessary for Tennant to announce his plan to the entire audience. This is not realistic. Furthermore, plans of revenge are plots that people usually keep to themselves, not plots that people share with millions of viewers. And I thought that Tennant destroyed all of the video cameras in the room. Why does he start addressing one?
Criticism aside, I did enjoy the emotion in Tennant's interpretation. The way he circles around the camera with his wide eyes while spilling his mind makes him seem insane and conflicted; this is what Hamlet seems to feel in the text. However, the anachronisms and lack of practicality in Tennant's version, along with the emotional prowess of Branagh's version, compel me to prefer Branagh's version over Tennant's version.
|
|
joelk
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by joelk on Feb 12, 2014 1:07:24 GMT
After watching the clips, I think each does a few things well (and other things badly), so I'm not sure I have a clear favorite. If I had to pick, I'd probably say I liked the Branagh version slightly better. (Since the prompt "have a conversation" doesn't state we need to pick a favorite, though, I think it's interesting, and revealing, that this is the first thing we all look to when we evaluate these two clips. "Which one do I like more?" as opposed to "Which Hamlet is crazier?" "Which Hamlet is more believable?" "Which set fits better?" "Which delivery of the lines is most interesting?"
I really like a few parts of the Branagh version. I did not find the set overly obnoxious when I watched it the first and second time, mostly because I was more focused on Branagh. I agree that he cries to one too many bits of inanimate furniture, but it fits the overall tone of the soliloquy that he establishes. As for the play theater, I think it's a little bit of a stretch, but it's not so unbelievable that I can't look beyond it. Many movies/stagings use similarly obvious symbols—I'm thinking of any scene in a Captain Hook or Pirates of the Caribbean movie where we see the "evil mastermind" playing with some model ships and moving them over a map. Besides, I appreciate how Branagh fits his motions into the lines, opening the toy theater when he says, "Drown the stage with tears." The line delivery I felt was most true to "natural human speech" was Branagh's interpretation of "Am I a coward? Who calls me villain?" He adds in slight "huh"s or "hmms" after each question (1:30 into the clip). Because it seems so natural, I think it also makes Branagh's Hamlet seem less insane and more solely angry. Had Hamlet come across as more insane, I think the theater imagery could have been even more effective, since it's scarier to see a grown (insane) man calmly playing with toys. A grown, sane man playing with toys just comes across as childish and laughable. For the sake of a summation, I'd call Branagh's Hamlet angry, more normal (good or bad, depending on what he portrays in the rest of his version), excited, and perhaps a little too rehearsed.
My first impression was that Tennant's Hamlet was a level above Branagh's. Forgiving the security camera that probably makes more sense if I'd been watching previous scenes, Hamlet's pose, sitting against the wall, seemed more naturally "Hamlet" to me. I would think anyone dealing with what Hamlet is going through is less concerned with throwing tables and crying on globes and more focused on what's inside his/her own head. This impression, though, was quickly destroyed, and I think that some of Tennant's actions (around 2:50) were simply wild and awkward, at least in a film. The background to these actions, though—four empty chairs—resonated with me. It seems a much subtler symbol than the toy theater, and made me think about which characters (or empty spaces signifying characters) might occupy these chairs (and which ones I'd place in them).
Similarly, I had a terrific first impression of Tennant's first eye contact with the camera. When he's sitting down and glancing around, it seems as if his glance into the lens is just one of his many natural, frenetic looks. It draws in the viewer quite well. When he begins to question if he is a coward, however, I think the eye contact is overdone. Though Steve points out that soliloquies are supposed to be spoken to an audience, I'd like to dance with this point a bit. Certainly, actors may break the fourth wall in a soliloquy, but I've never seen (and I think it would be quite odd) if you attended a performance of Hamlet and the actor delivered the lines while making eye contact with the same person over and over for longer periods of time. In my (more limited than Steve's) theater experience, actors might look out at an audience, but they don't seem to seek out eye contact with anyone.
Lastly, I thought it was interesting that both versions' actors chose to shout "Vengeance!" in the same pose (hands clasped overhead, perhaps as if grasping a sword) and then collapse/slide down the wall (3:10 in the Tennant clip, 2:08 in the Branagh one). This suggests that in two totally different interpretations of the work, Shakespeare's words call to mind the same implied actions. Maybe that sort of universal imagery is indicative of spots where the "locus of power" of Shakespeare's lines lies.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on Feb 12, 2014 1:20:06 GMT
We've all heard the phrase "less is more", and Tennant upheld that. There was less in the background, the movements, even the volume of his voice than his counterpart, Branagh. Tennant's soliloquy seemed to flow so naturally that it felt less as if he were reading a script and more as if he were simply talking to himself. Although Tennant wasn't dramatically yelling as much as Branagh, he managed to talk with more power because he was passionate. I preferred Tennant's set because it was simple and clean, which allows the audience to focus more on what he is saying, rather than where he is saying it. Furthermore, I found that Tennant portrayed the ending of Hamlet's soliloquy closer to how I imagined it. To me, the ending is exemplary of the beginning stages of Hamlet's insanity and also his excitement at the thought of catching his uncle. Tennant captured that beautifully, whereas Branagh fell a bit flat.
Branagh was louder and more dramatic in his actions, yet he felt dull to me. Branagh recited the lines beautifully and with plenty of emotion, but I still felt that Tennant's inflection was better suited. I did, however, appreciate that he did not look into the camera. Although many of my peers felt that "breaking the fourth wall" was a tremendous feat of Tennant, I personally did not like it. It felt as though Tennant started talking to me, rather than to himself. I liked that Branagh talked to the furniture because what else is he supposed to talk to? I also liked Branagh's costume. I could not get over the fact that Tennant was in jeans and a t-shirt. He is a prince afterall! Now, that isn't to say that princes aren't allowed to wear jeans and a t-shirt but still, he is a prince. He could have AT LEAST worn a t-shirt without fake abs on it... Just sayin.
|
|
