alice
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by alice on Feb 12, 2014 1:22:39 GMT
I think that Branaugh's interpretation was strong in the sense that it showed Hamlet's array of emotions as well as a range of his insanity. The camera paned around the room as we, the audience see his talking to thin air. Sometimes it looks like he is talking to one person, other times a group; we are shown that his mind is bouncing around and is far from steady. This version started off too slow/rocky for me because I had to get over the phrasing hump again in the sense that WHOA SHAKESPEARIAN. I liked when he cleared the table in anger and then soon after lost his energy and passion and was mostly sad. I think these mood swings that this mustachioed Hamlet used were very effective in showing his character. Also the little model stage at the end I think was really fascinating especially to show Hamlet as this big force controlling the one little player on the stage. Presumably he figures this is how the power in his plan will happen, buuuut that's probably not going to happen.
In the Tennent version, I was immediately caught by 1) who is spying on him? That blows and 2) wow he's super out of place. The setting (or this lavish black and gold modernized castle) was gorgeous and very regal but not ancient was far from complimentary from Hamlet's sweet muscle tee and barefoot self. The costumes here, unlike in the Branaugh set, show more of Hamlet sticking out instead of trying to blend in. I thought this version did a good job at utilizing the large space. The Branaugh version worked with a small cramped space while this one had a large empty room. I gravitated towards this version and Hamlet's stomping and falling in a large space since it focused more on how much his mind was moving physically and a bit on how he didn't really know what to do with himself. Like, do you ever get that feeling where you're home alone for a while and you just start waving your arms around and dancing, cuz hey no one's home? I feel like Hamlet has the angry/ tortured soul version of this. He's falling and pacing until he gets a plan. The camera did an interesting thing here as it slowly zoomed in and out (on a crane or a dolly) to allow Hamlet to make his sudden movements as well as for us to slowly become get up in Hamlet's face. I, like others on here, however found the music with the "plays the thing" line at the end VERY cheesy and it took me out of everything that the film maker had set up prior. I think Branaugh's set up with the stage was obvious enough to get the gist but subtle enough to no be groan worthy.
|
|
|
Post by keelycorrigan on Feb 12, 2014 1:35:44 GMT
Hamlet, Hamlet, Hamlet… What you we going to do with you—you, poor little man, you?
Viscerally, I responded more to the David Tennant version of the play simply because of the color choices. The dark, modern, geometric feeling of the setting juxtaposed to the organic feeling of this Hamlet’s costume was really interesting to me. I loved that they had him barefooted with rolled up jeans and an adolescence-screaming orange graphic tee with an ambiguous muscle/abs image on it (a superficial thing to get hung up on… but, whaaaa???). David’s Hamlet was deeply emotional in a very sincere way, because his rage was not too explosive and his despair was reserved and uncertain. I did especially liked the way that David approached the “He may the devil” line. For some reason, the emotion (rather than the calculation of Branagh’s) stuck with me. Its hard to articulate when a piece hits you in that way, but Tennant’s Hamlet did that for me. I think it may be that Tennant plays Hamlet in his physicality, costume, and voice as one would play a teenager bursting into adulthood. J’adore cette film.
As for the Branagh edition, I have to approach it in an intellectual way. I do not hate it. I appreciate the artistic choices it makes, but I do not react to it as viscerally and emotionally as I do the Tennant version. It is so dramatic and rich, the kind of film that is in its own visual qualities a work of art. But, I just cannot wrap my head around Kenneth’s Hamlet. He is too much: too old, too dramatic, too articulate and particular with his consonants. His Hamlet is not the misguided boy that my imagination paints Hamlet to be. I cannot sympathize with him when I see him as an adult. Move on, crusty old Hamlet! BE YOUR OWN PERSON. An 18 year old Hamlet living in the shadow of his father’s fateful legacy—yeah, I get it. I’d buy that and I’d cry to that play. But it feels a little insincere and prickly when Hamlet is middle aged (as Kenneth was when this film was made.) I don’t know. Just one woman’s opinion. As a whole, I do appreciate this film as a masterwork of color and visual drama—and I think that in itself makes it an extremely worthwhile film.
I would also just like to put it out there that I thoroughly enjoy watching pieces of the play being acted because it brings the lines to life (as cliché as that is). Sometimes it’s hard to hear the words in your head, or the intonation in which the lines should be uttered. Movies help me feel the play in more than simply my English-nerd-I-read-too-many-books-and-like-to-talk-about-big-ideas-in-pretty-language type way. Just putting it out there.
|
|
|
Post by samwerner on Feb 12, 2014 1:36:10 GMT
I have a multitude of issues with Branagh's interpretation of Hamlet, most of which center around his efforts to fit all of the text into the play. In every section we have watched thus far, the speech has sounded forced and unnatural in many parts. Although I like how that guarantees the work won't stray from Shakespeare's original, it is almost doing it a disservice by cramming it all in and not allowing the audience to soak up the depth many of the words hold. This section was no different. I felt the soliloquy carries an enormous amount of weight and, if Branagh was performing it on stage in front of a live audience, would have that weight connect with the emotions of those listening. In this case, however, it felt a bit fake. The setting was not too bad—there wasn't an overabundance of light or smoke flowing from cracks in the floor—and it was slightly more reasonable than other scenes.
Wow, this David Tennant version was not what I expected to watch at all. I enjoy how the character appears to be more of a troubled youth (much more than Branagh's Hamlet). The setting is also very similar to how I pictured it while reading, even though the character is far more modern. I appreciate the modernity that still remains true to the emotions stirred up by the centuries-old soliloquy. It was far easier to connect with even though there were some parts I still found a bit strange: his shirt is not swag, his repeated glimpses into the camera and therefore glimpses into my soul sort of creep me out, some of his actions were overdramatized. That said, I didn't mind this version too much because it still contains the overall emotional zeitgeist of the original work.
|
|
|
Post by davidqin on Feb 12, 2014 1:41:21 GMT
I find myself surprised that strongly preferred the Branagh version over the Tennant version. First off, I was drawn to the setting in Branagh's version, with the intricate furniture and the very fitting "doll house" with the little king inside it. That was a nice touch. In addition, I think the furniture makes the scene feel rich, bordering on busy but not to the point that the props get in the way of Branagh's performance. Indeed, I think his interaction with the furniture made the soliloquy seem all the more natural, as he gestures to the globe, fiddles with the little house, and angrily punches aside the table. It fits more with my idea of what Hamlet should be like (in contrast to what I thought of the overlit palace and the exploding ground of the previous scenes we watched). In contrast, the sparse surroundings in the Tennant version put me off. There was nothing to look at but Tennant himself, and although that's fine and all (after all, he is the center of the show), it is more like a theatrical production than a film. It feels so empty! However, one thing I liked about the Tennant version is the darker atmosphere, which is definitely more fitting than the far oversaturated colors in Branagh's film.
Secondly, I really enjoyed Branagh's control of language and tone, and it's clear he goes through several phases, first reflective and despondent, then furious, and finally mischievous but collected. The emotions didn't seem overdone to me, but they seemed quite natural. As he wanders about the room playing with objects and pondering his situation, I felt much more attached to Branagh's rendition because it simply felt more natural. As for Tennant's portrayal, I was really annoyed by the way he looked at the camera. Don't look at the camera! Are you giving a speech, a lecture, a nice educational program for kids in which you must break the wall? I don't think so. You live in your Hamlet-universe, and the viewer does not exist to you. In addition, I didn't like his "angry scene" either. He's just standing in the middle of a sparse hall and screaming his lungs out while looking at the camera. It's quite dramatic, but it does not stir the emotions of the Hamlet in Branagh's version, where you can truly emphasize with his solitude. Here, I felt like I was watching a video tutorial on the portrayal of emotions, but overdone for the benefit of the audience. Mind you, I do not have the experience of others here such as Steve or Austin (and many more), but I was disturbed by the inauthentic emotions which were clearly done for the benefit of the viewer, and not a real portrayal of what Hamlet would have felt. Finally, the T-shirt and jeans. Casual and comfortable's good and all, but don't sit there all comfy on the floor and deliver your lines to the camera. Especially while you're in such casual dress. I appreciate the modern-day take, but a prince deserves a little more than that.
|
|
Kasey
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by Kasey on Feb 12, 2014 1:52:51 GMT
As far as the Branagh version, my issue with it was that I didn't see enough build up or enough "coast" down. I saw a little build up of his anger, but at his climax he was much too high to just suddenly click it off. His anger moved too quickly from one side of the spectrum to the other without enough difference in between. He's just up and down too fast for my taste of human nature. As for Mr. David Tennant (and his sick muscle shirt), I always liked how he rips out the camera first. The movie seems more casual, and this move has always made me laugh a little, because his tone is just so...passive aggressive. I really like how the beginning starts out very slow and personable, and how Tennant plays Hamlet right down to the paranoid twitching of his eyes. But when he jumps up and just stands, it gets too monologue-y for me. It's not natural enough. At the same time, I was absolutely blown away when he walks up to the camera to ask the audience if he is a coward, even though that's not considered "natural". It makes the audience seem as though only he can see us. I found his anger build-up and slope down much more realistic than the Branagh; his "oh, what an ass am I" was much more defeated, an emotion that I see more than a simple realization.
|
|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Feb 12, 2014 1:59:06 GMT
These two interpretations of Hamlet's soliloquy portray very different readings of the text. As Joel mentions, we are quick to jump to our reader's response guns: "Which one do I like more?" Yet, after examining the way in which each version presents the scene, from the setting to Hamlet's insanity, it is clear which elements work better than others.
I will start of by noting that I have an unbelievable amount of respect for Kenneth Branagh. He is undoubtedly a fantastic and venerable Shakespearean actor and deserves to play the role of Hamlet. His meter and delivery of the soliloquy are flawless and really lull the viewer into the performance. While Branagh is eloquent and elegant in his portrayal, his formal qualities ultimately lead to the downfall of this version. His passion is overwhelmingly truthful and honest, but it lacks the raw craze that I imagine Hamlet containing in his psychotic state. Furthermore, the setting is another key aspect that does not work for me. Not only is it much too light, but the formal office setting and childish toy castle do nothing but detract from the scene. I understand the desire to clash Hamlet's feelings with the light background, but, for me, this did not work at all.
Tennant's version, on the other hand, is the pure craziness I was looking for. After watching part of the Mel Gibson version in class, I was certain that the classic 1500s setting would be the only version I allowed myself to genuinely appreciate. That is certainly no longer the case-- this was brilliant. Tennant is the epitome of insane, with his casual t-shirt and jeans, ruffled hair and bare feet. He gazes into the camera as if he were aware he was talking to an audience, and carries himself in a hysterical manner. He moves around the set unpredictably and restlessly, moving from prone to standing to kneeling. Additionally, the darkness and emptiness complement how I believe Hamlet feels in the depths of his soul. It is a truly genuine and natural portrayal of Hamlet. I loved it.
So, while I enjoyed Branagh's classic interpretation to a certain extent, Tennant's blew me away-- fake abs and all.
|
|
|
Post by naomiporter on Feb 12, 2014 2:10:37 GMT
I love David Tennant. I also happen to love how he portrays Hamlet. That version works for me better by far than any other version we have seen so far. First of all, I pictured Hamet looking something like Tennant, and I think in regard to age, he looks the part much better than Branagh. The inflections he uses and timing of both words and actions make a lot of sense to me. I love how he says the line, "Am I a coward?" because I think that is the main issue behind this soliloquy, and he gets that across very well. He seems to convey better than Branagh the many thoughts and chaos in Hamlet's head; he pauses at the right times, screams at the right times, and really successfully (in my mind) contrasts the times when Hamlet sits dejected and hopeless with the times he is energized and with anger. Also, I'm not sure why, but I really liked that he was barefoot. As for the staring-directly-at-the-camera thing, it definitely threw me off at first, but it also seems very powerful at times (such as when he asks "Am I a coward"). I'm still not quite sure whether it worked for me or not. I'm inclined to say I loved it, but that is partly due to my wanting to like it just because of David Tennant...
As for Branagh's version, I am kind of surprised at how little I like it (given how much I usually like Branagh). I think a lot of it is that Hamlet HAS to be a teenager in my mind, and Branagh simply does not fit that role. As the angsty, over-dramatic, teenager-y 35 YEAR OLD that he is, I just can't see it. I cannot keep it in my head while watching it that this is Hamlet. Are you sure this is not actually a fan-fic about his dad or something? And his banging on glass and throwing himself violently around the room... seems a touch over dramatic for me. What I DO like about it is that it does seem to convey well that Hamlet the character is a bit of a drama queen. I think that it does a good job of hinting at Hamlet's secret enjoyment of the drama. Overall, though, Branagh seems to me to fit better as the uncle-dad-king character than Hamlet.
|
|
|
Post by sammywong on Feb 12, 2014 2:19:09 GMT
Branagh's version is brilliant! Watching Tennant's version, I could not help but feel the same way I felt reading the play. Though Tennant's version is shorter and does not utilize the entire dialogue, I found myself completely bored to my brains. Soliloquys are long. No matter how gut wrenching the substance is, no matter what is revealed, a soliloquy will be boring unless performed well. Tennant's version tries to minimize the boringness by shortening the scene. In my opinion, this was the completely wrong approach. Branagh is an incredible actor. First introduced to him, I did not feel he fit the part of Hamlet. But now I see that his quivering mustache adds to the interpretation of Hamlet he portrays. Reading the play, my own interpretation of Hamlet was that he was wronged by his uncle. Tennant's version of Hamlet portrays him as more of a crazy character. I felt that the demons really had entered Hamlet's mind in Tennant's movie, and I am not quite sure I liked that. In Branagh's movie, Hamlet's soliloquy reveals bottomless anger and frustration at the situation presented. Hamlet really regresses to a more immature, unchecked form of himself in Branagh's movie, knocking things over and whining and whatnot. And in my opinion, it was much more convincing than compared to the moody Hamlet sitting in the dark corning of the room, hissing. The written form of the play does not claim its own version and I think Branagh's interpretation is well thought out and executed.
|
|
|
Post by clairem on Feb 12, 2014 2:28:34 GMT
Both of those interpretations had certain parts that had me nodding along and parts that left me taken aback and quite confused. In the 1996 by Branagh I felt that the emotions of the character of Hamlet better reflected the way I read the play than the character in the other version. He follows a progression of bewildered, to distraught, to volatile, to devious, which I feel is the exact same emotional process as the Hamlet in the original play was intended to follow. These four different emotional states pair up with the meaning of his lines and I feel accurately portray his thoughts through emotions. Even though the character of Hamlet seemed a little manic and volatile, I was still enthralled with his soliloquy and really appreciated the raw character choices he made. Aside from the emotional choices, which I respected, were the physical choices which were rather distracting. Hamlet used his hands to help portray his emotions but his open hands, fists, and smashing palms were rather distracting at a certain point and somewhat scared and distracted me from what he was saying. Overall I felt that the Branagh version stuck more closely with my interpretation of the text but could have used some work in terms of blocking and setting.
Wow I was bewildered and incredibly thrown of by David Tennant in this Hamlet soliloquy. Tennant's interpretation of the text seemed incredibly dramatic and rather humorous at times. To be honest I just couldn't take him seriously with his painted on abs and capris in the middle of a gorgeous mansion. I am not a very big fan of weird intertwining of the classic and the modern, I often feel as though they should simply be left apart and thus I came into this version of Hamlet with a bit of pre-viewing bias. To me Tennant acted like a little kid throwing a tantrum in a store, he was all over the place, staring at the camera, pulling his hair, and just generally acting immature. Though I do feel as though Hamlet was intended to be a younger person, unlike the character in the Branagh version, I perceive him to be more clever and mature than the Tennant.
|
|
|
Post by pjharris on Feb 12, 2014 3:24:14 GMT
On the Branagh scene: I really enjoyed how this scene had a neutralized color scheme, unlike the rest of the clown like setting. It allowed me to focus on the words, allowed my pupils to dilate, and allowed me to appreciate the actor and his choices. I could connect with the way Hamlet moved about the room. It was like how real humans would move if in a state like his; they would touch everything and nothing with any particular meaning. I found his blocking appropriate with the emotional tone and volume of his voice and with the inflection that his voice. But on his acting choices, I do not find he found Hamlet quite right. Sure, Hamlet is upset, but I find this Ham as being portrayed emotionally like a 12 year old and physically like a 40 year old. It's kind of confusing me as well as not lining up with my personal picture of Hamlet.
On the Tennant scene: What a change of pace! I am intrigued at the wardrobe and use of technology here! Even though Tennant's face is that of a grown man, his acting allows me to block that out and see an angsty 17 year old. This is not how I picture Hamlet, but they chose this route and carried it through completely and well. What throws me off are a few things. I don't know how I feel about the setting being such an old room and dusty at that, implicating its age even more! With the security camera in this type of building it makes me feel like it is a restored monument kept only for sentimental value or for looks- like the Royal Family! I am most certainly not comfortable with him breaking the fourth wall! I was leaning towards the screen and when he got up close to the camera I had to leaned far back it made me so uncomfortable. His movement is less like reality, less like a movie actor and very resemblant of a stage actor and I do not think that kind of movement belongs on a moving screen.
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Feb 12, 2014 4:26:54 GMT
I watched Branagh's version first and overall I enjoyed it more than the other. The way in which he soliloquized was much more convincing than I generally find soliloquies to be. He seemed at first more like he was reacting to an embarrassment than really worrying that he may not have the capacity for emotion that he should. His anger comes out of nowhere, which makes sense because I already felt that he was breaking down mentally. His unstable emotions support an argument for his descent into madness. I don't understand the reference to a whore in relation to his unpacking his heart with words, but that is Shakespeare not Branagh.
Tennant sits like the adolescent boy I imagined Hamlet to be. This is good because it fits the character in my mind but bad because it does not fit the scenario. He is very casual about fearing he doesn't feel enough. I was thrown off by his eye contact with the camera and with the fact that he sounded more spiteful of the player than worried about his capacity to feel. His emotions focus less on his fear of being a coward and more on his anger towards the player, which is not at all how I read the scene. There is no transition between his resenting the player and his plan to stage a play which is very strange to me.
I am very glad that we are watching these clips because for one, they help me to understand the play. Also I have found that watching the videos helps me to see what exactly I think is important in each scene, which I only notice when it is very clearly present or absent from an interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Feb 12, 2014 6:00:23 GMT
The main difference in the presentation of this soliloquy between these films is the theater vs film style of acting and set design. In Kenneth Branagh's version the atmosphere of the set, costumes, lighting, and acting provide a very film-like essence. Branagh is dressed like Hamlet and has a room intricately adorned with colorful set pieces. Branagh presents the soliloquy in a very dramatic yet static way. He doesn't move around a whole lot and his movements are mostly realistic yet dramatized. David Tennant's version of the soliloquy presents a different and interesting take on the scene. Tennant is dressed in clothing that directly contrasts the set. He is dressed like a child yet he is running around in a room made for a king. The room, while royal looking, is completely devoid of set pieces other than some chairs, tables, and lamps. Tennant moves around the set in a very dramatic and theater-like fashion. He speaks directly into the camera as if talking to a live audience. And towards the end of the scene there is a curtain behind him. To top it all off Tennant's clothing almost reminds me of the clothing of an actor simply rehearsing a play in an already made set. I personally prefer Tennant's version simply because his line deliverance is excellent. Branagh's sounds like he has a script in front rather than actual human speech patterns
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Feb 12, 2014 6:12:08 GMT
I really enjoy watching these Hamlet videos. I feel like this is my new favorite way to experience reading Shakespeare. On to the criticism:
Branagh: SLOW DOWN. I love the emotion in this scene and my goodness I acknowledge Branagh's magical Shakespearian talent. The little details were phenomenal, I truly appreciate the little eye twitch at the end of the scene. He is very emotional and this compliments the rich and layered nature of the soliloquy. I agree with Naomi completely that despite the talent of Branagh he is just too old. The intensity of the scene is great, the acting is excellent, the delivery is quick but clear, but the age is just upsetting. I really want Hamlet to be a moody teenager and I can't shake that feeling.
Tennant: Love the age. He fits the angsty teenage boy I imagined. Also the talking directly to the camera was fascinating and I am very curious as to why he removed the camera at the beginning... However, Tennant is lacking the articulation and raw talent of Branagh. There were moments when I felt bored of the emotions in the story. I also cannot tell if the music added to the piece or subtracted from it. Overall I love the actor and I am unsure about the acting.
|
|
|
Post by coreybrown on Feb 12, 2014 7:07:01 GMT
Branaugh: I've been really impressed by Branaugh's acting and portrayal of Hamlet and I think every scene we've seen by him has shown every aspect of Hamlet's character to an extent. He does a phenomenal job delivering the lines and the emotion. Unlike in the previous scene we saw, his pacing (of speech) felt perfect and not too fast. There was one portion where he attacks the curtains (during the transition into his plot to prove that his Uncle is behind all this) where I felt it was a little cheesy and over-dramatic (especially for him as an older Hamlet) and was followed by what was, in my opinion, very cheesy "this part is meant to be dramatic" music while he gazed intently (with a hint of insanity with the little eye twitch that Emily mentioned) at his doll-house version of the theater.
Tennant: Firstly, it's pretty obvious that someone's spying on him (cool interpretation of the "now I'm alone" line), but who would use such an obviously large camera? It's a really minor thing, but I find it odd that Hamlet first notices the giant clunky thing just then and not before... The setting is also hugely confusing. I'm sure it'd make more sense in context (if I had started from the beginning) but why, if Hamlet is in casual teenage modern clothes, is the setting so sleek, black, and regal? That does, however, bring up another aspect of this Hamlet that is extremely different from Branaugh's, his age. Tennant plays a much younger Hamlet. His lines are delivered with much less power, more uncertainty, more teenage angst and irrational (at times) annoyance. His variation in intensity was really effective, adding not only to the power of the speech, but to his questionable sanity as well. Again, I thought that the end was a bit "this part is supposed to be dramatic" "hint hint" "wink wink," but equally if not less so than Branaugh's. The music again was a bit over done and out of place especially given the fact that (again) there was no music at all in the rest of the speech. It (again) came in quite abruptly and with a "Dramatics Must Ensue" attitude. I thought that it was (slightly) more successful than the music as the end of Branaugh's, however, because it was a more fleshed out and complete score as opposed to dramatic long drawn out single notes.
|
|
|
Post by jamiezimmerman on Feb 12, 2014 7:46:30 GMT
I admire the way Branagh refused to look at the camera. His performance is highly calculated and thoroughly planned, which can be a good or bad thing. Good: Branagh acts in a way that suggests that Hamlet is thinking aloud to himself while he paces around the room. I'm sure we all do the same, though not nearly as eloquently. And think about where Hamlet has just come from. He is overwhelmed with the interactions he has just had with his friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, and even Polonius and the actors. This adds huge emotional wallop. For the entire first act Hamlet has never felt more alone; but even in the second act, he can't take being around other people. It is as if his isolation was swallowed him. Bad: There is no spontaneity. Branagh is trying too hard to be angry, overwhelmed, conniving, and I can tangibly see it in his performance, especially at the end when he peers down his nose at the kinglike figure. I think I much prefer the Tennant version. My favorite part is when he stares in the security camera, rips it out of the wall, and then proclaims he is alone. It is as if Claudius is observing him, and this camera obstruction is a small act of rebellion against the King. Additionally, I was at first confused when Tennant addressed the camera when he was speaking. But watching the scene a second time, I appreciate all the more why he did so. I agree with Steve in his appreciation for breaking the fourth wall. Why would one perform a soliloquy if the audience was not meant to listen to it? Altogether, my vision of the filmography included David Tennant - he is the proper age, and he's always had serpentine nuances and gestures that suggest he might actually be slightly deranged, though you can never tell for sure.
|
|