Hamlet Video Interpretations

I actually liked both versions; both Branagh and Tennant seem at home with their parts and language in this scene.

Branagh's version of the soliloquy is pretty formal, especially when compared to Tennant's tee-shirt-and-jeans speech. I will say, however, that Branagh's Hamlet seems very immature; similarly to his sarcastic comments in the first scene we watched not befitting his age, the image of Hamlet going to a big, fancy office and basically throwing a temper tantrum resounded oddly with me. Branagh's a good actor, though; he does a good job of expressing Hamlet's emotion and the contrast between his shaky mental state and the difficult, brutal task he's been "assigned." I recognize and respect the aspect of pacing around his room and talking to himself in an attempt to get his thoughts straightened out because I do the same thing (albeit with less violence) when I'm upset. That said, I probably won't continue to do that when I'm 30. Branagh's interpretation is talented, historically authentic, and similar to what I had imagined, but I still don't think that his interpretation of Hamlet as a scowling teenager befits his age as an actor.

David Tennant's version of the soliloquy was interesting, to say the least. As some people mentioned earlier, he seems like he's playing a younger character than he is. The tee-shirt and jeans might work with a younger actor, but on Tennant (whom I keep thinking of as the Doctor) they don't. I'm also not sure I like the setting. The security camera and costuming indicate a more modern version of Hamlet, but that isn't visible anywhere in the room where Hamlet makes his speech. The contrast between the baroque furniture and the colorful Hamlet is unsettling; maybe it's on purpose, but I don't care for it. The echoes in the first part of the speech also, I believe, detracted from the overall effect. I feel that this speech works better in a small, confined area like Branagh's that reflects Hamlet's own trapped situation. In the first soliloquy, I loved that such a deep character was constrained to a small office; I wasn't able to get this feeling in the second. Also, the music at the end felt artificial and altogether out of place. Appearances aside, however, Tennant's acting is excellent. He really does seem like a man slowly going insane rather than an upset child. The speech is delivered well, with emphasis on all the right parts and the tone perfect. The part where Hamlet approaches the camera is disturbing, but that seems to be the point. While the setting of the stage in Tennant's Hamlet didn't work for me, his speech itself is phenomenal.

I am not really completely content with either video. I can pick and choose things about each version that I really like and really dislike. In the Branaugh version, I think the Hamlet's fury was well timed as far as when it began, but his screaming rant lasted too long in the soliloquy and towards the end he was spitting the words out too fast for me to appreciate. Towards the end, Branaugh doesn't deliver the lines as if he just thought of an idea to prove his uncle killed his father. He deliver's Hamlet's plan with too much force and not enough thoughtfulness.

I agree with what other's have said about Branaugh's blocking being kind of unnatural. When he slams himself against the window/wall it seems like he is trying to be as gentle as possible with the set while still seeming furious. This is a distraction from Hamlet, and it made me very aware of the movements of the actor, not the movements of the character.

I prefer the way the Tennant delivered the lines, his temperament was acceptable and I especially appreciated how he slows down and speak more thoughtfully. His performance was more childlike and immature, but I see Hamlet as a younger man so I thought it fit well. I didn't like the eye contact with the camera. He seemed like he was reaching too hard for a connection that isn't there.

From a strict "performance" standpoint, David Tennant is much more convincing in his portrayl of the scene. That's not to say that the Branaugh version -isn't- good, but what sets the two apart is that Tennant times his emotional outburst well. His inflection and pacing made him sound troubled and on the verge of insanity, which I definitely thought was fitting for Hamlet. Branaugh, on the otherhand, is a bit pedantic in his pacing and stylistic choices. When he bangs on the bookshelf and throws himself into the window, it feels calculated rather than a spontaneous overcome-with-emotion response. Both, however, are successful in conveying Hamlet's frustration and confusion in the scene.  

However, one of the things I can't fully appreciate about the Tennant version is the modern setting. If a director decides to put a classic work in a new setting, the decision should reveal some intrinsic quality of the text. What exactly is the purpose behind the teenage-angsty-modern version of Hamlet other than showing that these themes are universally applicable? Isn't that already inherent within the text itself?  Hamlet is a very theatrical work, so simply transposing the words into a modern setting feels somewhat like a cop-out... or at least like a half-hearted attempt to be profound and original. But make no mistake, I am not completely opposed to transforming old works into something new. Take for example Baz Luhrmann's version of Romeo and Juliet. I love this interpretation of Shakespeare because I feel like the modern setting is coupled with a sort of "hyper-reality" feeling that makes the message of the play more attainable to us. The fact of the matter is that the central conflict in both Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet is not something we often see in the modern day. However, the threadline between the works of Shakespeare and the modern day is the human condition. These themes are universal, and it is the director's job to make that theme attainable to the audience. For Romeo and Juliet, its the idea of infatuation and what that does to people. The hyper-reality feeling illuminates this idea and shows how irrational and crazy everything can seem. If you're going to try to do that with Hamlet, I feel as if it needs that hyper-reality sort of feeling as well in order to elevate it to Hamlet's dream-like (or at least irrational) state of mind. Simply putting Hamlet in a modern setting is sort of just like, "Look, we did it! Isn't Hamlet such a timeless and universal piece?".  I feel like most of what I just wrote makes more sense to me than it will to anyone else, so I will leave it at that and move on.

What I can appreciate is Branaugh's adherence to the text. Like I said, I'm not a traditionalist, but what I think this version does is create a very straighforward interpretation of Hamlet that then has room to grow and be interpreted on a multiple of levels, rather than limiting it to just one interpretation. Cinemographically, this version of Hamlet is so extravegent and shocking (with coloring and scene shots and whatnot) that it almost achieves the hyper-reality thing I was talking about with Romeo and Juliet. It doesn't even need the modern setting because the hyper-reality makes it seem more realistic and attainable to the audience (which is counterintuitive, but it's as if the work itself is admitting that the situation isn't realistic...Which in turn makes it realistic and understandable...Okay I'm done sorry).

So yah. Props to both versions! 

I much prefer the Tennant version, and I don't know what this says about my perception of mental collapses, but it felt more like reality. This ability for that monologue to feel more real is very important, because the play needs any bit of humanity it can get amongst its tragedy and portrayal of distinct flaws in humans. The monologue is an opportunity for expression and reasoning to the warped and potentially alienating pieces of the play, so having an actor that stares into your face as they try to explain their own madness is a great way to connect. Branagh does seem to have more sincere respect for the fundamental role of the monologue, so paying attention to the words rather than just the character is a substantial plus to his rendition. 

steph is on point when it comes to this discussion. The Tennant version is most dope. S/O to Hamlet for being a homie!

I think I am in agreement with many of you. Tennant's performance is "better" than Branagh's at least in terms of the emotional honesty of the character. The Branagh version carries an air of "This is me, trying to be the realest Hamlet EVER. I am SOOO INTENSE." But I connect quite a bit more with Tennant's frustration and lack of pretentiousness. Tennant portrays Hamlet as a real human being and gives a realistic representation of the urgency/frustration/fear/anxiety of the situation. While the actors themselves carry much of the role, their surroundings (in terms of production) also dictate the way they play the character. Branagh's careful, perfectionist presentation of Hamlet's struggle, while not matching what I imagine Hamlet's reaction to be, is in line with the rest of the adaptation - powerful monarchy living in a shiny castle and acting oh so proper (usually...). Tennant's wild/frazzled performance is aided by his ability to interact with his environment (breaking props that Branagh wouldn't be using) and play directly to the camera. His monologue comes off as much more stream-of-consciousness and less rehearsed - in the acting world it's all about acting and reacting to other characters in the situation. You want to see the characters have a conversation, not the actors reciting lines and you want to see exactly what the character is feeling. In these respects, Tennant did it better.