On the other hand, Franco Zeffirelli’s Hamlet, starring Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, Alan Bates, Paul Scofield, Helena Bonham-Carter, Jan Holm, and released in 1990, takes a more dramatic, hidden approach to the story. While Zeffirelli is true to the plotline, his personal interpretation of the film is not as refined as Branagh’s. In fact, it is similar to the play in the sense that the entire story appears to be left open to discussion. The strength of the film lies in the portrayal of the time period—costumes, cinematography, etc, and in the displeasure of the characters, which is brought on by the actors. While both films depict the complicated structure of the play with accuracy, Branagh makes his analysis clear and defined, while Zeffirelli seems to rely on the story and hides the issues of the play, making his personal interpretation less obvious.
Today I am going to be discussing the importance of setting and costumes in film and how the two Hamlet film adaptations, though similar in plotline, are different from each other due to the difference in the setting and the costumes. Film directors all have their own personal visions for adapting the play to the movie screen. Each decision a director makes contributes to the overall effect of the whole scene. One of the most crucial aspect in any film is the setting and costume. Setting can be critical to all the film.
But when I myself read “Othello” for the first time, I saw Iago as an expert at judging people and their characters and it really shone how he used them to his advantages. And yes I know that the play is titled “Othello” and he has the fatal flaw and his self-absorption, and I can see why others view him as the main cause of his own fall but it never necessarily occurred to me to view the play in any other way than with Iago as the leading villain. I: Yes I completely understand where you’re coming from with that. Especially with the power of Iago’s soliloquies throughout the play, I felt that they were so strong so that the audience could see the true feelings he has for other characters and his motives for his actions throughout the play. And your technique of having Brannagh look
Literature is a medium of words, and film is a medium of images, so, I can understand why the two characters show their love physically and don’t completely leave it up to the speech to show their feelings. Both scenes worked; however, Luhrmann’s received harsh criticism while Zeffirell’s was emotionally captivating. The Elizabethan 16th century England setting stays true to Shakespeare’s original play, and sets a classic tone and atmosphere. The magic of Zeffirelli’s film is it takes you into another world, the beautiful scenery of Verona with the, for the most part, comprehensible language of Shakespeare. Mixing a modern day world with this language, what Luhrmann did, does not work well.
Hamlet 1990 The 1990 film version of Hamlet has many similarities to the play, but it also displays many differences and discrepancies. Franco Zeffirelli, like all other directors put is own twist on Shakespeare’s original work. In his film version of the play he construes the dialogue and also rearranges the order of a few scenes. Creating a film version of a play requires more information to be conveyed in order to get the message across to the viewers. Although the original plot stayed the same, in some ways, it is quite difficult to overlook the many differences that exist between the two versions of Shakespeare’s play.
The playwright’s messages of fate, irony, responsibility, and universality are wrapped within the persona of Oedipus (Macdonald 148) (Miller 215). Needless to say, the plots of the plays also rest upon the shoulders of Oedipus and Hamlet, as they are responsible for the majority of the action. The interest in comparing the characters lies in the fact that while each of them is essentially “just”, the meaning-experiences of the plays are poles apart, based on the depiction of their respective heroes. The allure of the character of Hamlet is not difficult to distinguish. As a human being, his troubles are easy to identify with; he finds himself forced to correct an unpleasant and painful situation, largely on his own.
Through the prologue of Goodbye Lemon , Davies wants to convey to his audience that you can bring any character to life through writing. Jack had brought Dexter back to life (as Jack states in the last line of the prologue) although he did not have any memory of him, other than the fateful day Dexter died. Storytelling is vital here because people often twist their memories as they write, because they want to get a point across to their readers. Jack tries to bring back memories of who Dexter could have been by writing different scenarios, thus bending his memories in order to find out something about his brother who he does not remember. That which is demanded by ethics greatly
This is reflected in the contrasting lines such as “spirit of health or goblin damned”, implying that Hamlet cannot be sure whose ghost he is facing. When addressing him as the spirit his father, Hamlet refers to him as “King” before “father”, possibly suggesting that he was a leader to his country first, then the father of a child. The audience identifies the kind of relationship Hamlet had with his father, which could be described as relatively formal, which is why the Ghost contradicts this opinion. When Hamlet and the Ghost are left alone, he refers to himself as “thy father’s spirit” instead of anything more powerful or royal. This admittance instantly creates a stronger bond between the two characters because it suggests a more personal motive for the Ghost’s presence, which Hamlet may pick up on and act.
Foils in Hamlet A foil is a minor charater in a literary work that compliments the main character through similarities and differences in personality and plot. Among all the foils in Shakespear[e]'s "Hamlet," [Titles] Laertes has the biggest impact on Hamlet's character. While Hamlet maintained his status as prince, it was Laertes that represented the well bred son of the royal family and the traditional revenge hero. [The thesis does not cover the essay.] Some similarities in Laertes and Hamlet were that they were both students.
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, there are many contributing aspects to the appreciation of the play’s major concerns. Hamlet’s soliloquy in Act II, Scene ii is very effective in the audience gaining a clear understanding of the play’s themes and issues through Shakespeare’s use of language and dramatic techniques. There are a variety of issues explored in this soliloquy, for example, illusion versus reality, the notion of the revenge tragedy and inaction, and each of these issues is supported by techniques and the language of Hamlet as the character and Hamlet the play. The soliloquy of Act II, Scene ii, occurs after Hamlet sees the player’s emotional telling of the story of Hecuba, and he comes to a realization of how he can truly make sure of Claudius’ guilt before he avenges his fathers death. The soliloquy can be broken down into three sections: Hamlet’s consideration of the player’s acting ability, his self-berating for being cowardly and doing nothing, and his resolve to stage a play to ‘catch the conscience of the King’.