Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Adaptations, and film adaptations of stage performances, in particular, are not direct translations of the source material in another format but a retelling of a narrative from the understanding of another person. This fact is most evident in Shakespeares works, which are famous for their timeless nature and the myriad of adaptations they have spun. In regards to Hamlet, studying the film adaptations of the play can be engaging for potential future discourse. It acts as a way to critically engage both with the source material and a unique piece of media, and it may also serve to enhance the experiences some individuals had with the original piece. However, to study an adaptation, one must first choose which adaptation they find most suitable for discussion. For this particular piece, Zeffirellis and Dorans renditions of Hamlet are chosen.
First, it is necessary to outline how the two pieces differ from each other, both in terms of approach and faithfulness to the original. Zeffirellis adaptation has been long-acclaimed for its visual presentation and accuracy because the filmmaker chose to keep scenes and dialogues exactly as they were in the original work. The movie was made in 1999, starring Mel Gibson in the titular role. The characters and the setting in this adaptation are taken straight from the original Hamlet as well, choosing a medieval aesthetic over any potential modern developments. The adaptation is a drama film at its core, and it utilizes both lighting and the setting to establish the right atmosphere. One of the notable flaws of the adaptation is that some of the poetry had to be cut from the production to save time, which made it lack the original sense of depth and impact the play contained.
The 2009 adaptation made by Doran stars David Tennant as the main character and significantly alters the main setting and circumstances of the play in order to make it more topical for the current population. In particular, it should be noted that the 2009 Hamlet is set in modern-day Britain. The story is adjusted to make way for showcasing a dystopian rendition of a surveillance state, which works as both a source of tension and a commentary on the state of Britain today. This piece takes artistic liberties while also keeping the central themes of grief, madness, love, and revenge as a way for the viewers to contextualize and relate to the piece.
To best portray the differences between the two adaptations, it is necessary to compare specific scenes between each other. Since the discussion is about Hamlet, the most optimal and simple point of comparison would be the famous Hamlets Soliloquy (Act 3, Sc 1). The monologue stands as the culmination of the mans feelings and a turning point for the character as a whole. Therefore, seeing how the two films adapt this iconic scene can tell the audience much about both renditions.
The 1999 film uses the artistic visual medium to its advantage, presenting the scene in a dynamic way. The camera moves with the movement of the character, who delivers the speech while pondering his surroundings. The movement helps drive the monologues narrative forward and keeps the visual part of the experience interesting. For example, when Hamlet speaks the words To die: to sleep; (Act 3, Sc 1; Line 5), the camera pans off to the skeletons in the room, signifying the subject of discussion to the audience. Hamlet continues to move through the scene, contemplating death and thinking about the struggles of life, looking around the room as if to find the answer in it. The monologue ends with him leaving the scene using the same stairs he came from, signifying he found his answer by the end. The central topic of the scene and the focal point of Hamlets struggle is the futility of life, a theme that translates well through both dialogue and visual aids.
The 2009 adaptation, on the other hand, takes a different approach to setting the scene. In particular, the specific place where Hamlet talks are less important to this scene than the man himself, who takes central focus while talking about his feelings. The camera is zoomed in on the face of the actor, giving way to a more personal, emotional performance that connects with the audience. Visually, the frame is mostly static, and after coming into a certain position, the camera stays there for the duration of the speech. The close proximity to Hamlets face in the scene reinforces the sense of contemplation and worry the man feels. Overall, it is a very actor-driven scene, as opposed to the more scenic presentation of its competitor. The impactful show of surroundings and theatrical pondering of the 1999 film gives way to a much more focused, simple performance, one which is driven by a previously-established connection between the audience and the main character.
The differences in adaptation serve not only the purpose of providing a varying artistic rendition of the same source material but also imbue it with a different meaning, emotion, and philosophical significance. The distant but emotionally relatable adaptation presented by Zeffirelli allows the audience to see a play set in the distant past while still being able to connect emotionally with the central characters and understand their motivations. The accuracy of the adaptation serves well to highlight the timeless nature of such personal struggles as betrayal and love, making the viewers consider themselves as a part of a long historical tradition. The newer adaptation, on the other hand, talks with the people of today on their own terms, bringing up the nightmarish horrors of the surveillance state and the lack of security the modern age presents. Both adaptations have their own strong points, either in social messaging or emotional throughlines, and are worth discussing in great detail.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.