Hamlet text vs. the movie (mel gibson)
AllenGAISIN
What are the differences between the text and the movie version (w/Mel
Gibson). Including subtle differences. Any help would be greatly
appreciated.
-Thanks a lot
-Daniel
StephyBard
In article <4ng6fn$5...@mandolin.qnet.com>, gai...@qnet.com (AllenGAISIN)
writes:
Daniel,
If you've read the play and then watched the movie, you'd KNOW the
differences. THERE are many both blatant and subtle, some just down right
scandalous!
MY favorite is the switching around of many scenes in Zefferrelli's
farce called Hamlet.
Stephanie- the person who did her senior paper on this very subject and
ripped old Zef to shreds!
Carlos Dhabhar
: Daniel,
: If you've read the play and then watched the movie, you'd KNOW the
: differences. THERE are many both blatant and subtle, some just down right
: scandalous!
Ummmm....I have to agree on the movie watching bit...sounds vaguely like
someone else's paper topic...:( ....my personal peeve against the movie
is the moving of Hamlet's soliqile (sp?) the entire "To be or not to be"
speech...
Carlos
Carlos Pourushasp Dhabhar
1010 - 25th St. NW Apt #605
Washington D.C. 20037
202-965-3101
email: shan...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
* (__) * (__)
\ (oo) | (oo)
\-------\/ \-------\/
O o o| || / ||
O O O ||----||>==/-----||
~~ ~~ ~~
Cow getting the shit kicked out of it
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
TJ Anderson
AllenGAISIN wrote:
>
> What are the differences between the text and the movie version (w/Mel
> Gibson). Including subtle differences. Any help would be greatly
> appreciated.
> -Thanks a lot
> -Daniel
There were loads of bits missing, as I recall, but then what can you
expect with a two hour film of a four hour play? I recall how strange
it was to watch the film and mutter lines that never quite appeared.
I can't remember all of them, but one omission that does stick in my
craw came where Hamlet was telling his ma that he knew what Rosenkrantz
and Guildenstern were up to:
Ham> There's letters seal'd; and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way,
And marshall me to knavery. Let it work;
xxx For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
xxx Hoist with his own petar: and it shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon...
Silly, I know, to get all worked up over wee bits like that, but
I think on the whole I still enjoyed the film.
TJA.
StephyBard
>I tend to disagree with the other "nayasayers" who've responded
to your BB thread, re: Hamlet text vs. Mel's flick! So Hollywood
took a little creative license! So what!! I think the
screewriting in particular was, let's say, softened a bit (for
lack of another word) to make the film more marketable. Let's
face it: we just don't speak in Elizabethan vernacular any more.
But another point need be made here: Shakespeare himself borrowed
many of his ideas from earlier tales of other origins, many of
which word verbally transmitted given the culture and technology
of the day. W.S. had the big distinction of having committed
these stores to pen and paper...but they were not all entirely
his own. He'd extrapolate upon some well-known folk tale, adding
his own "twists" where it suited him. So it's a little silly to
say the movie trashed the original Hamlet text, when the original
text itself was borrowed from OTHER SOURCES which preceeded it.
Hope this lengthy response didn't bore you. -- Mike/Florida>
Recieved this in an email and couldn't resist sharing with all...
First of Mike, this has very little to do with the ORIGINAL post which I
did NOT post..
Second of all, it would be fine if Zefferrlli called it Zefferrelli's
Hamlet, but he did not. It is clearly stated on the tape box that it is a
"...new version of Shakespeare's Hamlet" (yes I own it, it was given as a
gift and I liked it until I realized how much of a piece of junk it was).
If it is Shakespeare's Hamlet, Zefferrelli butchered it. Period.
Oh, by the way, my point in making this statement is: If old Zef had
wanted to do a movie about the Prince of Denmark, he could have written a
play/screenplay himelf (or at least tried to do so), but he did not. He
credited it as a version of Shakespeare's play, therfore, he should have
filmed Shakespeare's play not the bastardization of it.
My theory...Zef doesn't understand Shakespearean verse, therefore he
doesn't think the rest of the world does either (regarding the marketable
bull). As an example, watch Branagh's Much Ado...KB made many judicious
cuts and even rearranged a few scenes, but the production is well staged
and STILL in verse. I have never heard from anyone who's ever seen it say
that they didn't understand what was being said...i.e. why change the
language to make it more marketable when it is OBVIOUSLY not neccessary?
My solution...If you don't understand, you shouldn't be
producing/directing a film or any other production of it.
My $.04...I think it was worth that much!
Stephanie- trasher of BAD Shakespearean films, not just Zef's
Carlos Dhabhar
: took a little creative license! So what!! I think the
: screewriting in particular was, let's say, softened a bit (for
: lack of another word) to make the film more marketable. Let's
: face it: we just don't speak in Elizabethan vernacular any more.
Ummm....well if you can call Hamlet making advances and stopping short
of almost raping his own mother (bedroom scene with Hamlet his mother the
ghost in the movie) a "softened" version of Hamlet....then I would hate
to see what you would consider a "harsher" version of Hamlet....:) As for
the language, alright true the modern "English" speaking citizen of the
world more than likely not understand signifigant pieces of Hamlet in the
ture Elizabethan spiel....but that does not mean they have to go and
rearrigan the order of events.
: But another point need be made here: Shakespeare himself borrowed
: many of his ideas from earlier tales of other origins, many of
: which word verbally transmitted given the culture and technology
: of the day. W.S. had the big distinction of having committed
: these stores to pen and paper...but they were not all entirely
: his own. He'd extrapolate upon some well-known folk tale, adding
: his own "twists" where it suited him. So it's a little silly to
: say the movie trashed the original Hamlet text, when the original
: text itself was borrowed from OTHER SOURCES which preceeded it.
: Hope this lengthy response didn't bore you. -- Mike/Florida>
Ya but he never sighted his plays as being "a story based of XYZ play of
Italy". And he created something new and called it just that. As you had
stated it would have been on thing to rename it the director's version of
Hamlet....but as you point out he called it "Shakespeare's Hamlet...."
nuff said.
: My $.04...I think it was worth that much!
Damn another one of you people who is trying to encourage inflation....I
thought the going rate for "humble opinions" was still $.02....;)
william
The differences in my opinion are more than subtle. Mel Gibson's Hamlet
was a production aimed at the "movie" audience. This in no way takes
anything away from the quality of the film, however Shakespeare's Hamlet
was performed with the live audience in mind.
william
The differences in my opinion are more than subtle. Mel Gibson's Hamlet
was a production aimed at the "movie" audience. This in no way takes
anything away from the quality of the film, however Shakespeare's Hamlet
Miss A L Petty
Can I just say that the almost raping Gertrude in the closet scene does have
honourable precedent, as it was first initiated by Laurence Olivier in his
first old Vic production of the play, when he played a Freud inspired,
Oedipal Dane. I've never really bought this idea, but I've seen most of the
Hamlets I've had the privilege to see mercilessly rip this idea off.
My problem with the Zeffirelli version is that they cut so much of the play,
Hamlet starts to look decisive. That, and the fact Mel Gibson was shite...
CASSANDRA
StephyBard
In article <4ocuh5$4...@robalo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, en...@csv.warwick.ac.uk
(Miss A L Petty) writes:
> the almost raping Gertrude in the closet scene does have
>honourable precedent, as it was first initiated by Laurence Olivier in
his
>first old Vic production of the play,
Does this truly have merit? Just because Sir Laurence did it, it is
honourable? I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.
Stephanie-none too impressed with any Hamlet film
deborah
Carlos Dhabhar <shan...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> writes:
>: But another point need be made here: Shakespeare himself borrowed
>: many of his ideas from earlier tales of other origins, many of
>: which word verbally transmitted given the culture and technology
>: of the day. W.S. had the big distinction of having committed
>: these stores to pen and paper...but they were not all entirely
>: his own. He'd extrapolate upon some well-known folk tale, adding
construction. From the Greeks through the 18th century the most admirskill was
to take an older story and rework it. Thus, for example, WS took the English
folktale of King Leir, in whic
h the king learns in time of Cordelia's love for him and no one dies, and
created a tragedy. The onus was not on borrowing old tales, but on not having
sufficient skill to rework them.
Deborah
Charles A. Lieberman
In article <4odr24$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> StephyBard wrote:
>none too impressed with any Hamlet film
Well, Hamlet is difficult to film. For that matter, it's not strenuously
easy to stage.
Charles A. Lieberman CLieb...@gnn.com Shit happens
My willy is food--Bush, "Little Things" 5040=7!
StephyBard
In article <4osutf$e...@news-e2b.gnn.com>, CLieb...@gnn.com (Charles A.
Lieberman) writes:
>Well, Hamlet is difficult to film. For that matter, it's not strenuously
>easy to stage.
If you trust in Shakespeare and his dramatic insight and stage the play
scene by scene and moment by moment, it IS NOT very difficult to stage.
Shakespeare gives you everything you need...it's all there.
Stephanie- who _has_ seen well staged Hamlet AND liked it
Robert Booth
> In article <4ng6fn$5...@mandolin.qnet.com>, gai...@qnet.com (AllenGAISIN)
> writes:
> >Gibson). Including subtle differences. Any help would be greatly
> >appreciated.
> >-Thanks a lot
> > -Daniel
> If you've read the play and then watched the movie, you'd KNOW the
> differences. THERE are many both blatant and subtle, some just down right
> scandalous!
