For this assignment, I watched the 2009 made-for-television version of the Royal Shakespeare Company's 2008 stage rendition of Hamlet. My decision was entirely based on the fact that it starred David Tennant, a personal favorite actor of mine; but I wound up enjoying it for much more than just that.
The movie seems particularly suited to the analysis that is being asked of me, as it deviates from and concurs with the original in very interesting ways.
The costuming is modern. Bernardo and Marcellus wear police uniforms; Horatio wears a sports jacket. This provides sort of a new medium to work with; allowing the creators to use modern conceptions of dress to mold and form the viewer's opinion of a character. For instance, Hamlet begins the movie in a simple black suit and tie suited to his mourning; but as he descends into his 'madness,' he dons a slightly over-sized novelty t-shirt and worn jeans.
The setting is present-day as well, as far as that Claudius's political lackeys tend to wear blue-tooth devices, characters ride in cars rather than carriages, and everyone carries hand-guns instead of swords. This also provides for an artistically pleasing but highly distracting switch of camera angles from third-person omniscient to a crackly, grayscale security camera at various angles near the ceiling. It did play into the plot in a minor way, though. In Act 2, Scene two, just before one of Hamlet's soliloquies, all of the other characters leave the room. We switch to the security camera; the actor scans the room, spots the camera, rips it off the wall, and throws it out the window. The prince's next line, “Now I am alone,” takes on an entirely new meaning.
The use of Hamlet's soliloquies bears mentioning. They were very well delivered, which speaks volumes of Tennant's acting ability. Also, a number of them he delivered into a small camcorder, adding a kind of a vlog-type feel that makes more sense to a modern mind than the actor pacing around and talking to himself.
The original dialogue was left mostly intact; with a very few minor adjustments. Here and there an archaic word would be exchanged for it's modern counterpart. Lines were cut out of some very long, repetitive descriptions and soliloquies. A few scenes were rearranged for the sake of clarity, with great success. As a whole, it stayed very true to the original.
The biggest difference was in stage direction and acting style. Either the scripts we read today leave a good deal of movement to the imagination, or the actors on the stage at the Globe Theatre stood very still, delivering their lines with minimal motion or physical communication. In the version I watched, actors and actresses move around comfortably, embrace, add little hand gestures and such; making the whole thing seem much more natural. These things also helps interpret meaning and portray a character's personality when the language is obscure; and add new, fresh meaning to the dialogue. The scene when Laertes takes his leave of his sister Ophelia and their father Polonius towards the beginning of the play is a good example of this. When Polonius begins to give his parting advice to his son. By Laertes' and Ophelia's manner, a rolling of eyes, a chiming in in unison with their father here and there, we understand that Polonius's long-winded counsel is familiar, frequent, and repetitive. Without changing the lines, the scene takes on a kind sarcasm and hijinks that makes it easier to understand.
The actors themselves add by their acting, as must needs be, their own new take on the characters. Horatio becomes gruff but lovable, further affirming my positive opinion of him. Polonius looses all that is sinister and becomes wise, foolish, doddering, comical, and dear. Gertrude shows real remorse that almost makes us forgive her. Rosencratz and Guildenstern are gullible, unintelligent, and overarchingly effeminate, which almost makes them interesting. Ophelia overacts, turning one of my favorite characters from the play into something utterly insufferable. I responded to most of her lines by pressing the mute button on my remote. David Tennant adds some of his signature charm and quirk and playfulness, his quick, jumpy ways and his dark edge to the title character, really bringing Prince Hamlet to life.
There was a bit of dirtiness added that I didn't see as necessary, though I suppose movie-makers see it as an attempt to appeal to a modern audience. The play-within-a-play was rather vulgar, with one of the clowns wearing a tasteless pair of novelty boxers. When Ophelia lost her mind, I was blindsided by her suddenly and needlessly ripping off her dress. These things really don't add to the play at all, rather cheapen it.
With the exception of Ophelia, the casting was excellent, boasting a couple of well-known names. Using celebrity actors, however, has a downside. Their work may be truly brilliant, but for many viewers, their past roles eclipse their current, making the play more difficult to follow. If, in your mind, you can only think of what was supposed to be dastardly Claudius as Jean-Luc Picard, it is unarguably more difficult to take the character seriously. If you think you hear The Doctor speaking every third time Hamlet opens his mouth, it is sure to be a distraction.
In conclusion, changing things like setting and dress, and acting style to something a modern viewer finds more familiar makes the play more accessible to him or her while still preserving the beauty of William Shakespeare's high, grand, gorgeous language. My twelve-year-old brother sat and watched the three-hour movie with me. He has never read Shakespeare, and has always expressed the heart-breaking, “Because it is Shakespeare, it is therefore boring,” opinion that seems so prevalent among today's youth. However, the setting was so familiar, the acting so clear, that he followed quite well and enjoyed it thoroughly.
No comments:
Post a Comment