Knock, Knock. Who’s There?

...

Another small difference was that some lines in the script were cut in the film version of Hamlet, again there are pretty evident reasons as to why this was done. The movie would be hours longer than it already is if every single line from the script was included. Personally, I do not think that there was any effect added or lost in doing this, the lines that were cut were not extremely essential to understanding the context of the scene. The major thing that I had enjoyed about the movie was being able to see the facial expressions of the actors. The actor, David Tennant, who had played Hamlet in the movie, was able to convince me, without a doubt, that Hamlet had indeed gone insane. Being able to actually see the lines performed conveys a completely different feeling towards the words, rather than reading them silently. The different voices, tones, costumes, and scenery were all aspects that Shakespeare had assumed would be present with the reading of his plays. Therefore, being able to see these things in the film seems to convey a stronger and clearer message to the audience. Overall, I would say that the director of the film Hamlet had done a fantastic job of keeping the film as close as possible to the script, without cutting out key context.

I feel as though the film was able to interpret the scene even better than the script had and enhanced the scene. Being able to connect a voice, face, and name helps me personally, to better understand things. Especially when talking about plays that are not in our modern English. Shakespeare’s writing is considered to be one of the most beautiful forms of writing, we have a whole course at Monmouth based just on him and his works, but there is no hiding that we do not talk exactly how he had written. Being able to hear someone speak the words and see them perform, rather than just me reading, helps me to get a better grip on the way that Shakespeare had wanted us to interpret his plays.

One major subtext that I think the movie has placed more emphasis on than the original play script was the implication that Claudius had promised Ophelia some type of relationship, not with Hamlet, but with himself. While reading the play script, Ophelia is singing after her father’s death and sings, “Before you tumbled me, you promised me to wed. So would I’a’ done, by yonder sun, an thou hadst not come to my bed” (IV. v. 61-64). In the script, it seemed as though she was talking about Hamlet, but in the film this scene comes across in a slightly different manor. In this scene of the movie, Ophelia is singing the song and actually goes up to Claudius, grabs his jacket as she says those exact lines. After seeing that, I felt as though Claudius had promised Ophelia himself, and not Prince Hamlet. Although I had not thought of this while reading the script, there is nothing in it that would rule this subtext out.

I would definitely consider this performance of the script to be a successful adaptation of the original. I feel like the movie had included as much of the script as it could, while still keeping the interest of the viewers, and managing to portray the accurate image of each character. I would not say that the film confirmed an existing “school” interpretation of Hamlet, but it also did not completely change my mind on the way I saw Hamlet before seeing the movie. The film helped me to see things that had passed over my head while reading. It gave me a better connection to each individual character and formed an emotion towards them. “Who’s there”, some may ask. Is it deception or is it reality? One can make their own interpretation of what it is. I know I believe that it is reality. Hamlet is undoubtedly, one-hundred percent mad.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Works Cited

Hamlet. By William Shakespeare. Dir. Geregory Doan. Perf. David Tennant. BBC Video. 2010. DVD.

Shakespeare, William. "Hamlet." Greenblatt, Stephen. The Norton Shakespeare Vol 2: Later Plays. 2nd Ed., New York: WW Norton, 2008. 103-204. Print.