Hamlet

           Many question whether or not Hamlet made the right decision on not killing Claudius. I for one a agree with him on NOT killing him at that moment. Why kill someone and get revenge when they are ready to be killed. (Remember this is where Claudius is praying for mercy. Hence, he is ready to die.) That would insult Hamlet's intelligence. Many think that he is crazy, but I do not. I just think he is playing a mad genius like so many of out idols, like Edgar Allen Poe or even Albert Einstein. Plus, Hamlet would feel more honor by caughting him by surprise rather than when he expects it. Have you ever heard of a killer killing someone when they were ready? NO! people are killed by surprise so why stop the streak now?
            Beside Claudius is guilty. He killed his own brother. The heartless bastard killed his own flesh and blood then moved in on his wife? Does he have any decency? I think not. For those of you who can't wrap your head around it think about this: For those of you who are big One Tree Hill fans. Think of when Dan (father of Lucas and Nathan Scott) Killed his own brother Keith. Same aspect. He killed his brother and eventually moved in on Karen (Lucas's mother) In The end Dan let his guilt drive him into insanity. That's the only difference no one took action to kill Dan. Lucas was almost Hamlet. But then was a different time. cases couldn't be solved as easily as today.
So here's the question are Dan/Claudius the victims or the guilty? For me they are the killers with no soul...

To Be Or Not To Be... That Is The Question...

           In the first version of the to be or not to be speech by Olivier echose to have Hamlet say the speech in a  softer voice. To me this emphasises the fact of his madness or even his anger. This version was a lot more simple than the rest. The director probably thought that the speech in it self is so great and grand that there was no need for so much dramatics. By have a prop which was the dagger just reinforces the speech's balance of life and death. The dagger of course representing death, the place that "No Traveler returns".  The one thing I do like is the place Olivier chose to place this speech. A beautiful bright blue sky with what looked like the ocean in the background. The freedom of the ocean and sky says it all. The film has such simplicity yet so complex in it's symbolism.
        
             The Brona was a little better. The one thing that stayed the same was the use of a dagger as a prop.  What i did not like  about it is the actor has a monotone voice when saying the speech. For such a famous and universal poem it must have some complexity when saying it, some sort of emotion, or even some sort of feeling. Not doing that is like laughing at human intelligence. I did think the use of a two way mirror was very clever and an excellent interpretation of the scene. Not only did it show that he was being spied on but even more, than that symbolized self reflection on ones self. Also, using different angles to show the emotion even more is better than looking at the actor's face straight on. By doing that it gives the audience more of a feeling of who Hamlet is and what he is all about.


         As for the most modern Version of Hamlet, it was taken in a whole other direction. Rather than having "To be or not to be..." said in a more private place it was recited in a Block Buster. Even though that is one of the oddest places to have an epiphany. The pacing back and forth and the visuals of death in the background was a very nice touch. It showed the balance between life in death in a different manner. Other than the usual hand motions of weighing life an death. The director decided to use the whole body. ( the actor passing up and down the ail)  Also, the director chose to go from speaking with in the mind to speaking out loud which was a very clever and different way to take it.


          My favorite is The Mel Gibson version. For one it was placed at the start of things, the catacombs. The facial expressions and audio of the actor's voice was done very well. The ways that his eyes looked lost, like he was searching for something. That something was an answer to his question. Life or death? That is the question. Using the echoes in the catacombs to emphasis the certain words was brilliant. It really opened the eyes of the audience and kept them awake. The dramatics is what made this version the best. But i do have a question for you. What is better the lack of drama and the simplicity of the speech or the  dramatics of the actor and even more drama in the speech in it self?

Ghost Scene

 

          In the 1996 version of Hamlet the director: Kenneth Branagh decided to use more dramatics rather than simplicity. The one thing that stood out the most was the fact that in the ghost scenes he used lots of variations of blues. When it came to the father's eyes there was a use of very very light blue, it created some sort of mystery or even try to scare the viewers. Some thing that i did like that was different from the older version is the modern interpretation of Hamlet. It may have not been the usual old medieval version but it does make you think that Hamlet isn't just a Medieval thing or even as some say Old English but it can be a modern day thing. A modern day tragedy.  

         I do wish that in the first movie that the language was spoken clearly. The director used more symbolism rather than using the language that spoke for its self. The 1996 version was over dramatic  as for the 2000 version was to much simplicity. I do wish there was some what of a middle version of all the aspects that work in all 3 or even all of the Hamlet movie. I do question whether it not in each time period or rather that year the style was either simple or dramatic? Maybe the director was shooting the film toward what the people liked rather than their vision. Or even they could have shown to much of their personality through what they have chosen to represent their film?