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?
I agree that the Mel Gibson version did capture the emotional setting of that scene. The way the director express death by how Hamlet was in the catacomb. Also how they gave a religious aspect when Hamlet starts to second guess himself to commit suicide. The actor gave a his speech in a more subtle way compare to the others where they overly exaggerate it. As well as the props used in each version, which gave these different vibe during each scene.
ReplyDelete