Shakespeare's Plays King Lear and Hamlet - Essay Example

? Introduction Shakespeare's plays King Lear and Hamlet are timeless ics which have enjoyed much re-telling by many different directors both on the stage and screen. This paper will focus upon Michael Elliott's production of King Lear, featuring Laurence Olivier in the title role and Gregory Doran's production of Hamlet with David Tennant in the title role. While both do the story justice, Doran's production of Hamlet holds considerably more appeal for a modern audience. This is because Doran, unlike Elliott, used a modern setting to tell the tale of the Prince of Denmark who finds out that his uncle Claudius, now his step-father, killed his father, King Hamlet. Elliott, on the other hand, uses traditional costuming, staging and camera shots. The result, for Doran, is a production that is not only more visually appealing then Elliott's Lear, but also provides telling and explanatory motifs that help the story along and enables the audience to not only relate more to the characters, but also participate more in the show itself. Discussion In examining how the modernist elements benefits Hamlet while the lack of modernist elements make King Lear seem banal in comparison, one must look first at the use of costume. Lear's costumes are the typical costumes that one might see in any Renaissance-era play – long gowns, upswept hairstyles, crowns, etc (King Lear). These costumes lend an air of gravity to the proceedings, and are not anachronistic, so perhaps this is to its credit. Lear is a story that is a tragedy, after all – a doddering fool is at the center of the play, in person of King Lear, and he is somebody who succumbs easily to flattery, while another doddering fool is slightly left of center of the play, in the person of Gloucestershire. There is much intrigue throughout the play, as the daughters, Goneril and Regan plot against their own father and are responsible for the blinding of Gloucestershire and the execution of their sister, Cordelia (Shakespeare). This kind of intrigue is befitting a story from the medieval age, so the use of costumes that denote this time is appropriate, to be sure. And, of course, this story is a William Shakespeare play, and the use of Renaissance costumes are appropriate for his plays, as this is time of which he wrote. Therefore, the use of Renaissance costumes to tell the story is appropriate, as this is the era in which the play was set. Yet, after viewing Hamlet which updates the story of Hamlet to sometime in the 20th Century, which is evident through its use of costuming, the staging of King Lear suddenly seems stale. Like King Lear, Hamlet is also a story set during the Renaissance period, and is also a tragedy with intrigue at the heart of play (Shakespeare). Yet Gregory Doran's production of Hamlet, unlike Michael Elliott production of King Lear, seems fresh and is intriguing for today's audience. This is because Hamlet, with its updating the story to modern times, makes the play seem fresh and enables the director to use modernist elements that might appeal to today's audience (Hamlet). At the same time, the costuming, as it were, in Hamlet enables the director to tell something about the characters. For instance, Hamlet himself is often barefoot. In certain scenes, before the play within a play, including the scene where he does the famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy, Hamlet is clad in nothing but a pair of jeans and an orange t-shirt that is adorned within musculature print that looks like a man's chest. He is barefoot. Later on, when Hamlet is staging the play within a play, which is meant to bring Claudius' guilt to the surface, Hamlet is in a tuxedo - white shirt, black pants, black coat and bow tie – yet is still barefoot. Therefore, Hamlet's character is exposed through the use of costuming, or lack thereof. One interpretation is that putting Hamlet into jeans, t-shirt and bare feet accents Hamlet's youth, or immaturity. Hamlet is in the middle of political intrigue, and he is a prince, yet he wears the uniform of a college student, complete with the bare feet. Another interpretation is that Hamlet is an ordinary man, not really royalty. Perhaps this is the way that Hamlet feels, that he is disconnected to royalty, because, if he were to admit that he were royalty, that would mean that he has something in common with the despised King Claudius. The fact that Hamlet wears bare feet with his tuxedo is even more interesting, and, perhaps, even more telling. This would denote that Hamlet is mad, which, of course, he wants everybody to believe about him. This can also be termed a sign of disrespect to Claudius, as this play is supposed to be for Claudius and Gertrude, Hamlet's mother. That Hamlet would appear at the big play with bare feet is a sign that he is not taking the proceedings seriously, therefore this would be an affront to Claudius and Gertrude. As another example of the use of costuming that brings out new dimensions in familiar characters, one might look to Doran's dressing of Ophelia. Ophelia dresses like a young girl might in today's world – capri pants, flowery shirts, low-heeled shoes. In her scenes with Laertes, as Laertes is preparing to go off to university, the scene seems very touching and very accessible. They seem like any ordinary brother and sister about to say goodbye, and it lends an air of melancholy to the viewers who know that Laertes will never again see Ophelia sane. In fact, Ophelia teases Laertes by pulling out condoms from his suitcase. It is because of Ophelia' modern dress, combined with the modern touch of her pulling out condoms, that an audience can relate to the bon voyage of Laertes, and the audience may see themselves, or their children, through these two siblings' eyes. The contrast may be made by comparing Ophelia in Doran's production to Cordelia is Elliott's production of Lear. Cordelia has much in common with Ophelia – both are young girls, both are spunky and outspoken, and both are basically good, loyal girls. Yet Ophelia's character in Hamlet seems more real, more like somebody who might be one's sister or daughter then Cordelia, and it is simply because of Ophelia's modern elements of dress and behavior. Cordelia, by contrast, seems to be somebody who is slightly too good, too innocent, too put-upon. One cannot relate to Cordelia in quite the way that one can relate to Ophelia, simply because Cordelia's characterization is, by definition, old-fashioned. The director cannot imbue Cordelia with the same human traits that Doran can impart to Ophelia, therefore Cordelia is not somebody who is relatable,yet Ophelia is. Another interesting aspect of the costuming of Ophelia is that one can see that Ophelia herself is a modern woman who appears to work out and lift weights, for she has muscular arms that are apparent when she strips down to her undergarments after the death of her father, Polonius. That the actress who plays Ophelia has a modern figure, which is evident in this scene, shows yet again that Ophelia is supposed to be modern, and, once again, it makes her more relateable, and less like a fragile flower. Cordelia, on the other hand, does come across as a fragile flower, despite the fact that her character is strong and she is a Queen, therefore she is less relatable to today's feminist audience. Other modern elements that Doran uses in his production are modern film techniques. For instance, he has his characters address the camera directly, including Hamlet and Polonius. Lear does not include this in its production, for the soliloquies in Lear are traditional soliloquies, where the actors do not look directly into the camera. What this imparts in Hamlet is the sense that the characters are including the audience in their thought processes, which, of course, might bring the audience closer to the action. It is less impersonal for a character to address the audience directly, then for the characters to address nobody in particular, which is the traditional mode of soliloquies, as used by Elliott in Lear. In the case of Polonius, his addresses to the audience bring moments of humor, as he tells the audience about the madness of Hamlet much in the way that somebody in true life might turn to somebody else and roll their eyes or roll their finger around their ear in the “cuckoo” sign. Thus, Doran brings the modernist element of direct addresses, including the famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy, and enables the audience to become a part of the play. This is something which is missing in Lear. Other modernist elements bring a bit of interest to the movie, as well as subtly tell the audience about certain events that are occurring. For instance, Doran uses a jump shot during a soliloquy, right at the moment when Hamlet realizes that Claudius was the murderer of his father. This alerts the audience that something has shifted in Hamlet, and that he literally had an “ah ha” moment. Thus, the use of this particular shot tells the audience what they need to know about what Hamlet is thinking. The shot of Hamlet at the beginning of the “to be or not to be” soliloquy is also interesting, as Hamlet is shot from the back, and the audience is only privy to his silhouette. Then, during the rest of the monologue, Hamlet is shown in extreme closeup, where only his face can be seen. These use of shots bring a bit of excitement about the scene, as well as let the audience see the full-range of emotions on actor David Tennant's face. In contrast, Lear did not use any of the modernist elements which bring intrigue and freshness to Hamlet, like jump shots, extreme closeups and silhouetted soliloquies, so Elliott does not use these types of elements to explore the characters in the same way that Doran does. Another modern element was the use of a gun, and this brings about a potent motif in Hamlet – that of the cracked mirror. When Hamlet hears Polonius behind a mirror, he shoots at the mirror, killing Polonius. In a typical costume drama, such as Lear, this cracked mirror would not be possible, as there would not be guns used in such a drama. However, because this is a modern retelling of the story, guns may be used, and a cracked mirror is the result. The cracked mirror then becomes a motif, in that the characters who look through this mirror have cracked psyches for a variety of reasons. Ophelia looks through the mirror, right at the time when the audience realize that she has gone crazy, and the cracked mirror is the element by which the audience sees Ophelia, who has literally “cracked up” herself. Gertrude, who's psyche is cracked because of her guilt, just bubbling to the surface, about marrying her dead husband's brother in haste, sees herself through this mirror right about the time that her psyche begins bothering her about her hasty marriage. Hamlet looks through the cracked mirror right after killing Polonius, and this is right about the time that the audience realizes exactly what Hamlet is capable of and that maybe, after all, Hamlet is as crazy as he has been acting. Claudius also looks through a cracked mirror, albeit a different one from the one that Hamlet cracked, when doing his own soliloquy towards the end of the play. It is around this point that Claudius' cool demeanor is starting to crack, as he is realizing that his nephew and step-son Hamlet correctly suspects him of killing King Hamlet, so the cracked mirror is appropriate for him as well. Another modernist element that works throughout the play, which would not be used in traditional costume dramas such as King Lear is the use of a videotape. Specifically, Hamlet videotapes himself agonizing about his own inaction, as well as videotapes the reaction of Claudius to Hamlet's accusatory play within a play. The videotaping of himself comes off as narcissistic, which is fitting for Hamlet's immature character, but it also provides some depth to his soliloquy. The videotaping of King Claudius is effective, because it enables the audience to see Claudius through the lens of a camera, as if the audience themselves are the ones videotaping him, and this, as with the direct camera addressing, allows the audience to become a part of the action, and this is effective. Conclusion Gregory Doran's vision of Hamlet is basically a re-telling of the story by using modernist elements that bring freshness to the story. These modernist elements not only update the story of Hamlet for a 21st Century audience, but also brings certain subtle elements to the storytelling which enables the audience to see aspects of the characters that might have been hidden before. At the same time, the modernist view of the play enables the director to introduce motifs that introduce elements of the characters' psyches, just as the use of costuming, or lack thereof, introduces elements of the characters. In comparison, Michael Elliott's production of King Lear, with its traditional costuming, staging and shots, seems positively stale. There is not much that sets Elliott's Lear apart from all other productions, despite the presence of esteemed actor Laurence Olivier in the lead role. For this reason, Doran's Hamlet is a way to introduce the play to today's audience, and offers a fresh perspective to the play that Elliott's Lear does not. Sources Used Hamlet, 2009. Film. Directed by Gregory Doran. UK: BBC Warner. King Lear, 1984. Film. Directed by Michael Elliott. UK: Granada Pictures. Shakespeare, W. (1992) Hamlet. New York: Washington Square Press. Shakespeare, W. (1993) King Lear. New York: Washington Square Press. Read More