A comparative analysis of Shakespeares Hamlet and Mel Gibsons Portrayal - Essay Example

A Comparative Analysis of Shakespeare's Hamlet and Mel Gibson's Portrayal The character of Hamlet, both in Shakespeare's play and in Mel Gibson's portrayal in the film, is a youth beset by injustice and indecision. In adapting the play for cinema, certain liberties have been taken however, for better or worse. The most obvious discrepancy is the age difference: for Hamlet to fit into his period role he could have ranged from the age of 13 to possibly as old as 21. Gibson, to be generous, is at least 28. On the other hand, Shakespeare's mention of rapier and dagger for the final duel is probably more Elizabethan in time, while the film attempts a more period placement by the use of single and two handed broadswords, as well as short swords for the two sword duel. Considering that both are the same character (for the sake of description they shall be referred to as Hamlet or Gibson), there are a number of differences between the play and the version directed by Franco Zeffirelli. The most obvious place to begin comparison would be to analyze the structure of both. In order to understand the scene rearrangement in the movie, one must first examine the original order of the play. It is vital to have a listing of the order and elements Shakespeare wrote in order to see the movie's purpose for leaving out certain elements and for shuffling others. In order to conserve space, one can focus the summary on the scenes most directly in conflict with the film. The opening act of the play involves the watch both discussing the history of Fortinbras and the deceased Hamlet, as well as witnessing the latter's ghost. The final scene of Act I has Hamlet receiving instructions from his father's ghost while his friends support him while keeping their distance from the spirit. Act II encompasses two scenes, the latter half of which follows a quick succession of events: the King and Queen welcome Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, an update on the activities of Fortinbras, Hamlet mocking Polonius and then greeting Rosencrantz and Guildenstern only to then berate their reasons for coming to Ellsinore, ending with Polonius announcing the arrival of the players. Act III scene one involves the King and Polonius receiving the report from Hamlet's friends, then testing Hamlet's madness by using Ophelia to bait him. Act VI is somewhat scattered, as the first three scenes all deal with Hamlet's murder of Polonius and subsequent departure for England. The fourth scene is the only meeting between Hamlet and Fortinbras; the next shows Ophelia's descent into madness and Laertes's return. Hamlet informs Horatio via a letter that he will be returning to Ellsinore in scene six, while the final scene involves the King and Laertes, having learned of Hamlet's return, plot his demise until they learn of Ophelia's death. The final act has but two divisions: the first at Ophelia's grave site and the latter at the duel, in which most of the major characters die, an English ambassador reports the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and Fortinbras appears to reclaim the lands his father lost. The evolution of the plot in this format serves to define a Hamlet tormented by indecision and grief, a character that can take action through events (such as through the players performance) but rarely initiates events himself he is pushed around more often than he chooses to push. Just as Shakespearean theatre operates around the seven-element formula, so to do movies work around a cinematic formula. Yet, while there is always room for interpretation with plays, the leap of mediums to the big screen also involves the daunting task of editing a four-hour play to roughly two hours. The movie begins to bend the play's structure immediately in the first act. In lieu of the first scene of the play, the movie opens with the interment of the elder Hamlet, a scene in which Claudius, already wearing the crown over his dead brother's corpse, asks Gibson to look upon him as a father. While there is an edit done between this initial scene and the next (with an unknown amount of time passing), the fact that Claudius is already king and the former king's body is just being buried seems in contradiction to Gibson's observation that it has not been two months since his father's death. The movie thereby establishes sympathy with Gibson's character in his perception of how quickly events have moved. The rest of Act I seems to follow the original text, albeit with some obvious edits: Horatio speaking with the guards about following Gibson and the ghost would not be so glaringly absent were the line "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." not such an infamous quote. Act II begins with Hamlet enacting his strange behavior in gripping Ophelia that, in the play, she relates to Polonius. While the next scene roughly progresses with the text - in which Gibson calls Polonius a 'fishmonger' - the movie then leaps ahead to partway through Act III scene one, where Ophelia attempts to give back a small gift of Hamlet's and he berates her. The film then jumps to the very beginning of the scene (in the text) in which Gibson delivers the "To be or not to be" monologue in the crypt. The application of the film formula would suggest that the love interest was not having enough screen time, and was therefore moved up in the order of events. This haphazard rearrangement now implies that Gibson is morbidly suicidal because he is lovesick, instead of the play's initial indication that he was suicidal and then lashes out at Ophelia as another event turned sour. Likewise, these backward jumps in the text continue, for the film then seems to progress in reverse through the Act II scene two, at least as far as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are concerned. Gibson is now suspicious from the manipulations of Ophelia and wrings a confession of purpose from his two friends, a fact which is confirmed by returning to the castle and seeing the two greeted by the King and Queen. This is a direct reversal of events from the play, where Hamlet was on guard with Ophelia specifically because he had just sifted his companions. The events around the play's performance are essentially correct, although there is no dumb show performed and some of the dialogue has been shifted to different characters. This dialogue shift happens several times throughout the film; it seems to most often allow Gertrude an opportunity to say something that promotes her humanity. There are also various adjustments to the order of Ophelia's songs as she grows insane. A scene is depicted in the film where Gibson steals the letters from Guildenstern and replaces them with his own; immediately following, a scene is inserted of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern being led to the headsman's block. This scene simultaneously depicts their fate while negating the necessity of the English ambassador in the final scene. It also implies that Gibson's actions have immediate repercussions, rather than the circuitous route portrayed in the play. The last significant scene switch involves the funeral of Act V and the plot of Laertes and the King against Gibson, which originally appears in Act IV scene seven. The main import of this is that it firstly negates the incorporation of Hamlet's letter to the King announcing his return and secondly happens after the altercation at the funeral. In the play, Laertes is planning vengeance against Hamlet for the death of Polonius, all of which occurs prior to the death of Ophelia. By plotting after the funeral, the scheme seems more spontaneous and hot-blooded. The rearrangement of events in the film serve the purpose of portraying Gibson's Hamlet as more of a man of action than indecision, while still allowing him to vacillate between thought and performance. One of the longer pieces extracted from the film is Hamlet's initial conversation with the player, in which Hamlet requests a certain speech. Hamlet knows the piece so well that he begins the quote with "The rugged Pyrrhus, he whose sable arms, / Black as his purpose (2.2.450-451) and goes on to describe how he seeks his grandsire Priam. The player immediately picks up the verse, continuing to describe how "Pyrrhus' bleeding sword / Now falls on Priam." (2.2.489-490) and to continue until Polonius complains of the speech's length. This scene is important for two reasons: firstly because it continues to underscore the theme of the play in the retribution of the younger generation upon the injustices of the elder generations. More importantly, this speech reveals that while Hamlet is enamored with action, he puts more stock in the contemplation of it than the practice of it. It also reiterates that Hamlet has been more of a scholar, focused specifically on matters of thought and literature, to the extent that he has had time to memorize a lengthy portion of the speech verbatim. This implication would have been counterproductive to the action Gibson's portrayal was trying to instill into the role. It was therefore left out of the film. What the film does do extraordinarily well is interpret the text through location. Shakespeare's device of Polonius hiding, alone or with the King, proves to be fertile examples for the film. The castle scenes, shot on location in various English and Scottish monuments, have a number of open balconies and walkways that allow a character to eavesdrop upon a scene between other characters. Gibson appears to do this a number of times, with great effect in both moving the plot along and enhancing the intrigue. He overhears Polonius telling Ophelia to discourage his advances. Therefore, when Ophelia tries to return a token of his, Gibson rants about "honesty before asking where her father is. When she says he is at home, Gibson winces, believing to have caught her in a lie and verifying it by pretending to leave, only to re-emerge and see Polonius and the King exit an alcove. Gibson repeats this trick after accusing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of coming to the King's command; he witnesses their greeting from the King. This approach is not limited to Gibson alone: Polonius regards Gibson initially behaving strangely with Ophelia and Gertrude hears Ophelia through an open window as she sings dementedly. Other liberties of the film medium are used to advantage. Ophelia handing out sticks and chicken bones as various flowers certainly supports her madness. Likewise, the green lighting used for the appearance of the ghost is a striking contrast from the gold lighting shown to represent Gertrude seeing nothing. This follows closely on an inspired portrayal of the Gibson Queen confrontation, where Gibson mimics sex with the Queen and she stops his speech about incest with a kiss where upon his madness is somewhat validated as insanity, in that the ghost appears to Gibson alone. The wisest choice made in the film - and the most glaringly obvious - is the deliberate omission of Fortinbras. In the play, he works as a direct parallel to Hamlet, both of them princes whose fathers had been wronged in some way. Yet Fortinbras is constantly a man of action: he plots to assault Ellsinore and, when stymied by the king of Norway, instead channels his energy into attacking Poland. There is also a certain fulfillment for both princes in that Fortinbras is the direct beneficiary of the last scene's carnage. Yet had he been in the movie, he would have constantly overshadowed what actions Gibson does take. For, in the play, Hamlet finds himself the weaker of the two in comparison and uses his chance meeting with Fortinbras as inspiration to steel his resolve, saying, "O, from this time forth, / My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!" (4.4.65-66). Gibson's character could not have withstood comparison to a stronger figure. Instead, the film tries to stay true to the spirit of the play while adding a quicker pace. The results are a drama that has slight leanings towards an action film, yet stay faithful to essence of Shakespeare's play. Should Hamlet in the film prove to act slightly faster well Hamlet always needed to be more decisive anyway. Works Cited Gibson, Mel, actor. Hamlet. Videocassette. Dir. Franco Zeffirelli. With Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, Alan Bates, Paul Scofield, Ian Holm, and Helena Bonham-Carter. Warner Brothers, 1990. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. T. J. B. Spencer. London: Penguin Books, 1980. Read More