1) For my first encounter with the story of Hamlet, I found the movie as a whole to be pretty interesting. Since I have never read any of the text on Hamlet besides plot summaries, there were a few instances during the film that I had a hard time understanding the dialogue; therefore some scenes left me baffled with what the characters were talking about and what was going on. It was interesting the way that Almereyda modernized the story, very similar to way Baz Luhrmann did with Romeo and Juliet. In comparison to Romeo & Juliet's fantasy world setting (where gas station gun battles go pretty much unpunished), this film had a little more realism to it's story. Even though it is a little more realistic, there still is a bit of a futuristic vibe, used through the choice of scene locations and landscape shots. Almost all the locations used in the film had a futuristic aura too them with the metallic and glass furniture.
One location choice I'm wondering about is the use of Blockbuster for the "to be or not to be.." scene. I was always under the impression that at this scene Hamlet was torn over what decision he should make and he was deep in thought. I understand that the use of films such as The Crow and Armegeddon used in the background were a form of foreshadowing for his eventual demise but I didn't get a sense of urgency from him as he casually walked through the aisles. I would expect him to be in a much more personal space where he can be alone with his thoughts, but then again, this Hamlet is a real film fan, so maybe that's where he feels at home. Technology also played a big role with this version of Hamlet, as the main character is an aspiring film artist, constantly toying around with his cameras. We are also first introduced to the father's ghost through the security camera's footage. Through the use of his camera, Hamlet was often playing back previous footage of his which sometimes was used as a form of narrative---A very creative way for Almereyda to use voice over narrative.
2) I thought the use of Blockbuster in the film was interesting. It had contemporary films such as Armageddon and The Crow 2 which are foreshadowing Hamlets inevitable death. I think this is a subtle kind of foreshadowing that is only possible in a visual medium---on stage, in film, but not in text. I also noticed that Bill Murray (Polonius) uses a security camera to speak into, almost like "breaking the fourth wall" to address the audience directly.
3) Almereyda's Hamlet was a different experience for me. Knowing the story of Hamlet and the works of Shakespeare to an extent, this film had a twofold nature in some ways similar to Storytelling. The way Almereyda mixed the Shakespearian romantic theme filled with mischief, justice, internal battles and repentance and put them all into a modern setting time and context makes the film shocking and very interesting. In a way this film resembles Storytelling in the context of a double form. In Storytelling the internal battles within each character which existed in almost everyone in the film led to juxtaposing many different opposite points. Just as the movie manipulated issues such as the difference between powerful and powerless, good and bad and truth and lies, so too does Hamlet point to similar battles. Almereyda's Hamlet had his own little twofold nature as well. The Shakespearian (Elizabethan) language used with contemporary images as a modern skyrise in NYC, other little things such as Ophelia's hairdos or the fencing match at the end of the film, which is an ancient sport....mixed with the modern setting and use of almost every modern technology media available, the use of classical music together with today's rock created the same kind of double nature too.
Even though I enjoyed reading the written Hamlet, seeing the visual form (although very different than the original) had a bigger impact on me as a viewer, which proves my previous point about the difference about the power of the visual over the written. Just like Prof Estevez said once in class "We live in a visually saturated society!!!"
4) There are numerous characters in Shakespeare's plays that are severely under-rated. The argument is that some characters aren't developed enough. But, I've found that if you read into the text there is hidden character development. Now, it's very possible that I'm finding it because I'm looking for it, but Shakespeare is known for writing about personality types/flaws, society, and the relationships that exist between individuals. But part of Shakespearian plays is also the fact that there are limited stage directions. The plays were written to be performed not read. Therefore, the director has the option to play out a character. And it is then the actor's job to successfully get into character and play it out the way the director saw fit.
Ophelia's character can appear easy to pull off. She has very few lines, her actions are usually done because someone else told her to do it, she gets abused, used, and gets one in depth scene where she acts crazy -- ultimately leading to her committing suicide off stage (very dramatic). But there's a lot more to this tragic character. As far as the text goes, I was always convinced that Ophelia was the most innocent character in 'Hamlet'. At first glance she reads as a two-dimensional person. She is obedient and polite to her superiors. The only part of the book that makes her sound a little more intriguing is when she playfully banters with Laertes before he departs for France. And when reading the part where Polonius reports Hamlet's interest in Ophelia and marks it as the cause for Hamlet's behavior, Ophelia doesn't get any other line other than "Madam I wish it may". It comes off completely innocent and oblivious.
Now, in terms of the film we watched. I enjoyed Julia Stiles performance as Ophelia. I feel as though she was well-cast. The reason being that it was different. Julia Stiles is normally cast as the girl with a chip on her shoulder, the disgruntled teen/20 something year old (ie: 10 Things I Hate About You, Save The Last Dance) Ophelia in the film was then suddenly changed from the 2 dimensional character in the text to the reluctantly obedient daughter. Hamlet's forbidden g/f- this artsy photographer who lives on the lower East Side. But with the director's modernizations aside, Ophelia seemed to have opinions, this was demonstrated through her facial expressions, her movements, and that scream in the 'crazy scene'. Much credit to the director, but it was Julia's face conveying the emotions.
5) Shakespear's langauge is not so easy to grasp and I would like to hear that for some people it comes natural to them. I think I got more from the film because was visual. Although Hamlet is the main focus I found Ophelia the most interesting...she stood out to me the most. Ophelia seemed like she was just a little girl shut out from this big world. Nobody seems to take her seriously---well her brother cares about her, but does he listen to her? Her father and the King and Queen just want to use her and Hamlet? Who knows what he feels? She goes along with her father, but she also seems to genuinely care for Hamlet too. I feel like she is such an unexplored character.
6) Funny how actors who aren't as classically trained are more believable, and seemingly comfortable in their roles. Bill Murray was a natural looking very comfortable in his role as Polonius, and Eathan Hawk who is perfectly cast as Hamlet did an extaordinary job, its so natural seeing him in New York, looking like the kind of guy you see all over the place. The actors known for their work in Shakespeare didn't for me breath as much life into their roles or marry the future with the past as well. With an exception being Liev Schriber whom I thought to be very natural in his portrayal of Laertes. Because these people are of the elite upper class I think it made the Elizabethian dialect work.When artist recreates other works of art they are going to put their touch on it, giving it perhaps a different flavor this makes it exciting, fresh worthy of a look or a listen. When it's copied or reproduced as close to the original it's just a copy, so then why not just use the original? I love Almereyda's version of Hamlet, the modern day setting, he use of technology to deliver some of the narrative, but especially keeping the Elizabethian English, keeping it real. Also I'm glad it ended with the fencing match and not with a gun fight---you know there's not many sword fights anymore, guns are the weapon of choice in the modern world. Having the fencing match with the old English on a swanky balcony of some Manhattan penthouse, is a perfect blend of two artist's work. Even being seperated by 300 or so years the collaboration is very evident.
7) I really liked this version of Hamlet for a few reasons. First, like I stated in the last class, I like how Norway is considered a large multi-million dollar company as opposed to a country. I was wondering how that issue was going to be portrayed in this NYC version, but I liked how they did it. I also really liked how the use of different types of media were portrayed as well. The fax was the best!!! It gave the film a little more depth and it made viewers think about how important these types of media are in our lives. Phone, fax, e-mail, television and even the teleprompter were all types of mediums of getting communication across from one character to the next. I noticed that someone else had posted that they found Ophelia's pictures of the flowers interesting. I think they were like a sign of death because when she threw each one she was stating what they were for. This happens right after her father dies. In the end we all know that she goes completely for a few reasons. Because Hamlet begins treating her differently and because her father and the king begin to pressure her. I liked this version of Hamlet the best out of the ones I've seen probably because I can relate to the setting because its more my time and because I live in NYC.
We talked in class about Gertrude and I just want to reinforce some things that I thought about her. There are some people who think that she truly does know about what has happened her late husband. I truly believe that she doesn't but that's just my opinion. I also believe that she does not know that she is being dragged into a witch hunt against her son. She believes that she is helping him in finding out why he is acting the way he is while Claudius is trying to bring him down. I really think she is very innocent so yes I like it that she knowingly commits suicide in this version. I find her to be probably the biggest victim in this play besides Ophelia.
No comments:
Post a Comment