Introduction
In movies based on Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet,” directors have taken different approaches to how closely they stick to the original text and how they interpret the themes, characters, and settings. This essay reviews two film versions of “Hamlet” directed by Franco Zeffirelli and Gregory Doran and prefers the latter. I think Gregory Doran’s film “Hamlet” is better than Franco Zeffirelli’s. Both films bring the play to life, but Gregory Doran’s version captures the essence of the original text better and appeals to a broader audience, significantly younger viewers. It follows the plot accurately and has good casting choices that make the characters more believable.
Discussion
One important reason why I favor Doran’s portrayal of “Hamlet” is because it stays true to the original. It keeps Shakespeare’s exact language and the order of events in the play, vital for understanding its themes and character development (Hamlet 2009). Doran’s adaptation handles this well and maintains the story’s structure while effectively conveying its complex plot. In contrast, Zeffirelli’s version sometimes leaves out impactful lines from the original, including the famous “To be or not to be” monologue (Hamlet 1990). This deviates from the original material and makes it more challenging for the audience to understand Hamlet’s character and internal struggles.
Additionally, the casting choices in Doran’s film version are highly effective and significantly boost its overall impact. David Tennant’s portrayal of Hamlet is especially notable due to its genuine and skillful depiction of the character’s complex emotions, including sadness, anger, madness, and sorrow (Hamlet 2009). One standout moment is Tennant’s captivating performance of the famous “To be or not to be” monologue. His deliberate and calm delivery, combined with a thoughtful expression, truly captivates the audience and immerses them in the deep complexities of Hamlet’s inner thoughts and intense emotions. Tennant’s youthful appearance and vulnerability also add authenticity to Hamlet’s character, something that Mel Gibson’s portrayal lacks.
In contrast, Gibson’s portrayal of Hamlet is mainly angry and desperate, lacking the emotional depth and vulnerability essential to the character. His energetic delivery during the same monologue takes away from the introspection and emotional weight of the moment (Hamlet 1990). In Doran’s adaptation, King Claudius is depicted as calm yet manipulative, which matches the complexities of the character. Similarly, the scene between Hamlet and Gertrude is handled skillfully, showing a son angry with his mother without using inappropriate sexual gestures (Hamlet 2009). This subtlety and emotional depth level improves the audience’s understanding of the play’s themes and characters.
On the other hand, although it has a genuine medieval setting, Zeffirelli’s version does not stay faithful to the original text. Some lines are skipped, even in the famous “To be or not to be” speech, resulting in a less profound interpretation (Hamlet1990). Mel Gibson’s Hamlet, while passionate in his anger, lacks the sadness and vulnerability that Tennant brings to the character. During the “To be or not to be” soliloquy, Gibson’s energetic movements take away from the weight of the words, distracting the audience from Hamlet’s self-reflection.
Zeffirelli’s Hamlet seems more impulsive and sometimes loses control, deviating from the character’s complexity and subtlety (Hamlet 1990). King Claudius is overly dramatic, which takes away from the nuances of his character. Additionally, the scene between Hamlet and Gertrude takes an unconventional turn, becoming a physical and intimate confrontation between mother and son. Unfortunately, this choice takes away from the intended tension and emotional depth of the scene, affecting the overall portrayal of these characters and their relationships.
Regarding how the directors interpret and make the play understandable, Gregory Doran’s adaptation of Hamlet is more accessible, especially to younger audiences. Doran successfully captures the original text’s essence and reveals the characters’ emotions. On the other hand, Franco Zeffirelli’s interpretation sacrifices faithfulness to the text for cinematic effects and less convincing character portrayals. These changes decrease the overall effectiveness of the adaptation.
Therefore, it is clear that people who prioritize staying true to the original story, exploring emotions, and bringing a modern twist to “Hamlet” would prefer Gregory Doran’s adaptation. It appeals to those who want an authentic and captivating movie experience while preserving Shakespeare’s work’s timeless essence. On the other hand, Franco Zeffirelli’s version offers a genuine medieval setting but takes some liberties with the original text. It may attract those who appreciate a visually unique interpretation and prioritize visual aesthetics over strict adherence to the play’s content. Ultimately, the choice between the two adaptations depends on personal preferences and which aspects of “Hamlet” resonate most deeply with the audience.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I prefer Gregory Doran’s film adaptation of “Hamlet” because it stays true to the original text, has a good storyline, great casting choices, and strong acting. Doran’s version captures Shakespeare’s masterpiece’s depth and complexity while being accessible to a broader audience. On the other hand, although it accurately reflects the setting, Zeffirelli’s adaptation deviates from the original text and prioritizes cinematic effects over the play’s essential elements. Therefore, because of its faithfulness to the source material and the convincing performances of its characters, Gregory Doran’s version of “Hamlet” is the better choice.
Work Cited
Hamlet. Directed by Franco Zeffirelli, Warner Bros., 1990.
Hamlet. Directed by Gregory Doran, BBC Two, 2009.