Screen Versions of
“Hamlet”
The last half of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th
centuries are known as the Golden Age of English Literature. It was the time of the
English Renaissance and it is often called “The Age of Shakespeare”.
William Shakespeare’s output comprises one of the most extraordinary
achievements of English literature and one of the wonders of world drama. His immortal
tragedy “Hamlet” has been attracting the attention of many educated people all over
the world over a period of four centuries. Each epoch survived the situations and problems
of this tragedy in its own way. It serves humanity as a mirror, in which new generations
examine themselves. And every period proves to have a different face.
The authors of this paper, due to their modest capabilities, will only
try to trace, analyse, and compare the main characters of the tragedy as they were
presented by three outstanding film-directors. Let us compare three films: the Russian
film by the director Kozintzev, the American film by Zefirelli and the English one by
Olivier, based on the tragedy “Hamlet”, and look at how these directors see the main
characters, and how much they have succeeded in interpreting Shakespeare’s idea.
Smoktunovskiy plays the leading part in Kozintzev’s film, Mel Gibson
– in the film by Zefirelli, and the part of the Danish prince is taken by the director
himself in the film by Laurence Olivier. Each Hamlet has his own particular relations to
those around him, but each of them moves to his purpose – to take vengeance for the
murder, “murder for the murders”.
However, what instigates each of them to the revenge? All the goodness
in the world disappeared for Hamlet-Smoktunovskiy with the death of his father. According
to Kozintzev the ghost served as an impetus to Hamlet’s vengeance. It personified
horror, the highest power. In Kozintzev’s film the ghost was dressed in black armor and,
talking with his son, it stood on the cliff, raised high above him. It causes respect, it
subordinates him to its will. The Danish prince perceives himself like an arrow, a
projectile, which flies to the target; he can’t turn, or deviate. He has two ways:
either to go to the end or to put an end to his life.
The moment of the choice of paths agrees with Boris Pasternak’s poem.
Pasternak compares Hamlet with Jesus. Both Hamlet and Jesus must carry out the highest
will, renounce themselves, and proceed to their purpose through torture. “But the order
of actions is thought out and the end of the way is inevitable...” – says Boris
Pasternak about the inevitability of the fate of Hamlet. But Hamlet doubts much before
becoming the envoy of fate; we can come to such conclusion reading his famous soliloque,
which begins with the following words: “to be or not to be”.
In Kozintzev’s film, Hamlet-Smoktunovskiy goes upstairs after
strengthening his resolve to go to the end. It symbolizes the final decision-making;
indeed he goes straight to the palace from the sea, where he must kill Claudius.
The only person who could force him to suffer was Ophelia. After coming
to her immediately after his conversation with the ghost, Hamlet, according to Kozintzev,
bid farewell to the girl. He approached her speechlessly, took her hand, held it and left.
There was so much melancholy and pain in his look, because he understood, that he was
parting from her forever.
Having carried out his duty, Kozintzev’s Hamlet goes to the sea,
where he dies quietly, without the moans, pain and torture. He is placed on a stretcher
made from the swords and the flag and carried through the gates. He seems to leave to join
his father, and they treat him with honours: not as a criminal, but as the hero who has
kept his oath.
In contrast to the Russian Hamlet, Hamlet-Gibson is more human in the
sense that he is more like a real person. Generally, all of Zefirelli’s characters are
more realistic than those of Kozintzev.
The prince can’t bear the sight of his mother, who sincerely loves
Claudius. The entire world around him lives and loves, merriment reigns everywhere; but
Hamlet can’t understand how everybody could have forgotten the late king: “How weary,
stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world!”
The ghost of his father is not a high essence in armour, but a pitiful
old man, who does not cause fear, but only pity and sympathy. This pity for his father,
love for him, caused Hamlet-Gibson to take vengeance.
Zefirelli’s Hamlet is violent. He is the complete opposite to
Hamlet-Smoktunovskiy; these two characters even go insane differently.
Hamlet-Smoktunovskiy’s madness appears in the form of infinite
reflections, phrases pronounced inopportunely, his blank look. Hamlet-Gibson, in contrast,
laughs, he walkes along the tables, rushes up to people and frightens them.
And Hamlet-Gibson dies violently, not at all quietly and stately as in
Kozintzev. Zefirelli’s film concludes with a long shot of the hall with the four
corpses. These deaths are not only the tragedy of Hamlet, as it is in Kozintzev’s film,
this is the tragedy of everybody in the Danish Court: Hamlet-Gibson, his mother, Laertes,
the king, and all the rest.
And what, in Olivier’s opinion, pushes Hamlet to vengeance?
Hamlet-Olivier takes vengeance because of the realisation of the fact
that this is his fate. After encountering the ghost Hamlet changes greatly, as if he is
completely regenerated. It seemed to him that the ghost of his father, which appeared
before him, was fate itself, which everybody feared.
Hamlet-Olivier doesn’t go insane and he doesn’t even pretend to be
mad. Despite all his ordeals, he dies on the throne, which must belong to him by right.
The final route of the body of the prince lies in all the places which were connected with
his recent days.
One of the main characters of the tragedy, Queen Gertrude, Hamlet’s
mother, strongly influenced his fate. According to Kozintzev she married Claudius clearly
not because of her great love. But Zefirelli’s Gertrude loved Claudius passionately. Who
will say that she was no longer twenty years old? No one. She is rejuvenated because of
love. This tormented Hamlet-Gibson much.
In Kozintzev’s film the queen is not so young. The sin committed by
her, burdens her. Despite the obvious difference of these two Gertrudes, their love for
Hamlet brings them together.
Hamlet-Gibson is rough and severe with the queen in the scene of the
conversation in her bedroom. He beats her, he shakes her, as if attempting to wake his
mother from the sleep which she is in. But on the other hand, he rushes to her when she is
dying. Hamlet-Smoktunovskiy was more reserved with his mother, but he didn’t rush to her
when she was dying. This is also evidence of the contrasting natures of
Hamlet-Smoktunovskiy and Hamlet-Gibson.
According to Kozintzev, the queen drinks wine in order to show her son
that she can go against the will of Claudius; in Zefirelli’s film Gertrude drank wine
completely by chance, she simply wanted to drink.
Olivier’s queen knew perfectly well that the wine was poisoned, and
she considered saving her son to be her sacred duty.
The poets of Russia’s “silver century” have their own opinion
about Gertrude. M. Tsvetayeva considers that Hamlet does not have a right to judge
her: “It’s not the matter of your reason to judge the fevered blood”. Tsvetayeva
also shields Ophelia, charging Hamlet with her death in her poem “Dialogue of Hamlet
with his Conscience”.
A. Block, on the other hand, considered that Hamlet and Ophelia loved
each other greatly, and that Hamlet did not forget about her even against the background
of his obligation.
A. Akhmatova in her poem “Reading ‘Hamlet’” also writes
about the fact that Ophelia greatly loved Hamlet. She is similar to Olivier’s Ophelia
– a gentle, enamoured girl, but reckless in her passion and daring in her behaviour.
Kozintzev’s Ophelia is a young girl, whose entire mind and will are
suppressed by her father, Polonius. This blind submissiveness irritates
Hamlet-Smoktunovskiy. But Zefirelli’s Ophelia is wilful and does not believe her father.
The scenes of madness of each of the girls are very interesting.
Kozintzev’s Ophelia more brightly displays her basic feature – submissiveness, she
walked quietly and sang songs; while Zefirelli’s Ophelia, having revealed her essence,
became a volcano, which frightened others.
Returning to Olivier’s Ophelia, one can add that the independence of
her nature was persistently suppressed by her father and brother, Laertes.
Kozintzev’s Laertes is violent. Without finding out who is right and
who is guilty, he rushes to take vengeance. He injures Hamlet in the duel.
He does not have regrets before his death, but instead he betrays the
king:
“Lo, here I lie,
Never to rise again. Thy mother’s poison’d.
I can no more. The King, the King’s to blame”.
Zefirelli’s Laertes is different. There was no passion in him, and he
committed murder more deliberately, wounding Hamlet-Gibson meanly, when he had raised his
sword. But then he repented sincerely after seeing the death of the queen; he betrayed the
king, after understanding that Claudius was a criminal, and after realising his own error.
Olivier’s Laertes makes up his mind to kill Hamlet after long
reflection. More and more the thought takes root, that Hamlet is guilty in the fact that
Ophelia could not survive the death of her father. Dying, he sees that Hamlet can kill the
first who meets his eye as he is extremely excited; Laertes stops him and, already
fighting with death, he tells Hamlet who is the real culprit in the queen’s death.
In conclusion, in comparing these films we are faced with three
different points of view. Kozintzev’s film is a philosophical one, we would say; it’s
a reflection. Zefirelli presents us extremely realistic story; his characters behave as if
they lived in our time. Oliver’s film is also a peculiar re-comprehension of
Shakespeare’s tragedy, where the characters act more selflessly, supporting each other.
Belinsky wrote: “Hamlet is you, me, everyone of us” and
Stanislavsky called Hamlet “the best of men, the Christ-like-figure”. “Hamlet” was
written in 1601, but this play still holds our attention and earns our sympathy today.
By Maria Lyapushkina, Ilya Kotov,
Tatyana Selivanova,
O.A. Khaleyeva – scientific adviser,
Orphanage-school No. 46 , St.-Petersburg
|
