To Be or Not To Be

     In Olivier's Hamlet, I thought that the setting of the act was a good key to making the audience feel the contemplation occurring within Hamlet's mind. Being on a cliff, a wrong step can send a person plummeting to their death. Just like the "To Be or Not to Be" speech, Hamlet is contemplating whether to chose death or deal with his problems. I believe that the music in this version did not help contribute anything positive. If anything, I thought it was a distraction. To me, the actor's voice was a little bit low and the music on top of it, tunes it out on some points. The transition between the different emotions along with the different tone in the speech was very impressive to me. I thought that it fit perfectly and made it more realistic than using one emotion.
     Zefirelli's Hamlet was my favorite version out of all of them. The actor that played Hamlet played the character well. He was on target with all the right emotions for the right parts. Also the setting at the catacombs gave off the feel of death and life, just like what the speech is supposed to portray. The lighting of the whole scene was definitely something that also affects how the audience reacts to it. The low lighting makes it sorrowful and gloomy, but also suspenseful and mysterious at the same time.
     Branaugh's Hamlet was the least appealing to me. The setting itself, to me, is too much. The designs of the tiles and walls are distractions away from the character itself. The setting has no symbolism unlike the first two versions we have watched. Also, the tone of the character is more vengeful rather than someone who is contemplating whether to take his own life or not. The bright lighting in the movie also did not give that feel of depression or conflict. To me, this version was the most similar to the actual script, but it did not give me clear understanding nor did it catch my attention as an audience.
     The modern version, Almereyda's Hamlet, had a good symbolism behind the setting. To me, I looked at it as contemplation once again. When people go to movie stores, they usually take a lot of time trying to decide what movie they should pick out. This goes along with the speech's purpose once again because Hamlet is deciding whether to live or not. The music and the tone of the character also was also good. The soft tone of the actor and soothing music gives a feel that the character is really in deep thoughts. However, it lacked different emotions throughout the speech.
     By watching four different versions of Hamlets out of maybe hundred or thousands more, it shows the universality of this play. I believe that the play could be depicted or interpreted into many different versions. In these four versions, the symbolism between the settings alone were completely different. Not only could it be interpreted differently, it could also be used as a base of different stories or movies such as the Lion King. Out of the four version, the one that stood out to me the most was Zefirelli's Hamlet. I believed that Mel Gibson had the right acts and emotions that fit perfectly well with the script. Also the setting, lighting, and harmonized well and made me relate it closer to the actual play than any of the other versions.

Comparisons in Hamlet FIlms

          In Franco Zeffirelli's version of Hamlet, Mel Gibsons part gives a feel of sadness and despair. Also, the setting of the event when Hamlet talks to his father's spirit was very gloomy and eerie. There were no music, causing the slience to add up to the eeriness of the setting. The lighting was low and dark and adds to the sadness and despair as well. Zeffirelli did not use any special effects or any other visual elements to add to that part of the movie. I believe that the simplicity in Zeffirelli's work is enough and it is what gives it the right feel for the audience.

          In contrast to the simplicity of Zeffirelli's version of Hamlet, Kenneth Branagh's version is nothing like it. I believe that the character of Hamlet, Branagh himself, and the the spirit of Hamlet's father portrayed the act in such an exaggerated way. The way they acted and said the words were so emphasized and gave the feeling of suspense. Instead of the simplicity, Branagh's version of Hamlet was a little more upbeat and fast-paced. He used flashbacks as a visual element and I believe that it was a great element because it explained the act clearly. The lighting was similar to Zeffirelli's version. It was also gloomy and eerie, but Branagh used music to support the lighting of the setting and also some special effects while running through the woods.

          Michael Almerada's version of Hamlet is nothing like the previous two I have mentioned. Along with the different tone of how the characters spoke, the setting is also a big deal. The setting did not take place in the medieval times or the past, it takes place in the modern times--New York City. Almerada didn't seem to use any special effects because the events in the movie is something that would happen in reality. However, there were suspensful music here and there and it gives off the feel of a little suspense. The lighthing was different as well since it took place in a modernized apartment instead of the outdoors. Although the lightning was a little dim, it was not enough compared to the other versions. However, the way the ghost spoke to Hamlet (Ethan Hawke) in Almerada's version did the job to give the sadness and eeriness without the very dark settings that the other directors used. Almerada also used flashback in the movie, but in a more modern way. It was a helpful visual, but I personally think it was irrelevant and should have been done differently.

     I believe that Zeffirelli's version of Hamlet gave me the best result of understanding and being as close to as how it was on the original text. The simplicity of it gave an effect that it could actually happen in reality. There were no special effects that made it seem exaggerated. This is why I believe that this version of Hamlet was the best version to me.