Some Comedic Hamlet Sketches

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwbB6B0cQs4

This first clip is a clip with Hugh Laurie and Rowan Atkinson editing Hamlet. I hope this helps how funny Hugh Laurie can be. (Except this is what I think that he had in mind for Romeo and Juliet rather than Hamlet.) I enjoy the humor of this and it also give us a better understanding that what we have is not necessarily Shakespeare's version, and that it was a collabortion and that there were changes back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWndLb3z5nY

This other clip is from The Muppet Show. Christopher Reeve playing Hamlet. This also is amazing. I love it! Can't go wrong with the Muppets. This was just a fun video that can introduce kids to the importance of Shakespeare.

A Plague on Your Movie: Romeo + Juliet

Baz Lurhman’s Romeo + Juliet may be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The first ten minutes play more like a trailer to a film rather than an opening credit scene. It moves at a rapid rate that it is impossible to understand what exactly is happening. The majority of actors aren’t trained in Shakespeare which makes most of the meaning go away. And then the music really gets in the way of the story and becomes something that it should never do: becomes its own, separate entity rather than work cohesively with the film.

If one looks at brief glimpses of how Romeo + Juliet was filmed, then it might seem like a beautifully unique film. When seen in its entirety, it becomes one long mess of terrible camera work and terribly built sets. Trying to do something poetic with his film, Baz throws at the screen hundreds of images, all in a confusing, rapid, and schizophrenic fashion that any meaning is lost. And in a series of scenes with Juliet and her mother and her nurse which are supposed to be more subdued and mellow scenes in the play, they speed up the camera work as if it was some silent film where everyone moves at a faster rate. There is no point to do what they did, and it baffles me whenever I try to think about it. And then, with the repetitive imagery, Baz constantly places shots of fireworks in his film. Is it symbolic with some sexual act? Is it supposed to mean the loud chaos that occurs around him? I have no idea, and by half way through the film, it becomes laughable.

Then the actors, my God, the terrible actors. The nurse and the friar may be the only good actors in the entire film. Leonardo di Caprio is so terrible as Romeo, trying to look hot for the fan girls, but ultimately looking like a whiny boy with a gun. The actor who plays Mercutio is just as bad, who looks like a drag queen and acts like it. I never feel threatened by him and I don’t care about him when he dies. And Claire Danes can’t cry. It sounds like she is choking on a really bad dinner that her mother forced down her throat. She, just like diCrapio (that was not a type-o), tries to look sexy and hot on camera, but instead makes us men revolt at the sight of her.

One last thing that I didn't enjoy about this film was the music. It didn’t work. It became so forced and overpowering that it became its own thing; a soundtrack that doesn’t work with the film, but instead works against it and becomes its own, separte entity is not a good soundtrack. Every second of the music is out of place, even more out of place than the camera work and the actors.

This film may appeal to teenagers who enjoy this type of seizure inducing camerawork, obviously the same people who like listening to overpowering music and attending raves that blind the average American. I simply don't see anyone who doesn't like loud music, schizophrenic images, and blinding lights (and Leonardo diCaprio) liking this film.

Everything about this film is done terribly. From the pacing and camerawork to the actors and music, nothing in this film works, unless you consider working against each other working well. I will be trying really hard to forget this experience and go back to Kenneth Branagh or Zefferelli for my Shakespeare fix.

*

The Musical Epic on a Grand Setting; A Comparison of Henry V

Shakespeare can be interpreted in several different ways; every person who reads it can interpret it differently. Certain decisions on where an adaptation is set or which lines are to be said furthers a director’s vision of a film. The major way for a director to set his own vision is to place it in the right genre. This is where Kenneth Branagh’s version differs from Laurence Olivier’s film: the scope, the genre, of Branagh’s film is more of an epic than Olivier’s film due to the use of its music by Patrick Doyle and the sets by Tim Harvey, not because of the battles.

The music in the two adaptations, the non-diegetic or asynchronous sound for the score, is completely different in the two adaptations. Olivier kept the adaptation in the Elizabethan era and so the music is more along the line of that time. In the first scene, he even keeps the portrayals on an Elizabethan stage and so the music is synchronous music, or diegetic music, because there is an actual group of musicians playing the music (OxfordGreats 2:46). When Branagh set out to create his epic adaptation, he uses Patrick Doyle’s music to reflect the grand scale of the film, the patriotism that King Harry symbolizes, and the bloody battles that are fought. He places the film in its historical time, including no synchronous music in his adaptation, only asynchronous music, or the orchestral score, that one would think an epic would have rather than Elizabethan-type music.

There is one specific scene that the music is used to further each of the films’ respective goals: the battle of Harfleur. During the battle of Harlfeur in Branagh’s film, the music swells and crescendos into a powerful score. (Branagh 43:33-45:20) The battle is very subdued in the Olivier film, calling for calmer music and more mellow rather than a large, brassy feel. “Once more onto the breech, dear friends, once more,/Or Close the wall with our English dead.” (Norton 3.1.1-2) This speech in Olivier’s film is said outside of the battle and there is very little music to hear. It is completely vacant of all music to compliment Olivier’s speech (OxfordGreats 44:17). What little music is played is more mellow than grand. However, Doyle’s music gives more of a sense of power and prestige than that of Olivier. It is quicker and louder because Branagh keeps the men right outside of the gates, making the music louder and more menacing and more urgent than that of Olivier’s film.

A major way that Olivier’s music for his film is different from that of Branagh’s film is the absence of a main theme. Patrick Doyle’s music uses the line from the end of the battle where King Harry shouts out “Let there be sung Non Nobis and Te Deum.” (Norton 4.8.117) From this line, Doyle composes his theme, “Non Nobis Domine” which all other musical themes of the film derive from. (Branagh 1:55:01) It plays during the battle of Agincourt and parts play in the siege of Harfleur. It follows the action wherever it goes, which is one aspect needed for an epic, one that Olivier does not have; a theme that connects the entire film together, musically (i.e. the music from Gladiator, Braveheart, The Lord of the Rings). Olivier uses fairly generic music that only is used to manipulate the emotions of the audience at the time, rather than as a two hour operatic score like Doyle’s. Other themes that Doyle composes can be heard in the scenes with Catherine, such as the first scene that we see her (Branagh 51:40). These add more depth to the score, for both emotion and for a grander scale, again something that Olivier’s film is without.

The other main aspect of an epic is grand set pieces and large locations landscapes. Tim Harvey designed some amazing sets, one in particular is the set of King Harry’s hall from the first few scenes (Branagh 5:36). Olivier blocked these scenes in the Globe, so the set could not take shape in a grand hall as Branagh did (OxfordGreats 4:15). The set for the great hall in Branagh’s Henry V is actually quite small, but using minimalistic lighting, he makes it huge. The chiaroscuro lighting mixes the shadows and the bright sun coming in through the windows and doors and tiny candles scattered across the hall and the use of cinematography and camera placement expand the set twice in size.

And where it is most obvious that Olivier’s sets for Harfleur and Agincourt are exactly that, a set, Branagh’s sets are filmed on location, using a forest during the events around the battle of Agincourt. For instance, Branagh has Derek Jacobi, who played Chorus, delivering his lines on the beach in Southampton, creating a majestic shot of the sea and the cliffs of southern England (Branagh 22:32-23:44). Because Olivier all but discarded the plot element with the three traitors, he instantly had King Harry get on the ships and used a model to represent the fleet (OxfordGreats 37:28). Branagh’s is more elegant and more realistic than Olivier’s film through the use of live landscapes.

Not by the fact that the fight scenes and action are more dominant, but through the music of Patrick Doyle and the sets of Tim Harvey, Kenneth Branagh’s version of Henry V is more of an epic than that of Laurence Olivier’s adaptation. Branagh uses non-digenetic sounds and score to better effect and appeal than Olivier. His set pieces and the lighting of those sets and his location sets are better designed and more realistic and grander than that of Olivier’s film. Branagh’s is more gritty and is most definitely more of an action film, but in terms of an epic in the likes of Gladiator, this film is more along those lines to in part to the work of these two men.

Work Cited

Kenneth Branagh, dir. Henry V. Perf. Kenneth Branagh, Robbie Coltrane, Judi Dench, Ian Holm, Derek Jacobi and Emma Thompson. MGM Home Entertainment, 1989. Film.

OxfordGreats. “Henry V (1944) – Laurence Olivier.” Youtube.com. Youtube. 31 Dec. 2011. Web. 29 Jan. 2012.

Shakespeare, William. “Henry V.” The Norton Shakespeare. Eds. Greenblatt, Stephen, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katharine Eisaman Maus. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008.   1481-1548. Print.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Funny

Tim Roth and Gary Oldman are an amazing comedic duo. The writing for the play and the film feels like it was written for these two actors. Tom Stoppard, the writer of Shakespeare in Love, directed and wrote this film based on the play that he wrote, perfectly mixed Shakespeare's lines with his own. Their timing is perfect, the situations that they are placed in (the scenes from Hamlet that their scenes are mixed with) seems almost too perfect.

Other than how perfect everything is, there is not much to say. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is about the two smaller roles in Hamlet and their story surrounding the events before and during the play. The only other character that appears dominantly is The Player, the actor that performs a play for Elsinore Castle for Hamlet to provoke a reaction from Claudius. Richard Dreyfuss plays The Player. A wonderful performance as well, Dreyfuss chews the scenery like it is an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Some of the things Gary Oldman does is funnier than most comedies made today. A description of these certain scenes and things that he does doesn’t seem quite so funny, but as it plays out, it is. One scene, Tim Roth is trying to listen in on Hamlet and Ophelia while behind him, Oldman is making paper airplanes and tossing them. The airplanes then fly right behind Hamlet and Ophelia while they are doing their dramatic scene. Another, Roth is trying to listen to Hamlet again while Oldman sees a line of pots tied to a laundry pole and tries to make them work as one of the gravity metal balls that one would see at a science exhibit. And together, both Roth and Oldman do a great scene of Questions as a tennis match.

I can’t say much more about the film other than this, but it is a really great movie. It is a little long, some scenes could have been cut down a little, but other than that, not many other problems. This film is meant for every type of person who likes comedies as will Shakespeare fans. It is plain enjoyments where anyone can enjoy it.

*****

2 Actors I Love About You

10 Things I Hate About You is Shakespeare appopriated into today. Heath Ledger, the Petruchio of the film, plays scary, witty, and romantic perfectly. And Julia Stiles, the infamous shrew Heath Ledger's Patrick Verona falls in love with, plays cutthroat, funny, and sexy perfectly. Together, these two are a great match and it is fun to watch these two go at it.

When we first see Katarina, we look at her and think, “Emo loner.” Not the kind of person that one would want to spend time with. A sociopath to the nth degree. A perfect substitution for a shrew from Elizabethan England. A woman who doesn’t want anything to do with any man and never wants to date is perfect perfect modern substitution. And Julia Stiles plays it perfectly: a cutthroat woman with all of hell’s fury behind her. Every scene before she becomes “tamed” is fun to watch; you enjoy watching her but you don’t want to spend time with her, except for maybe the party scene where she has too much to drink and jumps on a table and starts to dance seductively.

Then there is Heath Ledger. When we first meet him, he is scary. He is one of those people that you don’t want to be around him or even talk to him because you have no idea what he would do to you. Everything you say needs to be carefully thought out. And seeing the transformation that he has in the film from a stone wall to a heartless romantic is great. Not at all like how Petruchio was in the play. He didn’t have much of a transformation at all. It was all about Katherine changing her ways, not both of them changing.

This film is funny and these two lead actors are great, but how well does it stack up to the play text of Taming of the Shrew? Not very well. Because it is so modern, it is not possible for everything to translate. Those who call Shakespeare universal might mean that the themes are universal, but that can be said about anyone. The plots for his plays cannot transcend every generation, our generation for one, or at least, not all of his plays can be.

One other point is that it does work very well with the audience that it intends to reach. It is not meant for Shakespeare aficionados to enjoy, but for the average American teenage movie goer to have a laugh or go on a date with.

All in all, this works very well for what it is supposed to do: it has great acting and reaches his audience perfectly. The problem is that it takes way too many liberties with the playtext and even though the acting is great, there are a few problems with a few other elements of the filmmaking.
****