Abstract
In this paper, the writer discusses the acting, setting, costumes, and other elements of Kenneth Branagh's 1996 film of Shakespeare's "Hamlet." The writer argues that the film is a superior rendition of the play.

From the Paper
"The critical response to Kenneth Branagh's film 'Hamlet' was mixed with some critics suggesting that the film was flawed at best and others indicating that Branagh's staging of the classic Shakespearean drama was far superior to other versions of the play found on film. What separates Branagh's 'Hamlet' from other films based on the play is first that Branagh does not use directorial license to cut it down from its minutes. Secondly as Roger Ebert commented Branagh's production employs flashback elements ..."

Tags:Kenneth, Branagh, Hamlet, film, Shakespeare

Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that when looking at the effectiveness of a film-interpretation of any Shakespeare play one has to determine whether or not the staging, blocking, sets, props and scenery interfere with or enhance the dialogue. The writer maintains that overall, Kenneth Branagh's production of 'Much Ado About Nothing', succeeds in this - the setting and staging rarely step on the dialogue. The writer notes that unlike the opening of the play, Branagh's version begins with, essentially, a musical number. The success of this complete reinterpretation of the original is in true keeping with the spirit of fun and frivolity of the play itself. The writer discusses that while this departs significantly from anything Shakespeare wrote, Branagh's opening stands as a significant success and does nothing but enhance and, when compared side-by-side with other scenes, proves to be one of the most effective scenes in the film.

From the Paper
"Traditionally, the play opens with the messenger arriving to tell of the arrival of Don Pedro. In this, we are given the setting and, just as effectively, an understanding of the comedy to ensue. But, in Branagh's version, going from the printed words, fading out, and then the fade in to the pastoral scene in which all of the characters living in Messina are frolicking carefree on the Italian hillside seemingly celebrating nothing but life itself. We see, viscerally, that these are children, adults living a life of ease and free from worry. There is laughter, play, teasing, and an absolute sense of ease between the characters that either sets the tone for the entire movie or, in another context, would be the setup for great tragedy later on - which, of course, there is a lot of the former and a little of the latter throughout. This feeling is exactly what Shakespeare sought to convey in the play."

Tags:interpretation, scene, production, characters

Abstract
This paper examines in how the film version, director Kenneth Branagh takes viewers into a far different Messina than what is generally interpreted from the play's text. From the costumes to the background settings, from the addition of scenes to the emphasis on certain characters, Branagh reserves his right to interpret "Much Ado About Nothing" as he sees fit. This paper sorts through these differences and outlines and details the logic and reasoning behind Branagh's actions.

From the Paper
"Film direction and production of plays allows the viewer to see with their own eyes the relationships between characters, the focus of the themes, and the other aspects of plays such as costumes, the representations of the players, and so forth. In other words,the viewers are given the opportunity to let their imagination and curiosity come to fruition. When I read a play I try to visualize what I am reading and really explore my imagination to see the action as it is occurring in my mind. Often times however, my imagination is shattered somewhat when I see the film production. Such is the case with Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing". "

Tags:costume, messina, version, playtext, setting

Abstract
The essay uses psychoanalysis as a method of comparative discourse, in order to see more clearly the variances and motives between Shelley's and Branagh's texts. The author claims that while Branagh's adaptation affords perhaps the most accurate retelling of the plot of Shelley's text, the lens by which he interprets the tale bends the focus, elaborating upon certain underlying narratives while suppressing or overlooking others. The essay maintains that "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" demonstrates an attempt to revise and rewrite the story in order to place emphasis on more culturally masculine concerns and anxieties, and is far from being the definitive cinematic imagining of Shelley's work. Moreover, he feels that by looking closely at key deviations in Branagh's interpretation and presentation, one can observe a systematic re-envisioning which seeks to displace and usurp Shelley's argument against masculine ideals.

From the Paper
"Stephen Behrendt contends that Victor Frankenstein and his monster reflect Mary Shelley's anxiety over the public role of authorship in a male-dominated society. As objects of discourse, women were continually reminded of their "proper" and "natural" place in private familial and public extrafamilial interaction" (Behrendt 71). Victor's "unnatural" process of creation a man assuming the maternal role of biological life-giver mirrors Shelley's socially constructed sense that she behaved unnaturally in assuming the role of artistic creator. Victor's hysteria and the Creature's disfigurement embody Shelley's horror at her own articulation a horror unconsciously generated by the dictums of a patriarchal world. Victor demonstrates his hysteria when he confesses that "a kind of enthusiastic frenzy had blinded me to the horror of my employment; my mind was intently fixed on the consummation of my labor, and my eyes were shut to the horror of my proceedings" (Shelley 162). "

Tags:differences, hysteria, revisions, shakespeare, creature, female, maternal, creator, male, feminine, patriarchal, paternal

Abstract
The paper describes the adaptation of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" by Franco Zeferelli and Christopher DeVore that stars Mel Gibson as Hamlet. The paper then looks at reviews of this film as well as of Kenneth Branagh's more accurate and longer version of Hamlet. The paper notes the praises and criticisms of each work and opines that the Zefferelli/Gibson version is a solid performance and an interpretation that is not to be dismissed. The paper also relates that both films were received with equal aplomb and it's best to judge them on their separate merits, as neither is a good reflection of the other.

Outline:
The Adaptation
The Reviews- Gibson vs. Branagh
Conclusion

From the Paper
"The 1990's brought a new Mel Gibson to our screen- this one was dark, brooding, had a tendency towards lunacy, was suicidal, had a penchance for violence but lived in Denmark and spoke Shakespearean prose. Franco Zeferelli saw in Gibson's performance as a suicidal cop in Lethal Weapon, a mirror of the troubled prince of Shakespeare's timeless play. This casting was controversial and brought out vehement protesters and backers.
"The original version of Hamlet - the one that Shakespeare wrote for performance at the Globe theatre- is almost four hours in length. Given the day and age it was performed in, it is highly unlikely that it was ever performed in its entirety. (Cartmell, 2000) Hamlet is double the length of MacBeth and it is the opinion of several scholars Shakespeare simply enjoyed the story, and wrote it as he wished to be, fully aware that it would need to be adapted due to stage considerations, light availability etc. (James, 1990)"

Tags:Mel, Gibson, theater, performance, actors, soundtracks, lighting

Abstract
This paper discusses how Kenneth Branagh's interpretation of the character, Iago, from Shakespeare's "Othello" differs from Shakespeare's original intention. The paper contrasts Branagh's portrayal of Iago as one who is fierce, dead serious and even brooding, with Shakespeare's Iago as one who is less serious and more intent on enjoying the hunt of Othello. The paper also discusses the movie version's emphasis on providing a motive for Iago's vengeance, while Shakespeare actually provides very little explanation of Iago's motivation.

From the Paper
"Kenneth Branagh's interpretation of Iago lends a very different feel to the text than one might get simply by reading it. His portrayal of Iago is typically dead serious. There seems to be no smirk, no joy, in his undoing of Othello, rather he seems almost sulky, almost duty bound. Even if, in the action of the movie, he momentarily assumes a smile, in soliloquy that smile is immediately swept away to a sullen grimace. This frowning Iago is an unusual interpretation of Shakespeare's most notorious villain. From the text, one might assume that Iago enjoys the chase, enjoys the hunt of Othello, but the movie depicts it very much as a fierce competition. Part of this can be seen in the chessboard theme that runs throughout the movie Iago's attempt to undo Othello is not some freewheeling intellectual exercise, but a disciplined competition."

Tags:villain, downfall, shakespearian, jealous, promotion, chess, theme, venetian, society

Abstract
This paper compares Franco Zeffirrelli and Kenneth Branagh's new and different ways of adapting William Shakespeare's play, "Hamlet" into film. The paper shows how each film may depict the play differently, but both directors find and expose Hamlet's frailty, which represents nothing less than mankind's frailty. The paper discusses how both versions of the play illustrate how directors can influence films from a screenplay.

From the Paper
"Franco Zeffirrelli and Kenneth Branagh demonstrate the power of the director in their adaptations of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Zeffirrelli presents us with a hamlet that lives in a dark, grey world. He is sad and crestfallen; he is lost and, in many ways, does not want to be found. The setting highlights his dark mood and Zeffirrelli uses many props to develop his version of Hamlet. Branagh's Hamlet lives in a brighter world, although his inner world is filled with much torment. We also see how directors take privileges with what they omit and add to films. Zeffirrelli left much out while Branagh added questionable material. Both films are enjoyable regardless of their differences; however, Zeffirrelli gives us a Hamlet that seems closer to the man we envision when we think of Shakespeare's tormented price."

Tags:medieval, interpretation, setting

Abstract
This paper describes and summarizes the plot and characters in the film adaptation of William Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing". The paper also explains the play's theme that something so innocent can be quickly turned into woe by deceivers.

From the Paper
"The idyllic scene contrasts sharply with the next scene, where the MEN enter, galloping atop of fierce, snorting steeds that thunder down the hill side, the men sweaty, disheveled uniforms sport triumphant smiles or stern determined gazes, as the prince's army returns from a successful battle. Pure animal testorone, in the most positive sense, that gets the blood circulating and makes the women swoon, even in this day."

Tags:hills, messina, beatrice, bathing, scene, leaping, teasing, outdoor, baths, hero, claudio

From the Paper
" William Shakespeare's Henry V and Kenneth Branagh's movie version from 1989 are certainly similar works, because they derive from the same text, yet by looking at the basic play and the movie's mise en scene it is possible to see that Branagh has used the Bard's words to serve his own images in bringing out a contemporary message.

Branagh's film version is not the celebratory work that Laurence Olivier's 1944 British motion picture was: Olivier directed and starred in this movie as the English and the Allies were close to victory against the Germans. Branagh is true to his generation and their anti-war sentiments that were created during the Vietnam War of the 1960s. Therefore, the recent movie version shows the real price of war--the violence and bloodshed.

From the Paper
"The recent motion picture version of Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein hews closely to the plot of the novel while failing to capture its essential purpose. The full title of the movie is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but the possessive does not mean that this version can be considered mary Shelley's vision. Janet Maslin of the New York Times notes this when she writes that the film will not strike anyone as chiefly Mary Shelley's invention. Its principal architect is Kenneth Branagh. . . [who] takes on the godlike, idealistic young scientist's role while also directing this "Frankenstein" as an overheated romantic fable .

An examination of the book and the film shows where the attitudes ... "