This paper analyzes the problems of transforming Shakespeare to film, especially character portrayal, as demonstrated in Kenneth Branagh's 1993 film adaptation of William Shakespeare's "Much Ado about Nothing".
Abstract This paper explains that Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Willam Shakespeare's "Much Ado about Nothing" is an enchanting world filled with believable drama and mostly solid acting; moreover, Branagh was extremely successful in allowing contemporary audiences an aperture by which to understand Shakespeare by weaving the original text into the film in such a way that it becomes both intelligible and unobtrusive. The author points out that the sacrifices in Branagh's adaptation is the play's subtle theme of appearance versus reality; wherein, whether through his addition of new material for the screen or his partial omissions of Shakespeare's text, Branagh has eliminated all of the mystery and ambiguity that Shakespeare crafted into his characters. The paper analyzes the portrayal of the characters Benedick, Beatrice, Claudio and Branagh.
From the Paper "Branagh's Don Pedro, however, lacks this ambiguity. Another creative liberty with Shakespeare's text is the addition of Denzel Washington's ever-stylish and ever-fearless persona to Don Pedro. As the veteran American actor is cast for the role, he seems slightly out of place. His attitude is always cautious and carefree; the actor easily brings his effortless delivery and commanding persona to the role. This is not always a good thing, however: when Don Pedro offers his hand in marriage to Beatrice, Washington says his lines coolly and nonchalantly, and the delivery offers no possibility that Don Pedro might seek Beatrice for himself. Branagh also diffuses the mystery behind Pedro's wooing of Hero through his directorial choices. When Don Pedro and Claudio walk through the garden, they address each other as equals, wear the same clothing, and talk openly."
This paper detects the deviations Kenneth Branagh instills into Mary Shelley's seminal work in his 1994 film adaptation reflect his own attempts at "masculinizing" her seminal work.
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 labour, and my eyes were shut to the horror of my proceedings" (Shelley 162). "
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". "
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."
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
A look at the varied opinions regarding the film "Hamlet" directed by Franco Zeferelli and Christopher DeVore and "Hamlet" directed by Kenneth Branagh.
1,512 words (approx. 6 pages), 0 sources, 2009, $ 49.95
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)"
A discussion on the effect of the director on the outcome of a film via a comparison of Franco Zeffirrelli and Kenneth Branagh's different adaptations of William Shakespeare's play, "Hamlet."
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."
Abstract This paper argues a comparison of Branagh's and Shakespeare's texts, that the power of the film derives from Branagh's awareness of the necessity of translating the text to film as opposed to simply adapting it. It will be shown that Branagh's success in Henry V is a product of his situating the film in a Hollywood cinematic context as opposed to a West End or academic Shakespearean context, and this should not be seen as "selling out", but rather acknowledging Branagh's part in contextualizing the Shakespearean playtext in a new medium.
Abstract This paper discusses Kenneth Branagh's 1994 movie "Frankenstein" which is based on Mary Shelley's novel of the same name. The paper shows that Branagh's film is one of many movie adaptations of Shelley's Frankenstein and generally remains true to the book. The paper looks at the differences between the two, including the changes made to certain characters and the fact that the monster's narrative is not incorporated into the movie.
From the Paper "Although there are significant deviations in plot between the film and the novel, the mood, tone and setting of Kenneth Branagh's film version of Frankenstein are similar to Mary Shelley's novel. Both are melancholy stories about the dark side of human nature. The Creature is not pure evil, but rather is like an abandoned child who rebels against his parents and society. Both the film and the novel reveal problems with people ?playing God.? Victor Frankenstein is overly ambitious and obsessed, and he is also in denial. He refuses to take responsibility for the Creature that he gave birth to. As a result, the Creature wreaks havoc on the community and kills people, including his creator. Both versions of Frankenstein have themes of responsibility, playing God, and loneliness. Neither Kenneth Branagh nor Mary Shelley make value judgments on their characters, but instead show the consequences of their actions. The film and the novel are Gothic horror stories that are more about human nature than about the supernatural."
Abstract This paper explains that the modern, cinematic environment created by director Kenneth Branagh in his film "Henry V", juxtaposes the poetic language of Elizabethan theater with the visual language of film. The author points out that Branagh's plea for cinematic tolerance is especially apt because "Henry V" is a rather obscure film for an American or even European audience, less likely to be informed and interested in why England fought with France over a little patch of land, long ago. The paper describes the valid historicity of the film, the colors used, the techniques of warfare deployed, its Elizabethan language and modern cinematic techniques and looks at how they are all used used effectively to make this film a successful interpretation of Shakespeare's play.
From the Paper "The camera work in the princess scene is especially quick and fleeting, as it follows the princess throughout the castle. Although the camera occasionally becomes anchored to Henry's face during a soliloquy, overall, the camera is a kind of peripatetic actor throughout most of "Henry V". The camera follows the horses as they gallop over the field of battle, wildly. The common soldiers on the ground, as when they are storming the castle walls of the city are shown from the ground up. The camera whizzes by the viewer's eye as it pans through time and from France to England and back again..."
Tags: chorus, color, wartime, historicity, language
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.
This paper compares the film director Kenneth Branagh's and book author Mary Shelley's depictions of "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and "Frankenstein" respectively: Characters, relationships, plot, focus, images, pacing and style
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, 1995, $ 47.95
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 ... "
Abstract The three films to be discussed in this essay (Lang's "Metropolis", Fellini's "La Strada", and Branagh's "Henry V") have all succeeded in resonating with the popular audience while receiving considerable critical attention at the same time. In order to better appreciate the important qualities of each of the above works, this paper will analyze critical reviews of each. In the process, it will be seen that the power of all three films lies in their capacity to impress audiences with either their technical achievement, or their incorporation of eternal verities of the human condition.
Abstract This paper will examine the critical responses to three films, which derive from both immediate and reflective criticism. The films to be discussed are Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V", Federico Fellini's "La Strada" and Fritz Lang's "Metropolis". It will be argued that central to the criticism of the three directors and their films are the sense in which each is regarded as an "auteur". All three cinematic texts produce meaning through the tension between the director's personality and the material with which he is working. It is this pervasive domination by the director of the cinematic text through manipulation of the 'mise en scene' that defines these works as that of "auteurs".
Abstract Lawrence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh both produced film versions of Henry V, but they were both very different interpretations. This paper concentrates on Act I Scene I and discusses both directors' editing of the original play and how that affected the portrayal of "King Henry V".
From the Paper "A good king is a moral one who listens to his advisors, who fights only just wars and who has overcome youthful wildness to emerge as a man "full of grace and fair regard" (1.1.22). Or, a good king is a strong one who makes his own decisions, who fights any wars that benefit his country, and who has never had any youthful wildness to overcome. Shakespeare leaves the interpretation of his king in King Henry the Fifth to the audience, and Henry's character has subsequently been performed in multiple ways. Lawrence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh both portray Henry as a good king in their screen adaptations of the play, but Olivier tends towards the former version of Henry as the morally just king and Branagh is more inclined to the latter version of Henry as the strong but immoral king."
Tags:branagh, fustice, kenneth, lawrence, olivier, opening, scene
