| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "FILM VERSIONS HAMLET": |
|
|
Comparison of Three Versions of "Hamlet", 2002.
A comparison Shakespeare's "Hamlet", Michael Almereyda?s film adaptation of Shakespeare?s text, and Tom Stoppard?s work, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead."
1,675 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares the way three writers use adaptations of earlier texts to write their own versions of "Hamlet." The paper includes a comparison of Shakespeare's original "Hamlet", since he also based his version upon earlier Danish historical texts and stories written about Hamlet.
From the Paper
"Shakespeare?s Hamlet, Michael Almereyda?s film adaptation of Shakespeare?s text, and Tom Stoppard?s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, which uses both characters and scenes from Shakespeare?s play to create a new work, all offer radically different variations on the theme of Hamlet. While Almereyda edits Shakespeare?s Hamlet down and changes its context and the medium of presentation in order to give the 400 year-old work a new millennial resonance, Stoppard almost uses Shakespeare?s Hamlet as a sort of leitmotif in quilting a new mosaic work. Stoppard uses the familiar characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and the pieces of the play in which those characters appear, but the rest of his work is clearly informed by a twentieth century sensibility?his work is as influenced by Beckett?s Waiting for Godot as it is by Elizabethan drama. These two adaptations are created through a conscious decision to place the new text in dialogue with Shakespeare?s ?master? text, which is the culturally dominant form of Hamlet. These other versions seek, however, to explore the very possibilities left unexplored by the master text, or else to explore the gaps and spaces that the master text has left open for creative contemplation in its devotion to the single path of narrative that Shakespeare chose."
| |
|
Three Film Versions Of Hamlet, 1999.
Compares styles, plot emphases, characterizations, atmosphere, design, the setting of the 1948 Laurence Olivier, the 1990 Franco Zeffirelli and the 1996 Kenneth Branagh versions.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 7 sources, $ 95.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Film critics point out from time to time how much the director brings to a film and that if two directors were given the same script to shoot, the results would be very different. Filmmakers are almost never given the same script to shoot, but an exception can be found in plays based on Shakespeare where the same essential script is indeed used and where decisions regarding such elements as costume and set design along with visual style can produce works with very different attitudes based on the same initial material. This can be seen in three versions of Hamlet, the Laurence Olivier version from 1948, the Franco Zeffirelli version from 1990, and the Kenneth Branagh version from 1996. The films have very different "looks" as well as giving emphasis to different aspects of the plot, the characterizations, and other elements, and watching the three ..."
| |
|
"Hamlet" in Film, 2007.
An analysis of how the characters of Ophelia and Gertrude differ in different film versions of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet".
1,018 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how different productions of a play such as "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare will have differing interpretations of characters. The paper focuses on the central female characters in "Hamlet," of Ophelia and Gertrude. It then looks at how they are portrayed differently in two film versions of the play - the 1949 version directed by and starring Laurence Olivier and the 1990 version directed by Franco Zeffirelli and starring Mel Gibson.
From the Paper
"The role of Ophelia differs in the two versions as well. In keeping with the play, the Olivier version shows the deterioration of Ophelia as she descends into madness with the death of her father and other events in the play. The Zeffirelli version treats her in a manner similar to Claudius and Gertrude in that she starts at a high level and stays there. In the Zeffirelli version, Ophelia is distracted from the time we first see her so that her madness seems already entrenched and only needs a push to become full-blown. Her madness does not develop in the time of the play but is part of her make-up from the beginning, so just as we immediately see Claudius and Gertrude as guilty, we see immediately see Ophelia as insane."
| |
|
"Hamlet" on Film, 2007.
A review of the 1990 Franco Zeffirelli film of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet."
1,081 words (approx. 4.3 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the depiction of Hamlet in Franco Zeffirelli's cinematic version of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet." It describes how our view of various relationships in the play are altered due to Zeffirelli's use of imagery throughout the film. The paper concludes that Zeffirelli produced a positive introduction to the play of "Hamlet," however that the viewer is left with memories of the images used, rather than the words of Shakespeare's play.
From the Paper
"Gibson's Hamlet is thus an active, sexualized man in a pared-down version of the tragedy, as envisioned by the director Zeffirelli. Zeffirelli cuts any speech that can be reduced to images, making even the editing of the film seem as unreflective as its central character. Also, gentle and potentially contrasting aspects of the characters that remain are cut as well. In the play, a shaken Ophelia goes to Polonius to verbally reports Ophelia's encounter with Hamlet after Hamlet has first seen the ghost. By dramatizing the scene, this places the focus on Hamlet's emotions, rather than Ophelia's inability to articulate herself, and Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia rather than the girl's frightened difficult relationship with her own father. Overall, what little chance she is given to speak, Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia seems strong and beautiful, a fit adversary for Hamlet in the "nunnery" scene, which also makes his abuse of her seem less frightening and unjustified than it seems on paper."
| |
|
Zeffirelli's "Hamlet", 2005.
Emphasizes the main points of Franco Zeffirelli's film version of "Hamlet".
1,750 words (approx. 7.0 pages), 0 sources, $ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper picks out the key differences between Zeffirelli's film translation of "Hamlet" and the original play written by William Shakespeare. The paper contains many quotes that persuade the reader that Zeffirelli's version is better.
From the Paper
"A persistent element in Zeffirelli's version of Hamlet is the image of the unseen onlooker who takes in the action without being noticed. Hamlet is this spy when Polonius admonishes Ophelia not to "give words or talk with the Lord Hamlet." (1.3.141). Polonius is the secret watcher as Hamlet first appears to be mad before Ophelia. Once again Hamlet looks on secretly as Polonius conspires with Claudius and Gertrude to use Ophelia against him. And again Polonius and Claudius watch as Hamlet denies his love for Ophelia. This variable spectator serves not only to further the action (i.e. it plants the seeds in Hamlet's mind that Ophelia is treacherous , or in Polonius' mind that Hamlet is mad because of Ophelia), but also to give the audience a silent spectator to identify with."
| |
|
Michael Almereyda's "Hamlet", 2006.
An analysis of Michael Almereyda's 2000 film version of "Hamlet" and the the capacity of film to enrich the work of William Shakespeare.
710 words (approx. 2.8 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 25.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that, rather than distracting from Shakespeare's prose, the media of film heightens the emotive capacity of his plays. In furtherance of this argument, the 2000 production of "Hamlet" set in New York City is discussed, as it successfully employs various cinematic elements that both inform and deepen the characters and plot. It shows how analysis of the film's setting, cinematography, sound, motif, color, editing reveal film as a flexible medium adept at making Shakespeare accessible to a wide audience while preserving the authenticity of his work
From the Paper
"Additionally, Almereyda's approach creates a contrast between the modernity on screen and the difficult Shakespearean language. During the opening soliloquy, Hawke's image is cuts to a video montage of a plane, explosions, and a monster. These two incongruous elements, the contemporary visual images and antique words, presented together achieve something that is distinctly Shakespearean. Edward Hubler, in his critical review "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark," writes, "A hallmark of Shakespeare's mature work is its simultaneity, the presentation of a thing and their opposites at the same time" (719). The idea that opposites do not detract from each other but rather unite each other through contrast into a state of near-wholeness is evident in Almereyda's film. Simultaneity is carried from the words onto the film itself through images, laboriously highlighting the timelessness of a human tragedy by presenting it in such an atypical style."
| |
|
'Hamlet', 2006.
A look at the female characters in Lawrence Olivier's 1948 production and Kenneth Branagh's 1996 film version of 'Hamlet'.
1,044 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews and discusses the contrast of the female characters in "Hamlet", as portrayed in two 20th century film productions: Lawrence Olivier's 1948 production and Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version.
From the Paper
"Shortly after this sequence, Hamlet bursts into his first soliloquy, and through this "textual transposition," placing the Ophelia scene immediately after the first soliloquy...a direct link is created between Hamlet's sense of sexual betrayal in Gertrude's "dexterous posting" between "incestuous sheets" with his uncle Claudius and Ophelia's refusal of him as a chaste or sexual lover. (Dawson 178; "Hamlet" I.2) The former seems likely, given that the actress who plays Ophelia seems so innocent, blond and docile to her father and brother's wishes, in contrast to the young, sensual brunette Gertrude. Oliver's Gertrude hardly seems old enough to have a mature son, although she also seems anything but innocent in the caressing way she behaves towards Oliver, even at the outset of the film."
| |
|
Olivier's "Hamlet", 1998.
Reviews the 1948 film version of HAMLET directed by & starring Sir Laurence Olivier. Focuses on Olivier's allegiance to the text in creating his version.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 1 source, $ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"One of the best film versions of William Shakespeare's Hamlet is that directed by and starring Laurence Olivier and made in 1948. The Olivier film is dark, brooding, and truly theatrical, with sets that are suggestive rather than realistic, expressionistic rather than precise. The darkness of the image is matched by a darkness of spirit and a sense of foreboding that hangs over the film from the first frame. Such a dark and expressionistic setting fits quite well with the internal brooding of Hamlet. The character of Hamlet is considered difficult because he is seen as passive rather than active for most of the play. Early in the play he is given the task of avenging his father by his father's ghost, and yet for most of the play he seems to do nothing about it. He is highly reflective but inactive until the very end of the play when he does.."
| |
|
Solaris: Comparison of the Novel and the Two Film Versions, 2002.
This paper considers "Solaris" as a 1961 novel by Stanislaw Lem and as a film, with the three versions compared and contrasted.
3,698 words (approx. 14.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 102.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses "Solaris" as a science fiction story describing a first contact experience with another life form. While this is the action of the novel, its overall purpose is to show that science is not capable of explaining the world as humans expect it to. The paper then looks at the two film versions, the 1972 version directed by Andrew Tarkovsky, and later the 2002 version by director and screenwriter Steven Soderbergh.
From the Paper
"Since Solaris began as a novel, it should first be considered as a novel. This establishes what Solaris was meant to achieve and the characteristics of it. While better known as a film, the film versions must be viewed as an adaptation based on the novel, and not as a unique version. Consideration of the novel and the two film versions will begin with a consideration of Solaris based on the novel. This will begin with a brief overview of the novel, including its main themes and its plot. The genre of the work will then be discussed, noting why the work is placed in the science fiction genre and what aspects of it suggest it could also fit into other genres. The science fiction element will then be considered including how science fiction is incorporated into the work and what effect this has. One of the major themes in the book will then be discussed, which is the journey theme. These considerations will provide a background by which the novel and the two film versions can be compared."
| |
|
Hamlet, 2001.
Critical analysis of how Kenneth Branagh's 1996 filmed version of the Shakespearean tragedy fails. Visual strategy as not serving the drama.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Kenneth Branagh's film of Shakespeare's Hamlet is remarkable for the use of the entire, uncut text of the play and for its elaborate design. Despite the director's commitment to the full text, however, he shows an even more remarkable lack of faith in the power of the language and acting and, in fact, visually supplements the text at certain points in ways that underline his uneasiness with leaving anything unshown. The visual strategy devised for this film is revealed in many places to be based on reasonable considerations of how the look of the piece can enhance its meanings. But even when the best intentions govern the choices the film fails in almost every respect because the production design, costumes, and art direction seem to be there for their own sake rather than to serve the drama."
| |
|
Film Versions of "Little Women", 2004.
Critiques two different film versions of Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women".
1,837 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the 1994 film version of "Little Women" and compares it to the 1933 film version. The paper tries to determine how just a representation of the book each film is and in what way each version is characteristic of the period in which it was made.
From the Paper
"'Little women' was written by Louisa May Alcott in 1868 and since then it has been one of the most talked and written about books. With readers obsessing over the novel for more than a century, the book has been adapted to cinema four times with the most last version coming out in 1994. The book and its cinematic versions revolve around four young sisters who grow up during chaotic times of Civil War. The most well known cinematic adaptation of the novel came out in 1933 with Katherine Hepburn in the lead as JO March. This version was universally accepted for being most faithful to the book. Subsequent versions of Little Women were not as powerful as this one yet they have their fair share of merits. In this paper, we shall discuss the 1994 version and compare it to the 1933 version of 'Little women'."
| |
|
"Hamlet" in the Movies, 2006.
Examines how the character, Hamlet, has been portrayed in films, based on William Shakespeare's famous play.
3,229 words (approx. 12.9 pages), 13 sources, APA, $ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at Shakespeare's famous play "Hamlet" from different
perspectives, as it has been re-enacted throughout history. It pays close attention to the movie versions of "Hamlet". The paper starts out with a brief biography of Shakespeare himself and also summarizes and provides an overview of "Hamlet" as a play, its plot, major characters and main theme. The paper then goes on to look at three actors who have played the character Hamlet in movies over the last few decades: Kenneth Branagh, Mel Gibson and Ethan Hawke. The paper provides a brief biography, examines each actor's performance, and looks at other details about each film. The paper then looks at the author's personal reaction to each of the movies and actors.
Paper Outline:
Introduction
Shakespeare Biography
Overview of Hamlet
Kenneth Branagh
Mel Gibson
Ethan Hawke
Reaction to Performances
Conclusion
Works Cited
From the Paper
"But "Hamlet" is not an action movie; it is a tragedy. In comparing the
1990 movie to Shakespeare's original play, we see that the director has taken some liberties to speed up the action by eliminating certain scenes, some of which seem easily disposed of. These edited out scenes include much of Shakespeare's comic relief. Other scenes seem to be missing from the movie version, mainly the important political
subplots that explain the movements of many of the characters in the play".
| |
|
Lawrence Olivier's ?Hamlet?, 2004.
This paper discusses Lawrence Olivier?s film, ?Hamlet? (1948), one of the greatest movies, in which he not only acted, but also directed.
1,165 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses that, from ?Hamlet? ,you can understand the general techniques Olivier would employ in his other Shakespearean films. The author points out that Olivier transformed Hamlet from a dark and moody stage performance to a dark and moody film performance; thus, he has, in every aspect, maintained not only the theme and plot of the play, but even its scene settings. The paper concludes that Olivier is a great, versatile director, like Kurosawa, who not only made movies for the sake of attaining success, but also for giving integral messages to movie viewers through the art of film making.
From the Paper
"It is obvious from Hamlet, that Olivier would make his other movies, based on Shakespearean novels, of manageable length while updating some of the obscure phrases presented in all Shakespeare?s stories. Olivier also would rearrange some of the scenes to fit his own style. In Hamlet, he cinematically represented all scenes, which could have been performed on theatrical stages such as the killing of Hamlet?s father, Hamlet?s act of insanity with Ophelia, Hamlet?s seizure by the pirates and the death of Ophelia. In other words, Olivier would try his best to enhance the audience imagination."
| |
|
Revenge in "Hamlet", 2004.
An analysis of the theme of revenge in William Shakespeare's "Hamlet", contemplating the various aphorisms Shakespeare considers regarding human nature.
1,038 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 0 sources, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how William Shakespeare?s version of "Hamlet" is one of the most well known revenge tragedies ever written and how it is still widely admired today. It considers how Shakespeare represents the pyschomacia an avenger must undertake when contemplating murder. It also examines how he manages to represent the god fearing opinion of the Elizabethan audience with Hamlet?s vacillation and his fright of God?s condemnation as well as the modern audience of today with Claudius?s eventual murder.
From the Paper
"The main exploration of Hamlet?s revenge is in the soliloquies in the play. Here the audience gets to see past Hamlet?s ?antic disposition? and into the bewildered mind of a confused avenger. Hamlet?s cerebration causes him to turn his raging emotional turmoil into unequivocal action ?Yet I like a John a dreams?. Hamlet asks an actor to deliver a Pyrrhus speech to summon up his courage but all he can do is ?like a whore unpack my heart with words.? Hamlet?s vacillation between the classical and Christian attitudes to revenge display how complex the action is. He wishes to live vicariously through a hero like Pyrrhus but fears God?s condemnation if he commits the act. The Elizabethan audience would frown upon the act of revenge and the modern audience would have a more mixed reaction."
| |
|
"Hamlet": Act III Scene II, 2002.
This paper is an analysis of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet,", and goes into detail about Hamlet's elaborate plan to expose the king as the murderer of his father.
1,185 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 0 sources, $ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is an analysis of the play "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare. Special attention is paid to the scene where the real murderer of the king is divulged. The author explains how this is a pivotal scene as it solves the mystery that has been building up until that point.
From the paper:
"Act III, Scene II is important for a number of reasons. Essentially, it is the start of the second half of the play. It could be argued that the first half of the play is when Hamlet sets up his strategy to avenge his father?s death. Naturally, the second half would then be Hamlet taking the vengeance he so baldy wants. Unfortunately for nearly all parties involved, it does not happen how he planned. In Act III Scene II, Claudius? guilt as well as his moral values had been exposed for all to see. Hamlet?s underhanded slyness was also revealed by his non-confrontational means of proving the king?s role in the murder of his father. Lastly, the reader also discovers the queen?s apparent innocence."
|
|
|
