I haven't seen this film, but I was wondering which you thought was better: the version with Mel Gibson or this version, with Kenneth Branagh. I would appreciate your opinions.
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - Theodore Roosevelt
as I said in the ultimate hamlet cast topic, kenneth branaghs act as hamlet was far good than mel gibsons. you should see the movie.. in fact mel gibson shouldnt have played a role as difficult as hamlet cos I think he couldnt handle such a role.
shareI'd have to say Kenneth Branagh's performance is superior. I've seen both films, and I quite like the version with Mel Gibson, but it simply cuts too much out. If they were both complete, I think they'd be close to the same quality. Also, the setting for Branagh's adaption works extremely well.
share[deleted]
Branagh's was easily the superior film.
Gibson gave a sub-par yet acceptable performance in the lead but the main draw back to The 1990 Hamlet was Franco Zefferelli. He's done several Shakespearean adaptions but I stronley doubt that he understood the text well enough to make this film. He, like several other film makers slashed out a lot of the story and he did cut too much out on this one. Most notibly cutting out the act 4 scene 4 sililoqie which really acts as the second turning point in the play. Not to mension his blatent support of the Freudian interpritaion of the Oedipal Complex.
Branagh's film is complete, it is better in every perspective, acting, directing, cinematography, set design. You name it, Branagh's film has it.
Cool, thanks for all your replies guys! I'll hafta rent this movie!!
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - Theodore Roosevelt
Yes, only rent the full uncut version!! Make sure its the uncut. I watched the cut down version and it seemed dire and rushed. So many great parts were missing. Make sure you watch the full version if you can get hold of it.
And by the way, Branagh is far superior to Mel.
I watched the Branagh version in my Shakespeare class and we couldn't help laughing during Hamlet's "How all occasions do inform against me
And spur my dull revenge!" soliloquy. It was a bit much, to say the least, especially as Branagh was basically just reciting it.
I haven't seen the Mel Gibson version, but I think I would prefer it.
Yeah, that part was terrible. And I disliked the meeting with Hamlet's father. Yet the rest was sublime in my opinion, the two scenes just mentioned were the only parts I did not like.
shareYou can't be serious? That sililoquy is probably the most powerful one in the show. That is, if you actually listen to what he's talking about. He wasn't so much reciting it as he was thinking out loud, and rambling on. It wasn't meant to sound like a conversation between multiple people. When I listened to that speech, I was filled with so much energy because Kenneth Branagh is incredible. Had it been anyone else, I don't think they could have done the speech as much justice as Branagh did.
Watch the Mel Gibson version, but don't expect it to live up to K. Branagh's because Branagh has been playing Shakespearean roles for years, so this is nothing new to him. The Mel Gibson version also cuts out waaaaaay too much of the film.
"Don't take life so seriously, nobody makes it out alive anyways!"
I am serious. I love the film but his change of mind in that scene is shouted, and it does not suite the text in my opinion. I read the script of Hamlet before I saw a production, and Branagh's interpretation added so much fervour and character to Shakespeare's writing. But that scene did not seem like a good interpretation.
That's my opinion.
But please PLEASE PLEASE release the DVD of the full edition!!! PLEASE I'm waiting!
I actually just saw the Mel Gibson version days ago (after performing it with my college drama club recently) and I have to say that in terms of their acting, they're fairly equal. However, the Branagh version was oodles better then the Zefferelli version, jsut because it was (in terms of screenplay) poorly cut and oddly arranged. The Branagh version has class, but the Gibson version is frantic and poorly filmed.
shareEach version has it's own merits and weaknesses. I thought Glenn Close WAS Gertrude and really haven't been able to accept anybody else in the part since. I also really like Mel Gibson's performance. He doesn't ham it up as much as theatre trained actors, from Olivier to Branagh, have a tendancy to do. Gibson's is the first Hamlet to be raw, intimate and believable, and despite the quite brutal editing of the text, it is a far more enjoyable movie experience than the Branagh version. The Branagh version does, however, have a FAR superior Hamlet/Ophelia relationship, with much greater depth and subtlety than the Zeffirelli. Definately watch both, it's fascinating to see how wildly different the same scenes can be played.
share[deleted]
In my opinion,(for what it is worth) Branagh's version was far superior to any other version ever made. For one thing it totally focused on the main reason for Hamlet's depression, his father's request to avenge his death and Hamlet's inability to act on it. When viewing a cut version of Hamlet, one is always left with the subtext of the 'oedipal complex' which really does not exist. Hamlet is not sure whether his mother had a part in his father's death. Hamlet's relationship with his love, Ophelia, suffers as well, because he is obsessing on his own dilemma. It is not until he sees Fortinbras' pitiful army of twenty thousand men about to invade Poland and probably lose that he decides to act. "O, from this time forth, My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth." (Act 4, scene 4... usually cut).
Gibson did a good job, but not as exciting as Branagh's. Gibson didn't have the depth and experience at the time. Also, though Branagh left the text intact, the film did not seem as long as it could have in other hands.
the sleeper must awaken
"When viewing a cut version of Hamlet, one is always left with the subtext of the 'oedipal complex' which really does not exist."
I agree with you there. I think the Freudian analysis of Hamlet is complete tosh. There is nowhere in the text that implies it.
Laurence Olivier may have had a point when he wrote that nobody loves and idolizes his father so much unless they feel guilty in some way about their feelings for their mother.
That said, I think that Branagh's film of "Hamlet" is still the best.
> Gibson's is the first Hamlet to be raw, intimate and believable
This. A lot of scenes the best I have seen acted. And some very good cinematography, but if only they'd filmed the full text. Even if the theatrical release was as it is, too bad there's no extended version available.
So, hard to pick between the two.
Now, Branagh has been brilliant in Shakespeare. His Henry V is one of the best things on film ever. Here he (and most others) did well, but simply not exceptionally to me.
Mel Gibson has no business in a Shakespearian play. There are too many words. Don't get me wrong, I like Mel's work in the Mad Max series, and the first 2 Lethal Weapons were good for some laughs, when I was in High School, but asking which of these two actors is better in this role, is like asking if using a sledgehammer could perform brain surgery better than a scalpel could. When considering which version to invest time in, avoid the Mel Gibson version ENTIRELY, as it is a waste of time. Gibson specializes in physical brutality, not poetry.
shareI disagree that Gibson has no business in a Shakespeare play. He was classically trained you know. I just didn't like him in Hamlet. Most actors think you have to play Hamlet as dour and moody, and I thought Gibson was just another one. Plus Hamlet is a lot to take on for a first-time Shakespeare role.
He was the right age, but didn't have the experience. I know I am going to get flamed for this but I liked Branagh's performance better than Olivier's. Gibson was better than Maximillian Schell. lol...
the sleeper must awaken
Not to be rude I hate Shakespearian snobs who insult Mel Gibson for the simple fact he is Mel Gibson. All he had before Hamlet was a series of action movies, true, but some good ones sprinkled without (Lethal Weapon, Lethal Weapon 2, Road Warrior, Mad Max, and the classic Gollipoli) and as such he was HEAVILY DOUBTED BY EVERYONE (even here) as Hamlet.
But his performance was very unique and I think had its own energy that escaped Branaugh. Is Branaugh's inferior? No, they are such different interpretations. But Branaugh's despite its complexities (I will not say subtlities) did not surprise me. Besides sleeping with Ophelia, it was a very straight forward take on the character from a Shakesperian thespian. Gibson offered a more manic approach. Someone who could truly be believably mad and his mood swings and rage were far more convincing and interesting as such. However, his take was more primal and about his passions being fueled by his indecision instead of the other way around (hence the Oedipal complex which I fnd just as valid as Hamlet and Ophelia "getting it on" considering though more hinted it was also given evidence to "disprove" the claim in the passages of the book, but Branaugh still placed it) and therefore are two very different takes on the character. I don't think either are right or wrong but I think both nailed the direction they are going for.
Now if you do not like Gibson's take on the character that is one thing, but I think it was a personal triumph for the actor and many undercut him because they do not want to admit that "the action star" can do Hamlet. I just don't that is true. Not in this case anyway.
I wrote a comparison of the two films which I'll copy and paste here. It is a "semi-thesis" of sorts. I'll jsut bring it here, okay?
Here is my mini-thesis on comparing the two films:
This is really a very interesting question.
I think neither are perfect versions. In fact I don't even think one can make a perfect a version of "Ol Bill's" best play.
But both have aspects that far surpass the other's attempt and vice versa.
We'll go to the most explosive topic: Who played the better Hamlet? Well I will say both were great. I know Branaugh did speak lower (and is a Shakespearian stage actor) and some people call him therefoere "more subtle" but Kenneth Branaugh is many things, and subtle is not one of them. Branaugh went for the more traditionalist approach. I don't want to say his was more complex because they were both very complex for different ways. But Branaugh tended to focus more on Hamlet's indecision as to why he acted the way he did. His inner crisis and fighting abiding conscience drove him who was playing mad possibly truely mad, but I don't think so, his didn't seem truly mad but rather having a breakdown on the events but it is his sanity that holds him from doing what he knows he must do. While Gibson's is equally indecisive he goes for a more "manic" interpretation. His Hamlet is trapped in states of singular moods. He indeed starts by playing the madman to lower his enemies guards (or rather realistically to delay his deed while he wrestles with his problems) but his problems and his "acting" as it were somewhere down the line becomes real. You're not sure if he really is insane and then he reaches the point where he in fact probably is. His madness is created by his mind clearly and his primal urges instead of his indecisivness, which just fuels his madness. He is confused and angry, every emotion he has is larger than life. Mind you I have only seen 5 performacnes of Hamlet (on stage and on screen) but Gibson's is the most unique, however I would not say best. It is no better or worse than Branaugh's, both are fair interpretations of this very confusing character.
Now I will be a little broader on the rest of the films. I personally prefer the look of Gibson's film. Branaugh wnet for the larger than life grand colorful epic (which he always does, even in Frankenstein for crying out loud) but Zerffelli's(sp?) film is much smarter in cinematography. Hamlet is not one of the comedies Branaugh so adores, not even Romeo & Juliette. Hamlet is bleak, dark, depressing, and moody. I prefer the medieval setting as opposed to the aristocratic Europe a mre hudreds of years ago instead of thousands. It fits the primal sense of revenge and justice in Hamlet better. The bleakness is Hamlet's soul and it works well for the play. The composition says as much of Hamlet's characer as some of the lines. Branaugh's epic colorful look is eye candy to behold and is indeed impressive, but as stated would be better served on an adaptation of Romeo & Julliete than that of Hamlet and his tragic, bleak, and dark tale from beginning to end.
As for direction, I understand Zerffelli(sp?) wanted a very simplistic and unnoticed direction. He would increase the claustrophobia this way and the bleakness. It made everything more personal. But it also was very plain and while his set and cinematography was ingenius, his direction was flat and slow. And save for a fe scenes here and there his methodical direction was quite disappointing as he was seemingly holding back instead of embracing this as a film and not a play and using more than quick cuts and the occasional spinning camera to remind us that we are watching a movie and not a taping of the most elaborate staging ever. Branaugh on the toher hand realized better how to incorporate the filmmaking into his film. He gave such kenetic energy into his directing and editing. Even if I say prefer Hamlet's self-reflection in the tomb of his ancestors and recently deceased father than in an actual mirror refelction (as Branaugh chose), he has such life and movement about him. What seemed like a sad fairy tale ending to Ophelia's life in the Gibson film, was the most utmore tragic finale of her suicide in Branaugh's (though I prefer the much more subtle funeral in Gibson's film for the poor departed Opheila). The trying to kill Claudius in a confessional is brilliant. Seeing the troops storm the castle is great. Albeit a bit moot and superficial in the story (hence its deletion in the Gibson film) if you have us there for 4 hours go all the way I say. The finale seems because of the personal direction small and tragic but not quite epic enough as the finale to Hamlet's and Claudis's deaths in Branaugh's film (though after Hamlet died it should have ended and not kept going with him as a martyr).
Oh and that brings me to another point, the length. I enjoy seeing Hamlet in its full length and seeing all the scenes instead of half of it delted/cut/or merged. However, I really have never understood the need for a 4 hour film. 3 hours? Sure. A 4 hour play? Hey there is an intermission. But a 4 hour film is self-indulgent and even the most fascinating story loses its luster in that amount of time on the much more intimate silver screen. I may appreciate more of what Branaugh did but for the simple length I will always prefer watching Gibson's. Hence why the 1990 adaptation is on DVD now and the 1996 adapatation (as far as I know) is not.
As for the rest of the cast. I love Julie Christie, one of the best actresses of her generation and of all time, but Glen Close blows her away as Gertrude. While some do not like the incestous angle and Odepius-complex being induced into the Hamlet saga through theory. That is how Gibson and company went, hence some's disliking of it. I am neutral and think it is a refreshing and honest interesting take with some substance there, maybe not as in your face as the Gibson film was about it, but it definetly made for a far more rousing and interesting film on their angle. Close's Gertrude is yong vibrant, in the forefront and in your face. Her emotion is heart breaking. She really does deserve second billing. Christie (like all other Gertrudes I've seen in my mind) recedes in the background and for a major character is always in the background and really irrelevant until her death scene. I think Close's interepretation playing off of Gibson's much more passionate and primal Hamlet in raw mad emotion fares far more interesting than any other Gertrude I know of. On the other hand the actor who played Claudius in the Branaugh film (I forget his name) was far more multi-faceted and therefore more interesting. He was a pleasure to watch. Despite having several sides to him, Alan Bates's Claudius was a straight through and through villain. That is a good interpertation (especially for the shorter version) who does have a good side to him, and that is all right but the Branaugh Claudius is so much more interesting and thus making him far more hatable by the end. I know Winslet is very popular as Ophelia and does have a more dramatic death and a love scene. Another controversy I like seeing both sides of (funny the much more sexual Gibson film ignores this but the much more traditionalist Branaugh film embraces it) but Carter far and away was the better Ophelia. Her performance was far more memorable and her pure innocence to her sexual awakening and maddness in the wake of her father's death and her insanity is so heart breaking that Winslet cannot touch it. Winslet went the more straight forward route but for someone so tragic and so gone array Helena Bonham carter's unsual (though later popular) take is by far the best Ophelia. Hands down. The rest of cast goes one way or the other. I prefer Ian Holm (a favorite actor of mine) as Polonioius but I still appreciate the other. The rest of the cast I think are about equal because they play based on the very different views and interpretations of the director. However, I think that his "all-star cameo cast" that Branaugh so proudly trumped around backfired. You don't see the characters, you go "Oooh, that is Robin Williams, that is Billy Crystal, that is Charleston "You damn dirty apes" Heston, that is Judi Dench, that is Richard Attenborough, etch."
Woo that was long. At the end of the day I appreciate both. I say they are about the same in quality and very different interpretations both as legitmate. I know purists will say don't b other with Gibson's since 45%-50% is gone, but I think it matches Branaugh's film in many aspects, and when it comes to cinematography, set-design, some performances (Gertrude and Ophelia most notably) it surpasses Branaugh's film.
That is my opinion though.
first of all, I am not a Shakespeare 'snob'. I may be a Hamlet 'snob', having studied and restudied it and discussed and rediscussed it with many actors and professors who have my interest in it. Many agree with you that Branagh was self-indulgent in making his version a four hour epic and not cutting a word of text. The one thing we do agree on is that there is no Oedipal-complex in the text at any point. When the text mentions incest, it is of Claudius having killed his brother to take the woman he lusted after and the throne. Remember, Hamlet speaks of his mother having been defiled.
As for my criticism of Gibson, I said I knew that he was classically trained but that Hamlet was a task for his first Shakespearean role. Truly, if Hamlet were to be played accurately, you would need a man barely out of his teens, but who could possibly play it? My feelings have nothing to do with Gibson and his associations with action films. I think he is a fine actor.
As for the Branagh version, if I were a student in a class studying Hamlet for the first time and a professor asked us to watch the film. I would choose an uncut version before I would watch one that was chopped to pieces. That goes for any piece of literature into film, but Hamlet especially because it is difficult and obviously universally misinterpreted.
People seem to think Shakespeare is so hard to understand and a large percent of people don't even try. Yes, the language is difficult to get through. It was, however, the common language of the people of his day. In high school we would groan when having to read "The Merchant of Venice" or "Julius Caesar", but we weren't really ready to read them. We were thinking about our dates for the dance and really... those two plays? They taught us the text, but didn't teach us the nuance of the speech; the meter. I didn't like Shakespeare until my senior year when a terrific English teacher gave us "the scottish play" and let us work on it for months. I was hooked forever.
the sleeper must awaken
I did not mean to openly insult you. But I have heared so many times Mel Gibson was a bad Hamlet. I ask why, and they say because he is "a movie star."
At least you seem to have your reasons which I can respect. I have seen many Hamlets and Branaugh's is more straight forward and traditional in performance. What Mel Gibson went for was a very different take. A take that surprised me, and I actaully thoroughly enjoyed seeing sides of the character I hadn't seen enlightened so much before. Just not the incest, but the manic and incontrollable passions and emotions he had. It was fascinating. It definetly strugged in doing those siloquies, no doubt, but I think he did a very good job. He had trouble but he pulled it off. If you watch behind the scenes on the DVD he discussed it as the hardest performance of his life there.
For films, I suppose I prefer Branaugh's. His is self-indulgent, and by the fourth hour I do lose interest, but it is all in tact so if I split it up over two days I can enjoy it. I just tend to watch the Gibson one more because it is shorter, that does not equate to better. And I think Branaugh made a better director to the subject, however Gibson's film has some merits of its own (the dark moody atmosphere suited Hamlet much better than the gay fun loving side that Branaugh amde it look, I think there is no question that Close was the better Gertrude, and I really love Bonham's performance as Ophelia every time I see it a little more) and that I can appreciate.
I just think the Gibson film is in many ways as good as the Branaugh film (in a few areas superior) and in many other ways inferior. I don't think either is a definitive adaptation because the story is so complex many interepretations work. I for one do not mind the Odeipus-complex. I thought it is a perfectly interesting theory. I know most argue Shakespeare never would think of such a thing, this is true, but modern interpretations are always interting (better than that crappy Baz Luhman Romeo + Julliete or that boring take on Hamlet that WAS EVEN SHORTER starring Ethan Hawke as a very forgettable Hamlet) and this Zeferllie film was one of them. I was riveted to his take, though cringed at all that was deleted, and liked his personal meloncholy directing,, but thought it was some times to flat and uninspired to capture the magic as well as Branaugh's, but there is great stuff in that film. The Odeipus(sp?) angle I think fascinates so man ybecause in modern times that is much more of a better way to try and understand some of Hamlet's rage and confusion even better. And it made for a movie that butchers the material to somehow make it sitll come alive again in ways I've never seen.
However, I too prefer the traditional approach. That is what Branaugh gave us and it was very good (though as always Gertrude suffers for it) and it made for a solid film. Branaugh's in many ways is a superior film and definetly adaptation. But I'm not sure if it is a better movie. I would like to add that it is highly unlikely that Hamlet and Ophelia had sex, which Branaugh does and I'm not sure why. I mean yes she hints to it in her song but I always thought of it as metaphorical because Hamlet was very scared of actually having sex or any sort of physical relationship with her. HE seemed that he almost did before his "maddness" and was trying to "save" her. Hence, get to the nunnery. But that did not stop Branaugh from doing it that way.
And I too have always been fascinated with Hamlet. I've read a lot of ol' Bill's plays (Ceaser, Romeo & Juliette, Taming of the Shrew, MacBeth, A Mid-Summer Night's Dream, As You Like It, etc.) but my favorite is Hamlet. Maybe because it was the first I was introduced to (my parents took me to see the play when I was very young, didn't understand it much, but I liked the sword fight LOL!) but when I got old enough to appreciate the literature I re-read that play and was astonished. I've seen it again on stage once since then, and other performances on screen. It is by far my favorite play of his and do indeed enjoy it. And it is so multi-faceted I don't mind seeing mnay different interpretations as long as they are faithfully done and well made. However, for example if they are not, bringing back up that Ethan Hawke Hamlet flick, I am disappointed.
actually I believe that hamlet and Ophelia did have sex and it was his mother's and her father's hope that they would marry. this makes sense because when she approaches him at a moment when he is "feigning madness" and he tells her to get thee to a nunnery he is telling her to get thee to a brothel. In those days a nunnery was a brothel. He is making everyone think he is going crazy.
I just don't see where everyone gets the oedipal thing either. Please tell me where that comes from. Hamlet is very concerned that his mother had knowledge of his father's murder and even took part in it because it was only a few months before she married Claudius.
the sleeper must awaken
Oh I'll admit it is not in the text. And fi it, Shakespeare was being VERY subtle. But it really is the idea that it is based on an older story written down by a monk on "facts" and thereof from the story's initial origins there may have been this involved. But it is a theory that is far more plausible than the Ophelia pregnant routine. Here, Hamlet seems mad with jealousy for his mother's affection as well as his anger at her apathy towards her dead husband and soiling her bed in incest. This of course all fuels Hamlet's rage otwards her but the idea of jealousy and he was obviously very close to his mother (who would have been fairly younger than the gone King Hamlet) and as such some deduced that he was actually jealous because deep down he has very mixed and somewhat disgusting feelings for her.
All though I do not think that he acted upon them in Gibson's film, she was the one (playing off of a younger Gertrude who must have had more physicality with her son than her much older husband by looks of casting) who kissed him in a moment of passion where all shrouds went down and he was the one that threw her back.
Some may not like this, and personally I prefer it not in there, but it definetly made for a fresh view of the story and made it even more complex. I wouldn't call it revisionist, but trying to find something that could have been there that Shakespeare had not seen. Of course that is blasphamy with some Shakespeare fans, hence the movie's strong discord of hatred from some. But I thought it made the story interesting in a new light and definetly helped contribute to who I think is hands down the best Gertrude I've ever seen. I'm not saying that is why Close was so good, but it was from one of these foundations she built such a memorable performance, something even Julie Christie couldn't do with the character.
As for Ophelia. I think they had been deeply in love and even came close to having sex, but I don't think they did. Hamlet seemed in love with her, but he htought she was the only pure and innocent being around. He loved her because of her honesty and purity. That is why he grew angry when she played as a pawn against him in the "old fool's" trap (Polonious). He didn't want her infected by those around and that is why he tried to push her away and did love her, moreso than he ever let on for anyone to ever know (even her) but to him, if he did have sex with her, he would defile her (evven if it was in marriage) in a similar fashion his mother is defiled and his thoughts are defiled (okay that may be too Zefferlli about his thoughts being defiled) and wants her to get away. Save herself, if she ever begot a child she would just add to the nest of scum in this kingdom he thought and ruin herself. He wanted to save her. And when he said nunnery I do beleive he meant nunnery, not brothel.
And I think he was just teasing Polonious when he was like on about how she is not as pure from esecaping conception. I think his fear was that he would steal her innocence away though. And even if they had sex (where there are arguably a few contradictory clues they did most notably her singing and sexual awakening in maddness, but I think it is her maddness and her passions taking over much like Hamlet than her actually recalling their making love) it still would be moot because their love story is long since over when the story starts and that is what is so tragic for Ophelia who still loves her Hamlet, so therefore a love scene between them would still be gartutious.
However I still don't believe they had sexual relations. That is how I interpretted it anyway.
I don't believe their love affair was over when the play began. I think when Hamlet saw his father's ghost and was asked to avenge his death, Hamlet became traumatized by this new knowledge. I think he was already upset by the fact his mother married so soon after his father's death.
It is obvious Polonius and Gertrude are not in on Claudiua' murder of the late king so they believe Hamlet is lovesick for Ophelia.
Hamlet is unable to act on his father's request. He is paranoid, did his mother help kill his father? What should he do. He gives the suicide soliloquy, but he can't even bring himself to die. Two pages later he runs into Ophelia who believes he still loves her, but hey, this guy is acting like all men do when they've had their way with you. He loves her but he can't think about that now. She'll have to wait. He pushes her away.
He feigns madness to catch the king, hoping to trip him up, but these are just delaying tactics because he is impotent to act in the way he knows he should. Avenge his father.
My favorite scene in the Branagh version was that scene where he sees Fortinbras going into battle with only 20,000 men. The camera shows that shot of Hamlet's face and as he speaks keeps pulling back and back until ..."from this moment my thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth." Damn, I get gooseflesh every time I watch it.
Well, we could go on like this, but lets just agree to disagree on these small interpretive points. I've enjoyed sparring with you.
the sleeper must awaken
As did I.
As far as I know we only seem to really disagree on Ophelia (and how good Gibson was) and think it was fun. And Hamlet is one of my favorite plays too.
[deleted]
kb's. but if gary busey does one...all bets are off.
Where there's smoke, there's barbecue!
I WANT to like Branagh better, but I just can't. His performance is often ham handed. Gibson is more subtle.
And take a look at the first appearance of the ghost. Branagh goes all out with stupid special effects, strange voices, whirling cameras, and none of that can compare to the frightenening subtlety of the Gibson version.
You said, "Branagh filmed the entire text of Hamlet" and you're correct. Alot of people complain about the length of the film, but they don't realize that it takes about the same amount of time to read the play cover to cover.
I saw Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet in a theater in Cambridge, MA when it was out in '96 and the four plus hours did not phase me one bit. I'll always pick Branagh's over Zefferili's (Gibson).
[deleted]
I far prefer Gibson's because I empathized with him. I felt like he was a real character honestly struggling with his own psychosis and the world around him. Brannagh always felt like a narcissistic actor playing his favorite role to me. He didn't become Hamlet he just tapdanced for the audience for four hours.
shareI've yet to rent this version of Hamlet, but I absolutely loved Gibson's interpretation. As timbasa said, he's a very real character. Mel Gibson lost himself and became Hamlet, or at least MY vision of Hamlet. And since he is different from all the other Hamlets out there, I'm sure I'll still prefer his performance over anyone else's. However, I do want to rent this version since it'll be more like the play (and I really love the play! My favorite Shakespeare play for sure!). I just need to put aside 4 hours, hehe.
share