Compare and/or contrast the Mel Gibson scene with the David Tennant scene we watched in class. Why do you think the directors made the choices they did? Once you write your response, check out what other people have said and reply to at least one other post.
I think that the Mel Gibson one was a bit too dramatic and maybe slightly taken the wrong way. The David Tennant scene was a bit more interesting. I think the directors made the choices for the scenes based on how THEY think the audience would approve. There's not much else to say about this except that each director sees the play differently and make their movies based on their perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mitsuki on the fact that the directors' choices were based on the audience. As I mentioned in my post, one scene was created in the 1900s and the other was in the 2000s which makes the targeted audiences very different. For example, David Tennant followed the Hamlet's plot pretty well but it also had a modern touch. For example in the 2000s one, Hamlet used a gun to kill in contrast with the sword that was used in the 1900s. In addition, I also agree that the Mel Gibson's Hamlet was a little bit more dramatic...
DeleteI also agree that the Mel Gibson version of the scene was a bit over dramatic. Although it was understandable for Hamlet to get very emotional and angry towards Gertrude, it didn't really make sense for him to kiss her or hug her. I think the David Tennant version was a more accurate portrayal of Hamlet's emotions.
DeleteI agree that the David Tennant interpretation of Hamlet was much more believable than the Mel Gibson version. While both were very different- I found that the first one just wasn't as interesting to watch, despite how dramatic it was.
DeleteI agree with the fact that the David Tennant version was more believable compared to the Mel Gibson one. I don't really understand why the Mel Gibson one was so sexual as it distracted me from the main point of the scene.
DeleteEven though Mel Gibson scene and David Tennant scene are on the same section of Hamlet, they are directed very differently. One of the major differences of these two scene would be the way that Hamlet interacts with his mother. I think the reason behind why they were so different is because they were created in very different times. The Mel Gibson's Hamlet is produced in 1990 which gives the whole film a more traditional touch. In addition, I think the director of the Mel Gibson's Hamlet wanted to capture the mother and father relationship of the past which means the kiss between Hamlet and his mother is acceptable(?). In contrast, the David Tennant's Hamlet scene is created in 2009 and is more modern. This is the product not only because of the technical advancements but also the way the set was created and the props that were used. Overall, both scenes followed the plot pretty accurately even with the slightly different directing approach. For example, both scenes showed Hamlet's breakdown and the ghost's effect on Hamlet..etc. Personally, I liked the David Tennant one more just because it looked more realistic.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Mel Gibson and David Tennant scenes are directed differently. I also agree that the Mel Gibson's scene seemed focused on the acting, especially between the mother, father, and Hamlet's relationship. I also agree that the plots were followed pretty meticulously. Last of all, I agree that the David Tennant scene seemed better.
DeleteI agree that David Tennant's scene was better as it focused more on the actual content of the play whereas Mel Gibson focused on the theatre and the emotional aspect. I think these two different ways of portraying the same scene portrayed different messages.
DeleteI agree with your opinion! I think you're right when you say Mel Gibson's Hamlet is more traditional but David Tennant's version is more convincing.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the TV movie Hamlet (2009), in which Hamlet is played by actor David Tennant, the movie was not shot like a typical TV movie, at least in Act 3 scene 4. Most TV movies are shot on a shot-reverse shot technique, which is shot to give more emphasis on dialogue and the actors. Instead, this version of Hamlet is shot like a typical movie, allowing more medium shots and close-ups. This amount of variation allows the director to give time and space to the actors. The direction is thus much clearer and allows the emotional trauma of the scene to sink in. This choice allows the focus to not only be on the actors, but in the setting around them. The space is used well, as the actors continuously move in different directions, giving the director more room to work with. I think the director made this choice to allow space for the actors to work with, so when the big gravitas emotional scene happens, close-ups are used. When a conversation is happening, a medium shot is used. When different actors are at different positions, then the shot-reverse shot technique is in full throttle. In contrast, Mel Gibson's take of Act 3 scene 4 is shot like a TV movie. Continuously, the movie is shot in shot-reverse shot techniques. Although this movie allows more emphasis for the actors (showing more emotion), it does not make the movie any much better. In fact, I felt Mel Gibson's scene had more exaggeration and less subtleties. Of course, the acting has nothing to do with the directing style, but it is something I noticed. Although the actors were able to use the space well, the director provided the choice of shooting it in shot-reverse shot, disallowing the audience to view the space with a watchful eye. Instead, the focus on the actors emphasizes the acting. Although both scenes used the shot-reverse shot technique, the David Tennant scene was able to use its different shot techniques to create more creative and daring choices, allowing the viewer space to breathe and enjoy what the movie has to offer. Mel Gibson's scene could have used more daring choices. In fact, Mel Gibson's scene arguably has more space to work with, since it was not shot in a confined room, but that space is not used well. Personally, I prefer David Tennant's scene, but ultimately, it is up to what the viewer prefers to emphasize.
ReplyDeleteI think your response is really interesting! I don’t know much about the technological aspect of shooting movies but did glean knowledge from your post. I liked the portion about the amount of variation that delegates time and space a director gives to his actors, and how it affects how well the emotion is conveyed to the audience.
DeleteWOW! I really liked your analysis of both movies! It was really eye-opening and I learned a lot about how movies are filmed. I also agree that in the Mel Gibson interpretation there was more of an emphasis on the relationships with the characters. That is why the movie is more focused on the dialogue and the emotions of the protagonists. On the other hand, David Tennant's interpretation gives viewers a sort of emotional break by filming the overall setting in the movie.
DeleteKyle, you're responses are always so insightful! I liked how you compared and contrasted many aspects of the film including the way they shot the movie and everything. I like how you use your drama skills to examine this prompt. It was really interesting to see the perspectives of movie shooting.
DeleteKyle, I like the way you incorporated your knowledge of shooting shots in acting and movies to create your opinion about each version of the play. It was boggled my mind when you said that acting has to do anything with the directing style, which I originally thought. I agree that the Gibson version depicted more of the emotional relationship between Hamlet and his mother, while the David Tennant's interpretation is contorted from the original text, which a modern twist that emphasizes the scene of the play.
DeleteI hadn't thought about the scenes in that perspective and I think its really interesting that you were able to tie this into the director and the way the movie was shot. I agree with you in that David's scene was more emotional, and the directors choices probably did have a much larger impact than I had realized
DeleteKyle ma dawg! Great analysis of the techniques used. I agree with you in that the director made more conscious choices in the David Tenant scene to make better use of the space. I was particularly interested by how the director used the mirror as a motif throughout the scene. Gertrude starts the scene smoking and taking a drink in front of her personal mirror. After Polonius is shot, he staggers into the room and collapses behind the mirror, actually crashing into it, distorting the reflection Gertrude sees of herself. From then on, every time we see the mirror in the frame, the character pictured inside of it is unstable and anxious, especially when Hamlet stares into his own cracked reflection. Through the mirror, and the variance in camera angles you talked about, I think the production behind this scene was much more thought out, and in turn enhanced the impact it had on its audience.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI like how different the Mel Gibson scene is from almost every other production of Hamlet.. There’s nothing meta about it. Normally, with any other story, that might be a bad thing, but most productions of Hamlet tend to lean toward the ambiguous — is Hamlet crazy, or isn’t he? Does Gertrude really love Claudius? is she faking in order to secure her position? I thought that this production was refreshingly more straightforward, obviously establishing that Hamlet is mad, or at least pretending to be, and it makes each character’s emotion very clear. (I put this in comparison with the other version where there was an eccentric vibe around the scene in regards to Hamlet-Gertrude). On the flip side, it could detract from Hamlet’s madness and what Shakespeare may have been trying to convey there.
I thought that David Tennant captured the nature of Hamlet's character better (as portrayed in the text). In this [movie] version, Hamlet delivers the soliloquy as he stands in a darkly lit room with his face masked by shadows. His eyes are half closed and he speaks softly into the darkness. It is obvious that David Tennant's Hamlet was a man with a serious internal struggle, and a man who was conflicted.
As a side note, from all the scenes that we’ve watched from Tennant, I felt that the costumes in his interpretation were very well done and revealed a lot about the characters. Hamlet is portrayed wearing an orange muscle T-shirt with no shoes on. As the film is relatively recent, the color orange evokes the idea in the viewer's mind that Hamlet is a prisoner to his situation and later, the muscle T-shirt greatly contrasts with Tennant's figure, showing how Hamlet is pretending to be someone he's not and is left in a position that demands more than he can give. He feels weak but yet he knows he must appear to be strong when handling himself (much like the part about speaking daggers, but using none.) He’s putting up a facade.
I believe that Mel Gibson scene in Hamlet was overly dramatic and sexual. It was much more than I expected and I was quite shocked at the way that scene was portrayed. I thought that the extra emotion that was in the scene was unnecessary and I think it actually took away from the meaning in that scene. I was distracted in scene but when compared to the other movie, I was much more focused. The other scene w Tennant was much better in my opinion because it showed the message of the scene without any extraneous lovey dovey crap. It got the message across well enough, helping readers understand the purpose of the scene.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the overly sexual and dramatic tones of the Mel Gibson version. I thought Hamlet kissing his mother was disgusting and unnecessary. I think in the David Tennant version it focuses more on the conversation that exposes the truth that Hamlet has been waiting to have with his mother for a long time was more entertaining.
Deleteand was more entertaining*
DeleteI totally agree. The entire scene was awkward - so much touching and even kisses. Furthermore, the way they were situated on the bed was weird...Why does Hamlet just jump onto the bed? It didn't follow what I felt that the novel had - a more "sane madness" rather than the outbreak that occurred in the movies.
DeleteI agree that overall, the Mel Gibson interpretation was just unnecessarily awkward and sexual and took away from the main point of the scene: Gertrude and Hamlet talking and Hamlet trusting her enough to tell her that he's not actually mad. This was so much more clearly seen in the David Tennant version.
DeleteI agree with you in that the Mel Gibson version of the scene was oddly sexual and over acted. The scene with David Tennant really got the message across for me, as the way Hamlet and Gertrude interacted felt more authentic and seemed like how people would really act in such a scandalous situation. The over acting in the Mel Gibson scene just ended up drawing away from the message, similar to how in the play Hamlet doesn't want the actors to ham it up and draw away from the play within the play.
DeleteI agree with you on the fact that the Mel Gibson version was sexual and I think that could've thrown alot of people off of the actual interpretation of the play. Also, the extra emotion in the play was unnecessary as you said, it did take away some meaning from the actual play.
DeleteI understand that the Mel Gibson movie was very overdramatic, however I think contrary to your point, it added more to the meaning of the scene. Rather than taking away from what the meaning of the scene was, it shows the anger, frustration, and resentment against women that Hamlet has. The sexual material was odd, but I think it was a refreshing twist that highlighted Hamlet's character fairly.
DeleteI think that the director’s interpretation had much more influence in the Mel Gibson scene compared to the David Tennant scene. I found the Mel Gibson scene a little bit too sexual, but I think that the director’s intention was to highlight the toxic relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude. Also, the director did a good job of showing Hamlet’s descent into madness. Because of Hamlet’s actions, the audience can easily understand that he is not in a healthy state of mind. I liked the David Tennant scene because the actors seemed to portray the characters of the actual play really well, even with the modern setting of the movie. Since the modern setting was such a big change in the movie, I think that the director chose not to change too much of the content of the scene.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Mel Gibson's scene was very sexual and I think it was effective to really show us how Hamlet sees his mother as a weak lustful woman. I also think he did a good job on showing how crazy Hamlet was because he went from yelling to looking and sounding pretty crazy. I like the idea that Tennant kept a lot of the same content of the scene because the modern setting was such a big change.
DeleteI strongly agree with your opinion that the Mel Gibson scene accurately portrayed the toxic relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude. The David Tennant scene went towards a more mother-and-son relationship towards the end when Hamlet embraced Gertrude for comfort. I think that belied Shakespeare's original intentions, as it is clear from the text that Hamlet loathes his mother's actions.
DeleteMel Gibson and David Tennant’s films are very different because Gibson’s is set in an older era like Shakespeare would have had it, whereas Tennant’s film is set in a more modern time. I personally preferred that Tennant’s was set back in time because it was more like how Shakespeare’s era. However, the kiss between Hamlet and his mother was a bit surprising, I didn’t expect it. His scene also seemed more sexual to me because his mother seemed so much like an object who was just weak on her back underneath Hamlet. Tennant’s scene was more modern and used a gun instead of a word and everyone was dressed in modern clothes. Both scenes captured the drama and followed the play relatively well they were just interpreted differently. They both showed how Hamlet and his mother were disagreeing and then Hamlet saw the ghost and freaked out while his mother was confused about what he was seeing.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Hamlet’s mother seemed like an object in the Mel Gibson scene. I think that the director emphasized how weak Gertrude was through her kiss with Hamlet because it seemed like she succumbed to Hamlet’s attacks and accepted it.
DeleteI agree with what you said about Gertrude being weak. It shows that she doesn't really have the ability to protect and defend herself and that only a kiss can stop Hamlet from acting crazy/mad. The kiss also portrays her as sexually corrupt, which could be a possible reason for her willingness to marry Claudius.
DeleteI agree with your take on why the Mel Gibson version was more sexual. The director may have done so to emphasize Hamlet mother’s weakness (and women’s weakness in general) within Hamlet. The director may have been basing that on Shakespeare’s portrayal of women, such as when Gertrude is lured in by Claudius’s gifts, Ophelia succumbs to her father’s wishes and allows herself to be verbally abused by Hamlet, etc.
DeleteFirst of all, the largest difference is the time period the films were mimicking. Gibson's was modeled more during Shakespeare time, with the swords and clothing, whilst Tennant's was more modern (say 18 - 1900s?).
ReplyDeleteThrough acting, both were very emotional and passionate, although Gibson's Hamlet had a very frightening "antic disposition". Furthermore, his mother kisses him to silence him, which 1) wasn't mentioned in the book and 2) was really awkward and almost didn't fit the scene. Tennant's Hamlet was more logical, yet also showed his madness. In the end he kissed his mother as he was saying "Good night", which makes a little more sense - but also shows his madness as he just killed a person.
Although I agree with you Kevin that the time period does indeed differ, I believe you have made a slight error in saying that the film was modeled after the 1800's, by catching a glimpse of the arm used to kill polonius was a model definitely not from even the early 1900's. In fact judging by the picture of the weapon it would most likely have been made in the 1950's. But I do agree that Gibson's scene was rather disturbing. The portrayal of Hamlet really is a little bit overboard.
DeleteSince the original Hamlet had no stage directions, there are different interpretations of the scene based on how the director interpreted the scene. The Mel Gibson interpretations of the scene is more dramatic and dark in my opinion. I was really surprised when Hamlet kissed his mother. This was probably added to the scene based on several interpretations of Hamlet's bizarre relationship with his mother. Since David Tennant's version of the story is more modern, it has a different feel than the 1990's Mel Gibson version. I thought it was interesting that Hamlet shot the spying Polonius instead of stabbing him like in the Mel Gibson version. I also noticed Gertrude was smoking a cigarette in the more recent version, although I'm not sure whether or not people smoked cigarettes at the time Hamlet was written. In my opinion, the David Tennant version was less dramatic, more modern and overall more interesting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Erik, David Tennant's movie was more interesting than Mel Gibson's. I think it was because we could comprehend what is happening because of the modern essence. However, for Mel Gibson's movie, it was very difficult to understand what is happening because it was very dramatic and it was following the book more than David Tennant's movie.
DeleteI think they made it that dramatic to show how mad hamlet is, and therefore saying how the ghost really isn't his father
DeleteI think the portrayal of Act 3 scene 4 in the movie with David Tennant (DT) was overall a lot more modern than the Mel Gibson (MG) scene. For example, DT used a gun to shoot Polonius, Gertrude was drinking and smoking, and the room they were in seemed more lavish than it should be. The DT scene was also more dramatic than the MG scene. I feel like by doing this, the director of the film wanted to make the storyline more relatable to real life. That is why he chose to make the scene more modern, rather than sticking to the original plot. On the other hand, the Mel Gibson scene is a perfect reenacting of the story (except for the kissing scene between the mother and Hamlet). It was a more traditionalistic view of the play.Both perspectives were definitely different from what I pictured while reading the book. For one, I thought the relationship between Gertrude and Hamlet was soured, but in both the movies, it seemed as if Gertrude and Hamlet have a very deep and loving relationship even though Hamlet hates his mother for betraying his father. It was very interesting to see how the directors of each movie interpret the movie in different ways. It shows that the play is overall very open to opinion.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with Marissa, I think because the David Tennant scene was produced after the Mel Gibson scene that the director wanted to create a scene that would allow the viewers to be able to relate, and understand it more.
DeleteI think the main difference between the two interpretations is that in the Mel Gibson scene, Gertrude seems much less dominant than Hamlet, but in the David Tennant scene, Hamlet appears more docile. The Mel Gibson scene was extremely accurate in portraying Hamlet's immense fury and rancor towards his mother, as well as the original older setting of the scene. Through its more sexual depictions, it represented Gertrude as the incestuous woman that Hamlet viewed her as throughout the book and simply confirmed his judgement when Gertrude kissed Hamlet. However, the kiss took away from the true meaning as to why the ghost reappeared to Hamlet, making it seem that the ghost only reappeared out of some sort of jealousy or over protectiveness. The David Tennant version, on the other hand, used much more modern props and weapons. I found it a little bit strange as to how all the characters and props were modern, but the language was still in the form of the older English that Shakespeare wrote in. Overall, I enjoyed the first scene better because it portrayed more of what I had imagined while reading the text.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on how the kiss in the Gibson seen had taken away the real reason as to why the ghost had reappeared. I also thought the kiss was a good way to show Gertrude's incestuous ways. And tbh I liked the first one better as well as it seemed more realistic while in the Tennant version everything was modern yet they still spoke in elizabethan like wtf??? lmao
DeleteI agree with you both. I now see that the sexual implications and the kiss in the Mel Gibson version portrayed this incestuous woman and this pattern that is occuring. In addition, it also helped show how Gertrude is very submissive and weak, as women are generally portrayed in this time period.
DeleteI agree, in the Mel Gibson's version, Gertrude did seem less dominant than in the David Tennant's version. I also enjoyed the Mel Gibson version because it did really emphasize Gertrude's incestuous character.
DeleteFor me, the Mel Gibson interpretation of the scene was really over done and confusing. It seems to be directed more for a shock value, and I feel like didn't portray the scene as well as the David Tennant version. The older version was overtly sexual, which does portray Hamlet's disgust for his mother, but fails to bring out Hamlet's conflict between the two portrayals of his mother's character that he has in his mind. The Mel Gibson scene also doesn't really show Gertrude as a caring mother or as seeing Hamlet's views, but more as scared and agreeing out of fear. David Tennant's facial expressions and acting really brought out the conflict Hamlet has, and wavering between his mothers arms and sitting farther away, he truly brings out the conflict of a son and mother's relationship and his pure revoltion for the things she's done.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the Mel Gibson version as overdone and confusing. The two versions gave different afterthoughts, and I think David Tennant's version much better showed the mother-son relationship.
DeleteI definitely agree with you on the fact that the older version was overtly sexual. I guess it did portray the character of Gertrude as incestuous as is described by both Hamlet and the Ghost, however it was overly done. I also agree that the Mel Gibson version failed to portray Gertrude's love or concern for her son as much as the David Tennant version. Hamlet's inner conflict was also definitely better portrayed by David Tennant.
DeleteI loved the acting in the David Tennant version between him and his mother. It was tense and gripping to see Hamlet wrestle with mortality and his mother's affection. I agree and thought that the director did a fantastic job bringing Hamlet's fears and emotions to the forefront of the scene without taking away the plot or importance in any sense either. I think the sexuality of the old version did indeed take away from the focus of the scene which is Hamlet's contradicting views of his mother.
DeleteYes I think Tennat's version was more about Hamlets insanity and the motherly love of Gertrude to simply believe him without a question and being there to support him and trust him once she sees that he's basically lost it. While Gibson's was a lot more shock factor and violence of Gertrude just being scared of Hamlet. I think Tennant's version had more depth and more aspects to analyze and explore.
DeleteOne difference that was pretty obvious was the time difference. The film with Mel Gibson seemed to have been set during the Elizabethan era, while the one with David Tennant was more modern since a gun was used to kill Polonius instead of a sword. Like many of the responses said, the Mel Gibson scene was more sexual and the part where Gertrude kisses Hamlet wasn't quite necessary. It wasn't included in the play and it was a bit disturbing and uncomfortable to watch. But I think the good thing about this one was that it was more dramatic and the actors portrayed more emotion, so it more clearly expressed Hamlet's state of madness and Gertrude's sense of guilt. The plot of both scenes were accurate compared to the actual play, but they were both interpreted in different ways. I think both directors did a good job in getting the general message through and showing the state of mind of Hamlet and Gertrude at this point in the play.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was easier to visualize Hamlet's madness in the Gibson film, considering his somewhat uncomfortable and extreme actions with his mother. I feel like this is because the first film focused on his madness, while perhaps the second film focused on Hamlet's conflicting emotions about his mother.
DeleteI agree with you in that the kissing didn't add much to the play, and the fact that there was more emotion in the Mel Gibson version. I feel that in the Mel Gibson version however the scene didn't really match the book, whereas the David Tennet version beautifully displayed Hamlet's madness.
DeleteOverall, the directors made very different choices when filming the scenes. First, the Mel Gibson scene was focused on trying to depict what setting Shakespeare would have had in mind when writing the play. But I did find it interesting how the director interpreted Hamlet and the Queen’s relationship. It did make sense for him to imply that, being that the play within the play demonstrated that the Hamlet, or the nephew would kill the King and then try to seduce the Queen. In David Tennant’s scene it displayed a more modern setting, which was more interesting and relatable.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Tennant's version had a more modern take on it, however it was a lot more interesting to watch.
DeleteI liked Tennant's version a lot better too. His version seemed a lot more natural and caught my attention for a longer time than Gibson's version. I didn't think of the modern reason, but I can see how that could affect us.
DeleteI would agree that the way their relationship is depicted is quite interesting. But I found that even though Mel Gibson's was a little too sexual, it gave off a more realistic vibe. (In both the way the characters were portrayed physically and how they would have reacted if actually face to face)
DeleteOne difference in the two movies is the way that Hamlet and Gertrude's relationship is portrayed. In Gibson's version, their connection is one that seems to be extremely sexual (as mentioned in a number of previous comments) and very uncomfortable. This tension seems almost to replace the family conflict as the biggest of the scene, as I found myself focusing more on their strange relationship than on the words exchanged. However, I do believe that this version allowed the audience to more easily see the extent of Hamlet's madness. Meanwhile, I feel like the Tennant film more accurately illustrates Hamlet and Gertrude's relationship as one of confusion and conflicting emotions: especially in the end, when Hamlet runs to his mother just to yank himself away a minute later.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the strange sexual tension between Hamlet and Gertrude in the Mel Gibson version upstages the complex family conflict that the original play itself focuses on! In that sense, I too felt like the David Tennant version was a better representation of the conflict that Hamlet and Gertrude are going through and of their complicated mother-son relationship.
DeleteI think that both movies had their merits. Like you said, Hamlet and Gertrude's relationship seems to be the main focus of the scene in the Mel Gibson version. This is an interesting way of looking at what happened because it explains why Hamlet is so obsessed with his mother's relationship with Claudius. The David Tennant version does more accurately illustrate the mother-son relationship though as it isn't just about the purported Oedipus Complex.
DeleteThe Mel Gibson version was the more accurate version in terms of time period. However, it portrayed the relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude as that of violence/intimidation and showing us a more forceful/loose screwed Hamlet, and had a weird scene with sexual implications and even had the queen kiss Hamlet to shut him up. The David Tennant one, put in a more modern world, was much more focused on the mother-son relationship, and although that Hamlet was just as forceful with his mother, they came to an understanding. The director added in a scene of the two hugging near the end, much like a mother with his sad little boy. Although the 2nd version also had a kiss between the mother and son, it was a more gentle kiss, kind of like one you would give as a goodnight kiss to your mom as a kid. It made him seem more calmer, especially considering he just killed Polonius. The part at the end with Gertrude laughing then screaming/crying was pretty powerful too, showing her emotions that neither the original play nor the Mel Gibson version showed.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this post, I too feel that the Tennant version portrayed the relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude as more gentle and loving, even if Hamlet was unbelievably angry at his mother. This may have actually been more true to the real play because Hamlet hadn't completely given up on his mother and still wanted to guide her away from Claudius.
DeleteI believe that the Mel Gibson scene was closely related to the original old English text of Hamlet. The Gibson version aligned with the image that was created in my head when I read the text. Gertrude came off as submissive, when Hamlet leads the conversation and exhorts Gertrude to not tell Claudius the truth behind his madness. Gertrude is also portrayed as lustful, when she kisses Hamlet. These two characteristics are confirmed from the text and are revealed through Hamlet. On the contrary, the David Tennant version was not what I imagined the text to be like. Gertrude comes off as more powerful and assertive, not the docile and lustful Gertrude we know her to be. With the more modern approach of the David Tennant version, I enjoyed the Gibson version more because it is what I imagine the play based off the text.
ReplyDeleteCompared to the David Tennant version, the Mel Gibson version was much more dramatic. Every action the actors performed was very exaggerated. For example, in the David Tennant version, Hamlet pushed Gertrude on the bed but he didn't get as physical with her (mostly he just kneels over her or paces and once in a while he grabs her face or shoulders). On the other hand, in the Mel Gibson version, Hamlet is situated over Gertrude on the bed in a sexual manner and at one point they kiss very aggressively. The director of the Mel Gibson version may have decided to make all the movements in this version overly dramatic to emphasize Hamlet's madness, while the director of the David Tennant version chose to emphasize Hamlet's "sane" madness.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the director of the David Tennant version was emphasizing Hamlet's madness by showing him being surprisingly tame and sane in a situation where he should be furious. But I wonder whether the Mel Gibson version was also emphasizing his madness or just his rage. To me, he was a very dramatic Hamlet, but I think that some of his exaggerated yelling and movements were just to emphasize his bottled-up rage. The Mel Gibson version surprisingly made me feel like he was less crazy than in the David Tennant version because he was giving into his emotions, while David Tennant seemed to be far away from his.
DeleteEven though the Mel Gibson version and the David Tennant version were both portraying the same scenes, they were very different. The biggest difference was the time frame because the David Tennant version was more modern from the clothes they wore to the background set. The Mel Gibson version was more traditional. Another difference was the relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude. I thought that the David Tennant version was a more accurate version because Hamlet seemed to be disgusted by his mother's actions which is similar to how Hamlet feels in the play. In the Mel Gibson version, however, even though Hamlet was upset by Gertrude, he seemed to care for his mother and showed affection.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude was shown really differently in the two versions. I think in the Mel Gibson version, the director has twisted the relationship too much, to be appealing to the audience. I also agree that the differences were because of the time period.
DeleteI think that the director of the Gibson version decided to dramatise Hamlet's relationship with Gertrude for entertainment. As we heard in the Charlie Rose video, there is more to Hamlet than his infatuation with his mother. However, that seems to always be the thing that people think of when they hear Hamlet. The director of the Gibson version probably interpreted the relationship as more than it may have been intended or the director may have decided to add it in to entertain the audience.
DeleteI feel like the Mel Gibson version of this scene resembled the actual scene in the play more; especially due to the time period and costumes of the actors. However, I was quite surprised that both the Mel Gibson and the David Tennant version had the majority of the scene taking place on Gertrude's bed. There were many sexual implications in both scenes, which made me quite uncomfortable, and made me wonder if Shakespeare meant for the scene to be portrayed in that manner. A couple differences I did view in these two versions, however, was that in the Mel Gibson version, Hamlet was a little more aggressive with his mother and didn't treat her like she was really her mother. He seemed more involved in his own thoughts and didn't seem to care much about their mother/son relationship. However, in the David Tennant version, Hamlet did find comfort in his mother towards the end when they were hugging and when he saw the ghost. He seemed more like a little boy trying to desperately get his mother to see everything from his point of view and would even look lovingly (in a mother/son kind of way) towards his mother. The kiss in the Mel Gibson version especially made the scene more awkward and stray away from the picture of a mother/son relationship. In the more modern version (David Tennant version), Gertrude was smoking a cigarette before Hamlet walked in and looked a little less reputable/honorable as well. Both versions portrayed Hamlet as mad and crazy, however the Mel Gibson version portrayed him as more dramatic, whereas the David Tennant version portrayed his more sane/desperate side.
ReplyDeleteBoth the versions did a decently accurate job of portraying the scenes, however their takes on it were very different. As most people mentioned before, Gibson's version's setting was more of what we imagined as readers than Tennant's version. Gibson's version's setting is more traditional and accurate according to the era. One thing disturbing about Gibson's version which I wish I could unsee was when the scene got sexual. I feel like that wasn't neccessary. Tennant's version had a bit of a modern twist to the scene, however the plot was kept straight forward. This scene did not have any sexual references which made the plot seem a lot more accurate when relating to the book. Even though there was a modern take on it, whatever happened in the book was much better portrayed in Tennant's version.
ReplyDeleteHi! I agree that they were very different in some way, and Gibson's version had things that seemed unnecessary. But I don't think that makes it necessarily bad, or that they shouldn't have made it that way. It interpreted the book in its own way. You could have read it in different way than the directors of the movie did, or they had a theory other readers didn't. But yea... It was weird, and I liked Tennates version a little bit better.
DeleteI think that the Mel Gibson and the David Tennant version of Hamlet were both portrayed very well. All the emotions expressed in the book were portrayed in the movies. The Mel Gibson version showed a more accurate setting of Hamlet's time period while the Tennant version was a bit more modern. Although they had different setting it did not stray from the emotions that Shakespeare intended. The script of both movies were very well done, I though that the use of not incorporating some lines helped make the film better. If they kept all the lines in the movies, I think that it would've been too repetitive and dull.
ReplyDeleteI agree Danyel! I think that including all of the lines from the original scene would have dragged it out too long and bored the audience. I think cutting some lines out kept the scene moving and kept it exciting and dramatic.
DeleteI found that the Mel Gibson was really over dramatic and oddly sexual as well. Gibson seems to be just screaming and shouting for most of his lines, probably trying to get across how insane Hamlet is at this point in the play, but it comes across as over done and hammed up. In addition, the way he climbs on top of his mother and then kisses her is honestly just creepy. I'm guessing the director decided to have the scene done this way so that the viewer would not be confused about Hamlet's state of mind. The only redeeming quality of this scene is that it is actually set during the proper time period. The David Tennant version on the other hand was far better in my opinion. He comes across as scheming and a little bit creepy, but not incestuous like the Mel Gibson version. I think the delivery of the dialogue was more convincing than the Mel Gibson version as people in their situation would not be shouting every line out so that everyone in the castle could hear them. I also liked how at the end you can see Hamlet and his mother reconcile a little bit, and it gets the point across that she is now in on the plan.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with your reasoning for Tennant's being better. It was much more interesting.
DeleteYeah I agree with Malik, Mel Gibson's version was over sexualized and took away from the scene's overall experience.
DeleteThe main difference between the David Tennant and Mel Gibson versions of the play was the time period each one took place in. The David Tennant version was more modern than the Mel Gibson one, incorporating guns and other things that weren’t commonly used in the past. The Mel Gibson one followed the play more closely, with the use of swords and the characters’ attire. I think the directors of the Mel Gibson version chose to make the movie follow more closely to the play to appeal to older audiences and those who just want an accurate visual portrayal of the play. The directors of the David Tennant version may have wanted to appeal to younger audiences and create something similar to newer version of Romeo and Juliet. I think they both did a fairly accurate job capturing the angry/desperate emotions and the main essence of the scene. The director of the Mel Gibson version may have chosen to incorporate more sexual themes to highlight Hamlet’s anger at Gertrude for her “incestuous” relationship with Claudius.
ReplyDeleteI remember watching that "modern" Romeo and Juliet movie you mentioned! I agree that the Tennant version was trying to appeal to a more modern audience, based on the more relatable setting they used.
DeleteI agree that the time difference between the movies and the audience they were catering to was the main difference between the plays. I think that is why multiple movies of the same play exist because everyone will have a different taste to which movie they prefer, just as different directors will have differing interpretations.
DeleteWell that was...interesting. The two versions sometimes seemed like two different scenes. There were the obvious differences that they were set in different times, but the acting and portrayal of the characters were different. In the Mel Gibson version, it seemed like Hamlet was angry, and pretending to be crazy, while in the David Tennant version, he seemed as though he might actually be crazy while also being sane enough to purposely give off the crazy vibe. In the Gibson version, Hamlet was screaming and commanding his mother not to let his uncle touch her again, and he just seemed to acknowledge the ghost was there. In the Tennate version, he was pleading, asking, and suggesting for his mother to not let his uncle touch her, and he actually seemed terrified of the ghost. The Gibson version seemed a bit more sexual, and the mother is the one who kissed her son, while in the other, the mother was a little less afraid, and the kiss was more of a see you later kiss.I enjoyed both of them, and appreciated that they put their own twist on the play.
ReplyDeleteI think the two movies were both fantastic and had their own merits.
ReplyDeleteI found the scene about Hamlet kissing his mother very interesting having read this interpretation of the scene the day before on sparknotes while trying to comprehend what was really going on in the book after reading it.
"Sigmund Freud wrote that Hamlet harbors an unconscious desire to sexually enjoy his mother. Freud maintained that all men unconsciously desire their mothers in this way, and he called this the “Oedipus Complex,” after the character in Sophocles’ play who unwittingly murders his father and has several children by his own mother. Whether or not Freud was right about this is as difficult to prove as any of the problems that Hamlet worries about, but his argument in regard to Hamlet is quite remarkable. He says that while Oedipus actually enacts this fantasy, Hamlet only betrays the unconscious desire to do so. Hamlet is thus a quintessentially modern person, because he has repressed desires."
I think Mel Gibson in his version focused on this interpretation of this scene and for that reason Hamlet kissed his mother during their joint fit of passion.
Additionally, I was a big fan of the more modern version with David Tennant. I thought it was flawlessly created and meshed the old fashionedness of Hamlet and the language with the modernity of 2009. Instead of a sword, a gun. Instead of a craggily castle, a modern penthouse of some sorts.
I enjoyed both but would have to say that I enjoyed the modern version a little bit more.
Although both film versions of Scenes 3 and 4 of Act 3 differed from how the readers imagine the scene, they both also retain the basic themes of those scenes. They both show Hamlet's anger at his mother and Claudius, and show how Gertrude slowly begins to feel guilt for her actions. The main difference in the Gibson version is that the relationship between Hamlet and his mother is portrayed as sexual and incestuous, which wasn't explicitly portrayed in the text. In this version, the director focused more on Hamlet's Oedipus complex, which is implied in the text. The main difference in the Tennant version is that it takes place in a modern setting. I believe this may make the play and Shakespeare's language more relatable to a modern audience, because they might understand the characters motives and feelings more well.
ReplyDeleteI personally feel like both versions explain the two scenes well and that the incorporated differences don't greatly change the meaning of the play.
I agree! While there were sexual undertones in the Tennant version there was definitely an exploration of the Oedipus complex in the Mel Gibson version. But I think both versions work because there is much left to interpretation in Shakespeare's plays.
DeleteNikhila, I totally agree! I found that Hamlet's anger was depicted well throughout both, yet the Oedipus complex, as you mentioned, was better portrayed in the David Tennant version.
DeleteI believe that both movies displayed accurate representations of Hamlet Act 3. David and Mel’s movie both showed Hamlet’s meltdown, his discussion with his mother, his encounter with his father/ghost and the death of Polonius. However, at the same time they are both different. David Tennant’s movie is more modern and realistic than Mel Gibson’s movie. However, Mel Gibson’s movie was too dramatic (in my opinion). I was shocked with the relationship that Hamlet had with Gertrude. I didn’t expect Hamlet to kiss his mother. I prefer David Tennant’s movie because it was interesting how everything in the movie was modern and accepted in today’s society. Gertrude smoking, Hamlet killing Polonius with a gun insteading of stabbing him with a knife. Overall, I found David’s movie easier to comprehend than Mel Gibson’s movie.
ReplyDeleteI think the Mel Gibson's one was very focused on the drama and the surprise appeal to viewers whereas the David Tennant one seemed to be more in line with the book. In my opinion, David appeared to be more crazy and actually seemed like he was under an "antic disposition". I don't think Mel did as good a job portraying a crazy person, and it also didn't seem like he focused on the ghost or made it seem very real. Mel's version was probably trying to reach out to a more broad audience, as more people are interested in dramas and action which this version definitely had more of. Thus, I think one of the main factors that differentiate the two is that Mel's version has a more "pop-culture" feel to it while David's tried to follow the lines.
ReplyDeleteOutside of the obvious time difference between the two versions, another difference that stood out to me is how Hamlet treated Polonius after he finds out he has killed him. In the Mel Gibson version, Hamlet is more regretful about murdering Polonius. He caresses Polonius' dead face and closes his eyes for him, and carries him out of the room. In the David Tennant version, Hamlet did not appear to care at all about Polonius' death. He mostly ignores Polonius' body throughout the scene and drags him out like a sack of flour at the end of it.
ReplyDeleteI think the directors chose to have Hamlet act in different ways because they had different ideas of what kind of madness Hamlet had. In the Gibson version, Hamlet had a more controlled madness, which is why he actually showed some guilt over killing someone. In the Tennant version, Hamlet seemed more immature and actually insane, which is why he was more uncaring towards Polonius.
The obvious difference between the two movie adaptations is the time difference between the versions with the Mel Gibson being more traditional and the David Tenant one being more modern. I think it is interesting how the directors decided to interpret the scene since Shakespeare didn't write in every actor's stage direction and detail. In the Mel Gibson version, Hamlet is much more aggressive to his mother physically than in the Tenant version. We see that Gertrude is truly fearful for her life during the entire interaction. In the David Tenant version, Hamlet is more aggressive with his words than his physical behavior. Gertrude seems deeply disturbed by the words Hamlet is saying to her rather than his actions towards her. Personally I liked this version better because it shows how Hamlet "[spoke] daggers to her, but used none". I think the point of the scene was for Hamlet to shame Gertrude into feeling guilty rather than scared of Hamlet.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the difference between the two versions included Hamlet's interaction with his mother. In the Tenant version, since Hamlet is more aggressive with his words, he starts respecting Gertrude towards the end. However, in the Gibson version, I could see no sign of Hamlet becoming more respectful towards his mother at the end of the scene.
DeleteNow that I think about it, Hamlet did a pretty poor job of "speaking daggers but using none" towards his mother in Mel Gibson's version, as he went crazy and tried to pin her down. This was probably done to make the movie more accessible to a modern audience who does not expect to be required to interpret scenes by themselves.
DeleteIn the David Tennant version of the movie, the director wanted to depict Hamlet as truly mad, and so his rapid changes in demeanor indicate how his act is no longer an act. He acts extremely aggressive and does not seem to have and regret after he kills Polonius. I believe that this version is more modern so that the viewer can connect more to the act and understand it better.
ReplyDeleteIn the Mel Gibson version, Hamlet seems to be more in control of himself and acts less mad. He appears to adhere to his purpose. This version also seemed a bit to dramatic as Hamlet seems overly concerned with Polonius's death and his mother.
Therefore, I feel like David Tennant's version is better because it places an original spin of the book that makes it easier to comprehend.
Besides the blatant time difference between the two versions, I found two major differences.
ReplyDeleteThe first difference had to do with how the sexual tensions between Hamlet and his mother are portrayed. In the Gibson version, the relationship between Hamlet and his mother is portrayed as sexual and incestuous, which isn't so explicit in the text. While there were sexual undertones in the Tennant version there was definitely an exploration of the Oedipus complex in the Mel Gibson version.
The second difference was the degree of insanity. Gibson came across more dramatic than insane and he is much more physically aggressive to his mother while Tennant showed more power through his words, staying true to text which says he would "speak of daggers but use none". In the Tennant version his mother seems more disturbed than scared which I thought worked better with the text. The different degrees of insanity are also evident in the different reactions to Polonius' death. In the Gibson version, Hamlet actually showed some guilt over killing someone but in the Tennant version, Hamlet seemed nearly apathetic about his death.
Overall, I feel like the Tennant version was better in terms of acting and adherence to the script.
I also liked Tennant's scene a little more! He was really persuasive in his acting and the scene overall felt more captivating.
DeleteThe main difference between the two scenes is that the David Tenant one is more modern interpretation of the scene while the Mel Gibson one appears to take place at the same time as the original play. Regardless of the time differences, both scenes embody the same themes and a similar message. Both portray Hamlet’s true feelings toward Gertrude and Claudius, specifically his genuine anger for Gertrude’s lack of grief and for Claudius’s acts of murder. They also reveal Gertrude’s realization of her absence of guilt and respect. However, Hamlet’s feelings are expressed in different ways in the two scenes. In Mel’s scene, he seems to be very aggressive, both mentally and physically. In David’s scene, he appears to be actually crazy, but more with his words than through his actions. I enjoy David Tenant’s scene a little more, mostly because I thought he was really convincing in his role of playing a mad man.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that both scenes really did show his true emotions and contained similar messages. Like you, I also found the David Tennant version to be better. I thought it was fascinating the way he actually seemed to be mad, I thought it was very good acting. In addition, I believed the newer version captured the feeling of the play better than the older, dramatic version with Hamlet flinging his mother around more.
DeleteBoth scenes were very different in their portrayal of the extent of Hamlet's madness. In the Mel Gibson version, Hamlet seems very agitated and crazy: he even kisses his mother! In the David Tennant version, however, Hamlet is portrayed as being angry, but not as mad as he is in the Gibson one. Despite these differences, some similarities include the ghost's appearance, Hamlet's killing of Polonius, and his anger towards Gertrude for her relationship with Claudius. I personally liked the Tennant version better because it was more analogous to the book, especially since it did not take the creative liberty to suggest sexual relations between Hamlet and his mother. I believe that the main reason Gibson included the kiss between Hamlet and his mother was to draw in the interest of the audience about the potential Oedipus complex that might form, in turn dramatizing the movie and earning more money.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point you make about the kiss in Gibson's version. But aside from the audience appeal, I think the kiss actually helps enforce character development. As obscene as this action was, the action would force the audience to ask themselves why Gibson would put this here in the first place. What message is he trying to send about Gertrude? Whether it's for profit or the story, I think this particular part of the scene was interesting enough to stay in the film.
DeleteI think that the Mel Gibson scene focused more on getting to the audience, rather than explaining the plot; the director’s understanding toward how the scene should be acted was mainly based on the audience’s taste. As the two were created in different times, we can see how those two are really different. The props used, the clothing, and the relationship between Hamlet and his mother were all different in the two movies. In the Mel Gibson scene, Gertrude is seen weak, relating to the general image of women back then. In the David Tennant one, the way Gertrude talks with Hamlet is more like an equal relationship. I also think that David Tennant acted the character out better than Mel Gibson. The character Hamlet was not defined but formed by the audience’s interpretation.
ReplyDeleteThe Tennant and Gibson scenes both tried to escalate the tension felt in the scene, but I think Gibson might have overdone it a little. Gibson took more artistic liberties, seeming to take the perspective that Hamlet was kind of crazy and introducing oedipal elements between Hamlet and his mother, while Tennant's Hamlet was a little more conventional.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Gibson took it a little too far. The over-dramatization may have been used to further enhance the air of tension to the audience, while being a little bit less accurate.
DeleteMel Gibson's and Tennant's depiction of Hamlet is vastly different. While Gibson portrays Hamlet as an angsty person who is mad at everything, Tennant's depicts Hamlet as a person who has stopped caring about the world. Also, it's interesting how Gibson tried to build sexual tension between Hamlet and his mother, though I personally feel that it ruined the scene.
ReplyDeleteThe two movies had very different perspectives on Hamlet. I found Tennant's version more interesting to watch, and Hamlet's acting seemed to be more natural. In this version, Hamlet was portrayed as more of a crazy person, and captured the audience's attention more. I think he made this choice because it really displayed Hamlet's character. In Gibson's version, however, the dialogue and acting were a bit more calm. Personally, I think that his version tried to make Hamlet seem insane, but tried too hard in the wrong places. His choice to make Hamlet kiss his mother seemed out of place and not right.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between the two scenes was obviously the time periods they were set in. The Mel Gibson version had the same old feel as actual Hamlet, yet in my opinion, it fell short in actually following Shakespeare's script, as opposed to the more modern David Tennant version. Hamlet dramatic shouting was harder to follow in the older version, and didn't have the tone I would have expected. Not to mention, the awkward sexual feel of it and Hamlet kissing his mother were vastly different than the original play. The director's choice to add these strange parts and Hamlet's exuberant shouting were most likely to engage and shock the audience. These elements added to the viewer's overall take on the movie by creating different emotions stronger than ones they would have felt while watching the actual play. The David Tennant version also created a scene overly dramatic, but verbally instead of physically.
ReplyDeleteI agree! The kissing scene really shocks the audience causing them to be more engage.
DeleteI agree with you that the Mel Gibson version didn’t do as good of a job at following how Shakespeare intended the play to be performed. I also thought the way the lines were spoken distracted from what was actually happening in the play. On the other hand, the David Tennant version captured the emotions of the characters better. The tone of voice was exceptionally different in the two plays, but I thought that the David Tennant one portrayed the characters more realistically.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBetween these two versions of Hamlet, I prefer the David Tennant version. Mostly for the portrayal of the relationship between Gertrude and Hamlet, Tennant's version shows a less disturbing scene than Mel Gibson's version. Mel Gibson's version portrayed a relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude where Hamlet is very aggressive and intimidating. This was probably true of the time period, as females were inferior, and it was described that Gertrude was a very submissive and "weak" character. However, this was disturbing to see not just this rather sexual scene, but to see a mother-son relationship being potrayed where the mother is greatly intimidated by the son, and the son shows no respect in this scene. In the David Tennant version, however, their relationship was more gentle, even though Hamlet was still insane and forceful. With Tennant's version, the mother and son pair were more understanding and it was still relatively more relatable and realistic to modern-day standards, compared to the other version.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying about the Mel Gibson version being more aggressive, however I also think it gave more character to their relationship. In the David Tennant version he was still pretty rough with his mother, but I didn't feel like I understood their relationship as much.
DeleteI agree with what you have to say about Mel Gibson's version. Hamlet is portrayed completely different in his film, then in the book. However, I do think this aggressive and sexual relationship is used to explain the relationship between him, his mom, and his father's death, in a more straight forward manner.
DeleteI feel like both directors portrayed Hamlet, although differently, correctly. In the Mel Gibson version, the costumes and setting were completely accurate and paralleled with how I saw it in my head; it felt realistic, albeit more sexual and awkward at points. But I do have to admit, seeing Gertrude sipping on wine, smoking a cigarette and reading through the newspaper in Tennants version gave off a refreshing vibe that was somewhat more relatable since it's closer to our timer period. I would say that the acting in this one was a little more cheesier though. To simply conclude, I feel like someone would have to go out of their way to make the acting in Hamlet not work. There are many different styles to portray this play, but following the script allows the words to really speak for themselves. Both successfully gave the feel that I was looking for while reading Hamlet.
ReplyDeleteMel Gibson’s version seemed too confusing and sporadic. I don’t think it really portrayed how the actual scene was supposed to play out, and some aspects of it (notably the kissing scene) were completely unnecessary and even a bit disturbing to watch. I also really disliked the way it was filmed and even how the characters said their lines; it just seemed like too much and was difficult to follow.
ReplyDeleteI thought that David Tennant’s portrayal of Act 3 Scene 4 was much more accurate and that the actors were able to capture the emotions of the characters more authentically. It also better depicts the complexity of the relationship between Hamlet and his mother, as opposed to Mel Gibson’s scene, which just seemed overly sexual and not much else. Mel Gibson’s version also had this over-dramatized feel that wasn’t present as much in David Tennant’s adaptation. The fact that these two scenes are so varied shows how open Hamlet is to interpretation by the director and the reader alike.
I agree that Mel Gibson's version was over-dramatized. Hamlet was so crazy and insane as he was physically aggressive with his mother and screamed at her. I think that Gibson wanted to emphasize this to the audience and captivate them with this scene through this exaggeration. I liked how Tennant's version was more accurate to the book.
DeleteIn both scenes, Hamlet seems to be mad but the Hamlet madness in Mel Gibson's movie was more exaggerated. We see that Hamlet is really crazy and his awkward kiss with his mother just accentuates this. In Gibson's version, we see a very physical Hamlet yelling and screaming at his mother while Hamlet's words have more power in Tennant's version. These two versions had different ways of emphasizing Hamlet's insanity. I personally preferred Tennant's version because it was modern and that it was more true to book. It didn't add any sexual tensions between Hamlet and his mother and Hamlet was more convincing as a mad man.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about how they emphasized Hamlet's insanity because I feel like that's something that definitely needs to come across in this scene and both actors do a good job of portraying that insanity. I also prefer Tennant's version for the same reasons!
DeleteI agree that David Tennant's version was more realistic where as Mel Gibson's version came across as a little too overdramatic for me. The Mel Gibson version relied more on physicality vs the DT version which relied more on pent up emotions and Hamlet's psychological trauma.
DeleteI think the Mel Gibson scene was overly dramatic, but it was necessary to have that Hollywood feel to it. The sexual scenes with Hamlet and his mom caught me a bit off guard. The difference between Gibson's and Tennant's was the time period in which they took place in. Although in different ways, I think they both had strengths in interpreting Hamlet.
ReplyDeleteAside from the different time periods set in the two scenes, both Mel Gibson and David Tennant were successful in portraying Hamlet's disgust and rage at Gertrude and her relationship with Claudius along with his subtle madness. Personally, I think the David Tennant scene had a more accurate representation of Hamlet's madness because it was less sexualized and focused more on his emotions through his lines. As for the Mel Gibson scene, Hamlet's rage was definitely portrayed through all the yelling but the sexualized scene with his mother gave an awkward feel to it and brought the attention away from Hamlet's emotions. I think the director added this scene in order to shock the audience and really show Hamlet's insanity.
ReplyDeleteI think the main difference between the scene with Mel Gibson and the scene with David Tennant is the way in which both actors behave towards Gertrude. Mel Gibson acts in a way that makes Gertrude fear for her physical safety where as David Tennant hurts Gertrude more emotionally. One thing that I found to be similar between both scenes was the fact that there seemed to be an undertone of sexual tension and I think it's because of the context of the story. Due to Claudius and Gertrude's relationship, the directors may have felt it necessary to make Gertrude and Hamlet's argument somewhat sexual as well. However, another reason that the directors could have made the sexual tension obvious is to portray the depths of Hamlet's insanity and how confused and lost he has become.
ReplyDeleteI agree, both strike different feelings to the person watching the film either appealing to them physically or emotionally. They were both fantastic actors, just interpreted differently in the eyes of the director.
DeleteI believe David Tennant more accurately portrays the scene between Hamlet and Gertrude. Mel Gibson's version was overly physical and hinted at sexual frustrations that may or may not have existed between Hamlet and Gertrude. Tennant captured the more realistic image of the confrontation in that he guilt trips Gertrude. Hamlet says that he "will speak daggers to her but use none," and Tennant more accurately acts this statement. Gibson takes things slightly far, and it is debatable whether Gibson actually uses a dagger in the exchange.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Tennant's version of the scene, was more true to the play since it was not as over the top. I did not notice the dagger in the scene, but it is good to know.
DeleteI agree that they took it too far with Mel Gibson's version. The confrontation was exaggerated and had too much shouting and crying. David Tennant was better acting insane because of the intensity of his speech. I also agree that Mel Gibson was overly physical. David Tennant did a better job telling Gertrude off without being too violent.
DeleteI agree that Mel Gibson's version was overly sexualized and the fact that Hamlet and Gertrude is a mother-son relationship makes it worse.
DeleteI think that the Mel Gibson version, although much more extreme in certain clips, provided the best representation of Hamlet and his mother, Gertrude. Right off the bat, you see Gertrude's sense of inferiority. Seeing her weak expressions made in reaction to Hamlet's bursts made me cringe. This initial reaction sets the tone right away. Compared to Tennant's, Gertrude was more flamboyant, not showing any weakness at first impression. As the two converse back and forth, you can see Gertrude successfully highlights the character from the text in Gibson's version. Her reactions, like her kiss with Hamlet, though excessive, clearly shows how weak she is. This bold action of incest continues to support the rolling image Gertrude portrays in the play.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Gertrude is portrayed as weaker in the Mel Gibson version! She is kind of like a whimpering dog being beaten by her owner, rather than a queen confronting her son. Tennant's Gertrude barked at Hamlet and stood up for herself when she demands "Have you forgotten who I am." Gibson's version thus does a better job of portraying the weak side of Gertrude's character.
DeleteI think that the version with David Tennant was more accurate as you could really sense Getrude's fear and Hamlet's descent into insanity. I think I imagined Hamlet to sound more like how David Tennant did rather than the way Mel Gibson portrayed him. In the DT version, Hamlet relies more on psychologically hurting Getrude whereas in the first one, Getrude fears for her life when she is held at sword's point. Also, there is no reference to incest between Hamlet and Getrude in the book, which is seen in the Mel Gibson version. I definitely prefer the DT version as it was more realistic with a modern twist.
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson version seemed more visually authentic to the time period, but I found it a bit dramatic and over-rehearsed. The David Tennant one seems more compelling in terms of portraying Hamlet's insanity and Gertrude's fear. I also prefer the David Tennant one because it seemed more realistic with a nice modern touch to it. I like how in the David Tennant one, Hamlet shoots Polonius with a gun.
ReplyDeleteI feel that there are multiple similarities between the Mel Gibson and the version with David Tennant. To start I feel like that Hamlet was shown as someone who is going crazy, but in Gibson's version he was acting over the top and there were some sexual frustrations shown between him and his mother, Gertrude in this scene. Which was not as apparent in the book. In addition I feel that the Tennant version of that scene was more accurate to the play, Hamlet. It felt like it was more true to the story by Gertrude's reaction and how Hamlet was not acting so over the top dramatic. Overall, I did like the Mel Gibson's version more, since it was more entertaining.
ReplyDeleteI think the directors executed the scene in different ways partly because the play itself is based on ambiguity. A large part of the intrigue behind the play is in the uncertainty of every scene: Is Hamlet mad? Is the ghost of Old Hamlet and demon or a true ghost? and so on. I think the Mel Gibson version seemed to imply that he was more angry at his mother, but not crazy. In my opinion, even though Hamlet was yelling and screaming at his mother, he seemed to be of the right mind, finally expressing his rage and frustration at her marriage to his father's brother and murderer. The only crazy act that I really saw in his version was the kiss with his mother which may have been a result of not thinking straight from all his rage. On the other hand, the David Tennant version seemed to explore the possibility that Hamlet was truly crazy. Hamlet has more than enough reasons to be furious at his mother while alone in her closet, but instead seems to be surprisingly docile and composed. He talks in whisper-y and slow tones, especially when he sees the ghost. This, to me, is more of a sign of his decline into madness because he does not follow the rational path of rage, and instead seems to be very in his head, and calmly detached from his very human emotions.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference between the two versions was the portrayal of Gertrude. The Gertrude in the Mel Gibson version was very docile and weak, but the one in the David Tennant version seemed more empowered and confident. I think the reason behind this difference in character is the time periods that these shows were filmed in. As a more recent movie, Queen Gertrude in the David Tennant version seems to defy gender stereotypes and move slightly away from the characterization of Gertrude as frail in Hamlet, while the other Queen Gertrude seems to confirm them.
It seems like the directors overdid the potrayal in Mel Gibson's version. The emotion in this version seemed very forced. The actors tried too much to be angry and passionate and they made it sound like excruciating pain. There was also too much crying in this version. The scene with Gertrude and Hamlet kissing was disturbing, but it does represent the popular interpretation about the Oedipus complex.
ReplyDeleteThe David Tennant version was more spot-on. The point of Hamlet confronting his mother was that he would chastise her instead of attack her and Mel Gibson was too physically aggressive in this scene. David Tennant also portrayed the madness better. Mel Gibson was mainly sobbing but David Tennant was actually running around insane and had a crazy look in his eyes.
I was very much interested with how the dynamics of power shifted in the David Tenant scene. Hamlet starts out by feigning madness and allows Gertrude to be stern and take control of the scene. But slowly his words turn to daggers and become backed by the true anger within him; he starts speaking with conviction, losing the guise of madness and the power shifts into his hands. Then suddenly the clock strikes 12 and Hamlet hits the floor, anxiously awaiting the consequences from the Ghost. Power shifts into the hands of Old Hamlet until he ends up leaving the scene. The Mel Gibson scene was less interesting in that there was less conflict between Hamlet and Gertrude. There was no power struggle; Gertrude never stood up for herself and young Hamlet was overdramatic in his rage. I thought the sexual undertone was perhaps more representative of the time (which is why the director made that choice), but nonetheless weird.
ReplyDeleteI love the direction you took with your analysis. It is a fresh and interesting way to look at the scene. I wonder if this concept can be applied to other dramatic scenes in the play. This also would make for a good essay topic!
DeleteDamn I also love how you analyzed the movie, I never thought of it that way and it makes a lot of sense. You turned a scene into art.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson scene was obviously set at a different time than the David Tennant scene and was filmed during a different year-- Gibson’s production was filmed in the 90’s while Tennant’s was filmed in the late 2000’s. Tennant’s had a more modern feel: Gertrude is shown taking off a wig, she smokes, Hamlet uses a pistol instead of a sword, and all the characters wear modern clothing. Tennant probably decided to take a modern approach to Hamlet so that the audience could better connect with and understand the play. Both productions stuck to the lines pretty closely, although the Tennant version skipped fewer lines than the Gibson version. I liked the Tennant version better because of the acting skills of the characters. Hamlet looked truly insane and furious, and his rapidfire speech was really convincing. It also had a much shorter kiss scene, which was nice. LOL. I’ve read in some analyses that the reason why productions of Hamlet even have kiss scenes between Hamlet and Gertrude is to play upon their underlying incestuous relationship. Apparently, there is a peculiar sexual tension between the two that is present throughout the play.
I agree with making the movie modern, it is shown in the clothing and the words. It does help the audience better understand the play and what is happening in it.
DeleteI think the director of the David Tennant version chose to make a modern adaption so that viewers could connect more with the story and characters. Many people are distracted or do not care and pay attention to things when they seem far from their real lives. By adapting Hamlet to a modern day setting, the audience can better feel the connection with the characters that Shakespeare intended for the viewers. In the Charlie Rose video, one of the scholars explained that there is much more to Hamlet than his obsession with his mother. I think that Tennant was better able to convey this while the director of the Mel Gibson version chose to focus more on Hamlet's relationship with Gertrude, which kind of took away from the true story for me. In the end, I preferred Tennant's version because he was able to utilise the set by moving around it dynamically and by expressing madness along with weakness.
ReplyDeleteI think they did what they did because in the movie you have a visual. People know what the scene looks like therefore, they can change a few things from the text because the audience will understand what is happening. In addition, a modern approach to Hamlet, will allow the audience members to better understand the play, they will understand who the character are and what they are saying. In addition, the words are also changed to help for this same reason. Overall, the book and the movie are different, but at the same time they are targeted toward different people. Therefore, it is a good idea to keep the book and the movie the way they are.
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson and the David Tennant versions of the scene differ in one of the most important areas of the play: the answer to the question why Hamlet is acting the way he does. Is he mad, or is this just an act to confuse everyone? The Mel Gibson version comes up with a different explanation altogether. The scene strongly shows through Hamlet's supposed Oedipus complex as it mimics the act of sex between Hamlet and his mother. David Tennant's Hamlet seems more insane, with him barefoot running around, lying on the ground, and crouching like a monkey. Since the reasons behind Hamlet's actions differed in the movies, it is hard to say that one version is more authentic than the other. The interpretations of Hamlet's insanity depends on the reader or in the movies' cases, the director. What we as readers think might differ from the movies too, and that is fine because we don't all see things in the same light.
ReplyDeleteI found it really interesting how the scene can feel drastically different with the different interpretations. In the David Tennant version, the director took Shakespeare to a more modern era. The phone rang and interrupted them and they were looking at pictures of the husbands in the newspaper. I also thought the ways the ghost was portrayed in the two films changed the feel. In the David Tennant movie the camera angle changed frequently to show how the scene looked to both Hamlet and Gertrude. I thought this was cool at first, but than it became a bit distracting as it continued.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I found the two versions similar yet drastically different at the same time. It seems like the key points of the play were kept intact, like Hamlet going to Gertrude's room, Hamlet killing Polonius, and Hamlet seeing the ghost again, but the feel of the two were just different because of the setting and props used in the play. The phone, in addition to the gun and newspaper, was a surprise to me since I wasn't expecting such modern equipment in a play of Hamlet.
DeleteThe two versions were definitely very different. Each of the version's settings were different. One was set more in the medieval age (which I personally think is more accurate) while the other was set in a more modern age with newspapers and more fancy clothing and weaponry. For instance, the more modern version had guns instead of swords, a large departure, in my opinion, of the setting used for the actual play. I think the David Tennant version was modernized in order to associate itself with the modern times to relate to the audience. In my opinion, this wasn't a good choice since it kind of ruins the original feel of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Mel Gibson was the one I liked better, despite having discrepancies of its own, at least the setting looked more accurate. Gibson, unlike Tennant, may not have been aiming to modernize the play but rather wanted to set it in a more traditional view of the play.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the David Tennant version was more modern than the original text, it was more analogous to the actual scene than the Mel Gibson version. In the Mel Gibson version, the director chose to keep the set Elizabethan, and chose to create a weird sexual tension between Hamlet and his mother. I think he did this to make the scene more dramatic, and represent incest within the family. However, I think this choice took away from the true connection between Hamlet his mother in his crazed state. The Tennant version was in a more modern setting; Polonius is killed with a gun not a sword, they are in a modern hotel room, etc. Shakespeare’s intentions seem more clear in the Tennant scene. I think the director chose to modernize the scene to make it seem more real and relatable to the viewer.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. I think the director made it over sexualized to emphasize the incestuous relationship the entire family is rooted in.
DeleteI think that David Tennant's version was a modern take of Hamlet since it had more of a modern setting and used modern technology, such as the gun. But in the Mel Gibson version, he kept Hamlet at the same setting. They both had the same script but the portrayal between Hamlet and Gertrude had different takes. The acting was very dramatic and both scenes had different emotional views. I personally liked the Mel Gibson version better because the setting was during the real Hamlet and it helped me imagine the characters from the play while watching the movie. I felt more of an emotional impact in the Mel Gibson's version as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Mel Gibson version created a stronger connection to the audience. I think that the odd contrast between the modern day setting and original text for the other scene hindered the true effect it could have. Also, the Mel Gibson scene did a better job with showing the development of Hamlet, rather than portraying him as going crazy the entire time.
DeleteThe Mel Gibson scene is very unique in its own way. Its very dramatic and sexual which was shocking, considering i don't see how it adds much to to the scene. David Tennant Focused more on the dialog instead of the acting. Some obvious contrasts such as using a gun instead of a sword really shows the different time period. His madness was pretty well displayed throughout the act, proving that the ghost is satan instead of his father :)
ReplyDeleteI find it intriguing that you believe that the Ghost is a representation of Satan. While his madness was evident throughout the Act, I don't think that the Ghost is Satan. In my opinion, it's merely the manifestation of Hamlet's inner thoughts. Hamlet himself mirrors the persona of the Ghost.
DeleteAlthough the two portrayals of Act 3 Scene 4 both use the same text from the original play, the deeper meanings are quite different. First, let's take a look at the older interpretation with Mel Gibson. The cinematography is clearly more traditional than the new-age Hamlet. If we take a look at the color tones, we can see that the colors are relatively warmer while the color tones of the newer version are more dynamic, changing throughout the scene in order to match the emotions of the actors. Warmer colors are more associated with passion. This can be seen with Mel Gibson's VERY passionate acting (e.g. kissing Gertrude). The meticulous attention to detail underscores the desire to keep with the original play. On the other hand, the more modern version featuring David Tennant utilizes more cooler and darker colors in order to demonstrate more of the fear that Hamlet holds within himself. The Ghost is also portrayed as a more scary being in the modern adaptation of the film. Meanwhile, the ghost holds more of a fatherly figure in the traditional version.
ReplyDeleteI also saw that the Mel Gibson clip is a more traditional version to Hamlet, whereas David Tennant's clip is a more modern version of the play. I related to Mel Gibson's scene more easily than I did to that of David Tennant's because of this.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Mel Gibson's scene in Hamlet was rather extreme, very dramatic, and strong in imagery. I was shocked to watch the scene, especially the way it was portrayed. I personally preferred the Mel Gibson even though it wasn't perfect. he setting and staging was more accurate. The David Tennant version was far more modern and more passionate. The use of a gun made it more modern. Each director chose what they filmed as they wanted to convey a certain tone. One is more modern while the other more conservative.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that when you said you were shocked to see the scene that Mel Gibson made because I felt the same way. I like how you mentioned how the David Tennant version was more modern and the use of the gun made all the difference. I also agree with you when you say that each director chose the type of tone that they wanted to film the scene in
DeleteI found that the Mel Gibson scene and the David Tennant scene was very drastically different even though they were on the same part of Hamlet. Something I found kind of weird, as mentioned by a lot of people is the fact that Gertrude and Hamlet seem to be portrayed as having sexual tension in the Mel Gibson version and I found that to be very odd. It might have been because that is the way that they interpreted the scene. The David Tennant version was more dramatic and enunciated and I think they focused more on the content of what was said as compared to the actions that were being performed in the play. Overall, I found both scenes to be very interesting and unique in their own way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Eunice, I feel that there are really significant differences between the movie done by Mel Gibson and David Tennant. Each director had their unique differences as David Tennant was very modern using the gun, while Mel Gibson wasn't. I agree that there was a lot of sexual tension in the Mel Gibson version of the Hamlet movie.
DeleteI think the Mel Gibson scene was oversexualized..I think the majority of the reaction of our class was as if there was an incestuous relationship between Hamlet and his mother and I definitely don't think that was their intention. I think the acting created a sexual tension that wasn't supposed to be there. I think the Tennant scene was more relatable and relevant. It didn't feel like it was made to match such an old time, it as much more modern. I think both scenes were really interesting though.
ReplyDeleteI think both clips were both a too dramatic. When I first read the scene, I did not feel the same intensity as that illustrated in both clips. I think the David Tennant scene was oversexualized. I thought it was unrealistic because Polonius was killed with Hamlet's sword, not with a gun. In my opinion, the Mel Gibson clip was more realistic than the David Tennant scene.
ReplyDeleteI agree that both clips were overly dramatic. However, I think they purposely make it that way so the audience is more drawn into the content.
DeleteI definitely preferred the David Tennant scene, although the acting in the Mel Gibson clip was excellent. Both of them were incredibly dramatic, even though thats the point- but it was extremely excessive. I enjoyed watching the second one the most, mainly because there was more action and I liked the interpretation of the novel more.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I preferred the Mel Gibson scene over the David Tennant scene, I can definitely understand people's appreciation for it. I believe it's mainly due to the fact that it is similar to what we are used to watching as opposed to the overly dramatic acting in Mel Gibson's portrayal of Hamlet.
DeleteComparing the Mel Gibson scene with the David Tennant scene, there is one very obvious difference and that's the scene of Gertrude kissing Hamlet. This scene changed the entire feel of the film very quick because it made it even more uncomfortably incest-related. It also justified my original thought that Gertrude is very sexually oriented. The David Tennant scene did not capture that feeling as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I feel as if the director tried to capture Hamlet and appeal to others on an emotional level, while the other appealed to others on a more physical level. I can see where both sides are coming from, but I thought the incest made the scene very hard to watch as well.
DeleteI agree. The sexual tensions of the scene really altered my perception of the scene. Although i did not think that Gertrude was very sexually oriented at first, after watching the Mel Gibson adaptation, I am more inclined to think so.
DeleteI agree with you I felt that Gertrude kissing Hamlet was very unnecessary. I also felt it made it very uncomfortable and incest related.
DeleteI agree that the scene of Gertrude kissing Hamlet changed the feeling of the film very quickly, and that it also showed that Gertrude is very sexually oriented as can be inferred from the original play as well.
DeleteEven though Mel Gibson scene and David Tennant scene are in the same section of Hamlet,They were both interpreted very differently by the director. While both being excellent actors, I preferred the David Tennant scene as it is based in a more modern time and the while the Mel Gibson scene was also very well written, there was too much sexual tension among the characters making it uncomfortable to watch
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Jeff, the Mel Gibson version was weird because of the sexual tension between the characters. The David Tennant version was better because of the acting and there wasn't anything sexual about it. It was also better because they were able to modernize Hamlet and make it enjoyable to watch.
DeleteWhile based off the same play, both versions deviate a bit from Shakespeare's, Hamlet, due to the influence of the plays' respective directors. The adaptation, featuring Mel Gibson, was set in the renaissance era, which made if seem more like a Shakespearean play. The sexual scene with Gertrude, however, was a huge curve ball. I feel like the inclusion of the serialization of the scene altered the impression we had on the characters. In the adaptation featuring David Tennant, the story is set in modern day. This gave the feeling that I wasn't really watch Hamlet, but a movie based off the storyline of Hamlet. It, however, gave an adaptation of Hamlet that we could more easily relate to, which is why I think the director of the David Tennant adaptation did so.
ReplyDeleteI found the two scenes to be very different from each other due to different interpretations. David Tennant's version of Hamlet it feels more modern have modern day items. I feel like its not that great because Hamlet should be taking place in a different area. Mel Gibson's scene was better because it captures the time period of the play.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Mel Gibson's scene was better because the film was closer to the original Hamlet. I enjoyed Gibson's movie over Tennant's.
DeleteTo compare the 1990 and 2009 versions of Hamlet one has to compare the content and acting rather than the setting and script because the 2009 version was very modernized. I liked and disliked both of them for different reasons. First, I liked the 1990 version because for the most part it was exactly how I imagined it would be while reading it. One thing I disliked however was the over-sexualization of act 3 scene 4. The sexual tension did not come across in the text and it made the scene a bit confusing. For the 2009 version, I liked how they attempted to modernize the play so the audience might be able to relate to it more. I did not like how over-dramatic David Tennant was being and he could have gotten the point across while being a bit more mellow.
ReplyDeleteBoth of the movies had a very different interpretation of the scene in Hamlet. Although both portrayed the scene, I found that that David Tennant’s modern version of the scene was better and more enjoyable to watch over Mel Gibson’s more “realistic” perspective. One of the biggest problems that I thought existed with Mel Gibson’s version was the incestuous kiss between Hamlet and Gertrude. The kiss seemed to try too hard to be fringe and offbeat, changing the play in a way that did not need to be altered. However I did enjoy Tennant’s version because the modern flair was interesting, with the use of a gun and a modern room to make it identify more with the masses.
ReplyDeleteBoth movies had decent portrayals of the scene selected from Hamlet, but I thought that David Tennat had a better show of how Hamlet, in his insanity, interacts with his mother and ends up killing Polonius. While it was modernized and did possess some elements that were a little off from the book, it definitely had a similar impact to that which we got from the book. Mel Gibson also did a good job on portraying Hamlet, but I felt that Gibson's Hamlet was a little too insane. The book did not portray him as being sexually inclined towards his mother during their interaction. This addition caused the scene to lose its impact and thus made it less interesting in comparison to David Tennat's scene.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Mel Gibson' version was a bit too insane. Perhaps the added sexuality was added to make the movie more interesting and twisted at the same time. However, I think that the David Tennant version was more accurate to the original play.
DeleteIn my opinion, I liked the David Tennant's modern take of Hamlet better than Mel Gibson's version, although Gibson's had more of the old, Shakespeare style feel to it. Gibson's Hamlet was much more relatable, but the huge sexual plot twist was a big deviation for most of us, making us feel semi disturbed after reading the play, which hadn't gone that way. As stated for other scenes we have watched, this sexual twist in movies are used to appeal to audience instead of portray what was written in the play. Tennant's version was overall much more relatable in a way that it was modern and there was less deviation from the text.
ReplyDeleteYeah I really can agree with you with the overuse of sexuality in the film in order to appeal to the wide audience and grab every viewer's attention. And I definitely am right with you there with how you felt Gibson's version was disturbing and quite twisted.
DeleteI agreed with many others with their reflections of Mel Gibson's take on the scene of Hamlet. I felt it was quite overdrawn and creepy nevertheless. I think that the director really wanted to express the tension of the scene and slap the irony of incest in the viewers faces. I felt it was unnecessary and uncomfortable. On the other hand, David Tennant's modern take of Hamlet was quite interesting and a contrast compared to the older take. The differences are quite amusing as we see Hamlet killing Polonius with a gun, rather than stabbing him. I would say the differences are what makes Tennant's take more relatable and interesting. I also noticed that in Tennant's take, Gertrude was smoking a cigarette, which is quite symbolic. Smoking cigarettes most commonly took place after sex in older films, so I thought that was interesting that Tennant subtly added that in.
ReplyDeleteEven though both films had (mostly) the same dialogue and were from the same play, the directors had very different interpretations from each other and from the actual play. I thought that Mel Gibson's was way more dramatic, and the actions were kind of disturbing (Gertrude kissing Hamlet). The actor captured the personality of Gertrude well, but I thought that some parts were unnecessary. Both scenes were very dramatic and unique and helped us to understand the scene better. It was also nice how they both acted out the scene in a more modern way.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing movies, anyone can tell that Mel Gibson's movie is much older, as it contained swords and seemed medieval. David Tennant's was more modern, as there was a drastic change in differences, such as using a pistol instead of a sword. They were both made in different time periods, and I think the change is fine since it would help people of any movie's generation to understand Hamlet better. It would also help create an interest in a generation if common items were used, such as in the future, there may be a remake of Hamlet again but probably with modern items from the future, whatever it could be. Everyone has a different opinion and view of the world, so it's not exactly surprising that both scenes are different with the same dialog, since there were no directions or comments on how to perform the play. I thought that both bed scenes with Gertrude were intense, but David Tennant's was probably more intense because Hamlet is on the floor going crazy, seeing his father, and usually when people are on the floor on their hands and knees it creates a bigger effect and holds more symbolism. Overall, I think that both were fine and directors can do what they interpret as long as they don't butcher the movie.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between both films is that Mel Gibson's movie fits with Hamlet era while Tennant's movie was more modern. Gibson's movie was better and I enjoyed watching it because the film was closer to the original Hamlet with Hamlet using a rapier instead of a gun to kill Polonius.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Mel Gibson scene was too dramatic. I was surprised at how sexual it was. It was way too emotional and kind of twisted the meaning of the scene in a way. The David Tennant scene was more suited for the scene because it did not include unnecessary, or sexual actions. The message was direct, and therefore easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. Not only was that mel Gibson scene too overly dramatic, It was also unnecessary. David's interpretation was much more simple and clean. (As in uncluttered with unnecessary scenes)
DeleteIn both of the scenes, Hamlet looked as if he was angry, but in the film, it seemed as if he exaggerated it a bit more. The film had an extreme perspective on the play as almost all of the characters were exaggerating their emotions and feelings. The Mel Gibson scene was very different as it was more sexual as well which threw me off for a little bit as well. The Tennant version was a little bit more normal and could easily represent the play as well because it was straight to the point. On the other hand, the Gibson scene could confuse the audience through interpretation of the scene because of the sexual content that it displayed.
ReplyDeleteThe film portrayed a very dramatic version of the scene where Hamlet mercilessly killed the hiding Polonius, and his emotion toward his mother and his father (having come to remind him of his duties). The Gibson version seemed a bit irrational with the sexual innuendos, and the Tennant one was more pragmatic and depicted better the scene in general.
ReplyDeleteI found both Mel G. and David T. films to be very interesting and different. Although they were both on the same exact scene in Hamlet, Act 3 scene 4. it came across very different. I thought Mel G's was made in a more traditional way in comparison to David's. I also thought Mel's interpretation was a lot more sexual. Seeing that Hamlet kissed his mother in the film.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Both Mel's and David's film tell the same scene from hamlet, they have extremely different interpretation of that scene.
ReplyDeleteI found Mel Gibsons film to be very interesting as well as disturbing. (Although I did like more realistic old fashion setting with suits of armor. Opposed to David's more modern/ less realistic setting) In particular, the scene where, Gertrude kissing Hamlet shocked me. It made me very uncomfortable. I'm not sure if Mel intended for the viewer to feel this way or if it was unintentional That part was clearly unnecessary and did not add to the story. Meanwhile David's interpretation to scene 3 act 4 was much more concise. Using a gun rather than a sword was interesting. But I think A sword should have shown instead. it could portray hamlet's lunacy by having him madly stabbing Polonius. Plus stabbing someone with as sword is more powerful action and intentional decision. Meanwhile shooting someone is something that is done instantly.
The most interesting contrast to me for both versions of the scenes was with respect to the costuming and set designs. I was caught off guard by Tennant version because of how modern the set was made to be, which created a clash with the highly traditional form of speech used. I felt as though the Tennant version took great risks in defining characters and their relationships by reading between the lines and including scenes like the kissing between Gertrude and Hamlet, and the over the top enthusiasm of Hamlet's friends. On the other hand, the Mel Gibson version remained true to its period. In fact, I preferred this version better because instead of portraying Hamlet as a one-dimensional person gone insane at all times, Hamlet was instead seen as very normal but having periodic breakdowns, allowing us to see his character develop and connect to him more.
ReplyDeleteI like how you commented on the costume and set designs because the modernness of the Tennant version did catch me off guard. The Gibson version also included kissing, which was different from how I visualized the scene when reading the play. I'm glad you enjoyed the Mel Gibson; however, I can't decide which version I like better.
DeleteI think the Mel Gibson scene was overly sexual and dramatic, but it was necessary because it appeals to the audience more. The main difference between Gibson's and Tennant's version was the time period the scene take place in. Both had very interesting similarities and differences.
ReplyDeleteAbsent work
DeleteI agree with you Kenneth on the opinion that the sexuality and dramas can appeal to the audience more effectively. Although the time period was the only noticeable difference, I think it had so many effects on our perspectives on viewing those films.
I also agree. The direction Mel Gibson takes Hamlet is parallel with emerging sexual themes in modern Hollywood hits, making the dense story line more marketable to the common audience.
DeleteI think in Tennant's version the director definitely made more of an effort to make Hamlet seem insane, especially in "seeing his father". There were a lot of violet almost scary physical moments of Hamlet almost abusing Gertrude but in a way that still exuded love for his father as wells as passion and frustration towards the mess of the situation. Overall Hamlet seems very hotheaded and just very frightening in general. In Gibson's version I think Hamlet is not calm but defiantly more in control of the situation. He commands attention both from Gertrude and the audience in a way that shows power and control, rather than the loss of control like in Tennant's version. I feel like the 2 scenes are different interpretations on Hamlet's state and perhaps even the whole explanation of the story. Tennant's version i think pushed the envelope really well in a lot of ways and is defiantly the more "thriller" of the two.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Mel Gibson version is overly dramatic, and that takes away from the meaning in the script. All of the actions are too emphatic and sexual, which distracts the audience from the words. The David Tennant version, on the other hand, is not a dramatic, but is careful to retain important parts of the plot, such as the fact that Hamlet is not actually mad and is merely pretending.
ReplyDeleteAbsent work
ReplyDeleteI personally like the actor David Tennant, and I could not have liked the movie film anymore. I like how they decided to change a sword into a gun, obviously making the movie way more modern. Tennant portrayed Hamlet's madness very well that I felt bad for Gertrude in the movie rather than Laertes. Mel Gibson showed Hamlet's craziness as well, but I the old background setups were not my favorite although Hamlet the novel itself is old. I think they both helped me so much on imagining Hamlet's madness.
While the Gibson interpretation uses disturbing sexuality and over emphasized dramatic reaction to clearly project singular ideas, the David Tennant version largely sticks with the plot while subtly suggesting universal themes and lessons throughout the play. The Gibson version is definitely more palatable to an impatient audience who is more intent upon the plot than upon the finer intellectual subtleties of Hamlet.
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson version wasn't very interesting. The acting was okay but didn't really grab my attention. Also it just seemed a little off meaning that it wasn't really sticking with the actual scene. It was also extremely over dramatic which made me not want to watch it. The David Tennant version was a lot better. It had better acting, and was true to the plot except for the fact that it was a modern take on Hamlet. However, David Tennant was able to make us believe that Hamlet was crazy whereas Mel Gibson's Hamlet didn't seem crazy at all and more serious instead. Not sure why the directors would change the original plot but David Tennant version did a good job at doing so.
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson version was more old-fashioned compared to the David Tennant version. In the Mel Gibson version, the background and costumes were symbolic of the middle ages. On the other hand, the David Tennant version adapted the costumes and background to appeal to a modern audience. For example, Hamlet had a bowtie hanging around his dress shirt. In the David Tennant version, Hamlet also uses a gun to kill Polonius, which I found quite interesting/unexpected. I found it funny in the Tennant version that Hamlet pointed to newspapers when comparing Old Hamlet to Claudius, which again makes the movie more modern. Overall, I think the Gibson version was more violent and dramatic than then Tennant version. The Tennant version portrayed Hamlet as composed and controlled, and even satirical at the beginning. Both films brought an important scene in Hamlet to life, which helped me better understand the depth of hardship Hamlet has to face dealing with his mother. When I was reading the play, Polonius' death seemed like a big deal to me. However, Hamlet in both versions of the movie seemed to care little about Polonius' death and focused more on confronting Gertrude.
ReplyDeleteThe difference with how Hamlet interacts with his mother in the scene through each film is very different. The Mel Gibson scene was of course, very dramatic and sexualized. I believe that makes the scene a lot more captivating and important. The scene is much more highlighted because of this than the David Tennant film. Instead of changing the meaning of the scene, it actually really shows the anger and frustration Hamlet has against his mother. Although it was odd, it really demonstrates Hamlet’s character. I think the Tennant film was just a simple representation of the scene in the book that fairly shows what happened according to text. It is a well-done scene, and the costumes are really interesting. The costumes modernized the play a little and added to the scene with the luxury of the mother’s clothing. I think Gibson believed the sexual material really would bring out Hamlet’s resentment against women, and Tennant believed in the right setting and right costume, the true character would show from both Hamlet and his mother.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the two scenes, although very stark, are both good portrayals of the source material. The David Tenant scene was fairly vanilla in comparison to the Mel Gibson scene, following the play fairly closely. However, I feel the Mel Gibson scene was more of a stretch, portraying an almost incestuous relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude. Although Mel Gibson was in the more traditional garb and Tenant in more modern clothing, I felt as if the Tenant version followed the source closer, although they still both did a very good job.
ReplyDelete