Pick one of the following 2 prompts
1. 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.
2. Write a reaction to the two different versions of Act 3 (any one of the scenes or all of them). Once you write your response, check out what other people have said and reply to at least one other post.
1) The Mel Gibson version's scene with Hamlet and his mother was hella wack, the David Tennant one less wack but still lowkey wack. I like how the David Tennant one used a gun for the modern interpretation, its as effective as stabbing through the tapestry with a knife.
ReplyDeleteYes, I wrote the same. I thought the directors were trying to portray the incestuous theme in the more wack one, while in the less wack one, the directors were trying to showcase Gertrude's change as an incestuous queen to Hamlet's mother.
DeleteYes I feel like Mel Gibson wanted it to make it as wack as possible to display how far gone Hamlet was. Contrasting with the David Tennant scene where it seems that Hamlet is a lot more calm and bursts up in emotion in periods.
Delete-Rahul Ravi
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI definitely agree with Walter. That was wack. The gun is def a good move, although tbh the mirror would have completely shattered not just cracked if you ask me.
Delete-Greg Gontier
Yeah, I agree on how the David tennant version uses more modern interpretations like the gun. I also feel as though that it was wack as well.
DeleteYeah i agree with Walter because both directors are trying to include their own interpretation on what Hamlet might be going through
DeleteI thought it was mega wack too my dude, the tennant version was lesser wack since the actor playing hamlet really made it seem like hamlet's a psycho tweaker.
DeleteTommy
I agree that Gibson's version was mega wack compared to Tennant's, although I feel like the sword Hamlet uses to kill Polonius in Gibson's version is more believable than a gun in Tennant's.
Delete1. I forgot like the name of which version, but one of the version where Hamlet and Gertrude were being more intimate and made love on the bed had a very different view on their relationship. I think they make it that way to portray the incestuous theme of the play. In the other version, it was more low key where the mother and son were very angry and there was not really any signs of incest. I think the directors did this because they want to portray Gertrude's change as a person from the incestuous queen to Hamlet's mother.
ReplyDeleteI agree! The Mel Gibson scene is much more civilized when he is talking to his mother unlike the David Tennant which uses incest to show their intimate relationship. Both, however, were able to show their goal that Hamlet convinced his mother.
Delete1. The Tennant version focused on the madness within hamlet himself by isolating him to be the only one acting out far more than the others. In the Mel Gibson version, both the king and queen act out in hysteria due to Hamlet's play whereas the Tennant version has only the actors and Hamlet acting out of order.
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson version is an attempt at an accurate portrayal of the work where it shows a dichotomy of intelligence and madness in Hamlet and the Tennant version is an attempt at an recreation.
Tommy Kim
I agree with Tommy that David Tennant isolates the change in disposition from docile to disturbed to Hamlet. Claudius quite calmly walks away from the play and discretely shakes his head at Hamlet. In the Gibson version, Claudius looks like he's having a stroke.
DeleteI agree with Tommy that the Mel Gibson version shows a different portrayal while the Tennant version is a recreation. Even by the clothing that the characters wear, you can see that the Tennant version is more in the time frame while the Mel Gibson version is more modern. I also liked your ideas about Hamlet’s madness in both versions!
DeleteI think the Mel Gibson scene was made because the director wanted to show how Gertrude was not only a lustful woman but didn't find solace in marrying her husband's brother but sexually advancing her own son. He is the closest person she can get that will resemble her own husband. It also brings a new dynamic in the Mother-son relationship showcasing a oedipal complex.The David Tenant scene was to show how far gone Hamlet is by showing how physically abusive he becomes towards his mother; showing the insanity of Hamlet.
ReplyDelete-Rahul Ravi
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI have to agree with the points listed out about the Mel Gibson version but not the David Tennant version. In the David Tennant version, I believe that what is being showcased is the characters' faults. They are realizing who they truly are, represented by the mirrors. The mirrors are a symbol of looking for the blemishes we have and trying to correct them.
DeleteWow Rahul. I gotta say im honestly blown back. I agree with you on all points. I felt that the director was trying to portray his mother as lusty while the David Tenant scene focused more on Hamlet's insanity. I also can't help but notice you mentioned the oedipal complex,which is pretty intelligent of you. amazing moves my dude. Gang <3
DeleteI would have to disagree there. Although Mel Gibson's interpretation is of entirely based the Oedipal complex, it is rather unfaithful to the original play as it completely changed Hamlet's intention for saving his mother from Claudius. Hamlet himself isn't really attracted to his mother in a romantic way, rather he genuinely wants to save his mother from his sinful Uncle.
DeleteBoth scenes are based on the same acts from the same scene; however, they use very different tactics to accomplish this goal. Both scenes also utilize basics from Hamlet’s era. They only use Hamlet’s quotes and the queen in both the plays are men wearing drag.
ReplyDeleteDavid Tennant is a more modern spin on Hamlet. instead of wearing traditional clothes, they are wearing suits, and David Tennant uses a camera to record his uncle’s face. At the same time, David Tennant’s take on the scene mixes lines from a variety of scenes rather than sticking to the exact order Shakespeare wrote the dialogue.
The Mel Gibson scene stays more traditional. Although in both scenes Claudius has a dramatic exit when he realizes the play is about him, Mel Gibson’s reaction is more emphasized with a dramatic exit in front of a crowded audience. The play is also much more civilized in Mel Gibson’s scene by sticking with the actual story. They accurately portray a king who is murdered by his brother who steals his life. In David Tennant’s scene, the play is more weird and crazy. The murderer isn’t fully clothed and uses unconventional ways to convince the queen to marry him.
I agree! The Mel Gibson version was much more surreal and exact in terms of what we imagine of what actually happened. Because the David Tennant version is modernized, it is hard to relate it to the book.
DeleteI thought it was interesting that Hamlet recorded his uncle in the David Tennant version because I felt that it was like he was trying to catch proof on tape to justify his actions later on.
DeleteIn the David Tennant version of Hamlet, the props and Character outfits are more modern overall. People wear suits and Hamlet dresses casually with a t-shirt and jeans. In the mel Gibson version of Hamlet, everyone is more refined and formal. They setting was also inside the castle, with different scenes in the castle chambers. During the Act 3 scene Claudius was more shocked and almost went crazy watching the play. Also Hamlet seems more angry toward his mother. He was also more aggressive and touchy toward his mother. His relationship with his mother was complicated.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you thought about formal versus informal. This also brings out how the crazy-ness of Hamlet and shows how different is he from everyone else. Like Hamlet is the only one that sees its crazy that no one is mourning his dad's death and finds it absurd that his mom moved with his mom. Great post!
DeleteI agree with Iris in the David Tennant version I believe that the way he was clothed really represents how he feels inside, which is confusion due to the fact that he is the only on morning his father's sudden death. As Iris also stated in the Mel Gibson version Hamlet is more formal and not as casually dressed as the Hamlet of the David Tennant version.
Delete- Faven Desta
2. I think the version where Hamlet has intercourse with his mother is very disturbing and unnecessary to put in to a play. I do like how in Act 3 Hamlet's play is acted out very well and he really gets Claudius triggered. I also like how Hamlet tells the Queen what Claudius did so now she has to act different ways in front of certain people so they don't get suspicious. It will be very intense for her
ReplyDelete-Azra Ferhatovic
Polonius death was acted out differently in both plays. In the David Tennant version he was shot the mirror and Polonius came out of the mirror and died instantly and in the Mel Gibson one Hamlet used his sword to kill Polonius. I think they made these choose because in the Mel Gibson it was like Medieval theme and they wanted to use swords and stuff like that. But in the David Tennant one I think they wanted to use guns since they wanted to bring this play into modern times for modern viewers and stuff like that.
ReplyDeletePrompt #1:
ReplyDeleteOne distinction that I noticed between the Mel Gibson and David Tennant versions of Hamlet was the interaction between Hamlet and the Ghost after the conflict with his mother. In the Mel Gibson version, the Ghost looms in the doorway, which scares Hamlet. In a fit of confusion, Hamlet forgets his mother's presence, to which the ghost orders Hamlet to look at his mom. Shortly after, it quickly disappears. In the David Tennant version, the Ghost play
s a much larger role. While his presence is longer, the Ghost also gets physically close to the Gertrude and Hamlet as he moves from the broken mirror to sitting beside Gertrude on the bed. The Ghost's closeness causes a much larger reaction from Hamlet which also causes more confusion on Gertrude's part. Also, in the David Tennant version, the Ghost doesn't appear as scary. While Hamlet's reaction is more or less the same, his father's Ghost not only behaves more like a three-dimensional character but it comes across as more gentle.
I agree, the ghost was more gentle when he comes close to Hamlet and Gertrude. The ghost didn't seem in any way evil, and isn't very demanding.
DeleteIn the Mel Gibson version of Act 3, it was filled with tension and angst. Everything was taken at a much darker approach, especially the scene between Hamlet and Gertrude. The Mel Gibson movie is also set in the classic medieval setting while David Tennant is a modern-dress stage production. The play in the David Tennant version is much more comical, very similar to a farce. I think the directors made the choices they did to highlight different themes of the play. In the Mel Gibson version, the directors used Hamlet's relationship with the people around him to push the story more, giving more character relationship development and background. In David Tennant version, the directors focused more on Hamlet himself, with his antics and his mad act.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I feel like the Mel version was going for character develops and their relationship with each other while the Tennant version was more focused on Hamlet himself. The Tennant version made Hamlet more crazy and mad as time passes but some of. The characters did not change or appear as much. The focus wasn’t on any of the other characters.
DeleteAct 3 from the David Tennant version is very different from the Mel Gibson version because of how modern it is. The David Tennant has electricity, guns, and cameras while the Mel Gibson is set in a ancient castle. Hamlet from the David Tennant version notices the several cameras that are placed throughout the castle and that is a factor that adds to his anxiety of being stalked. Also in this version Hamlet kills Polonius with a gun which obviously did not exist in the Elizabethan era. The Mel Gibson version is a lot more realistic. It takes place in what could have obviously been as what Shakespeare envisioned it to be. The Mel Gibson version uses candles as lamps while the David Tennant version has proper electric lamps.
ReplyDeleteKuhu Mathur (period 3)
I noticed this too. I think it's a very cool take on the much older version of Hamlet. It also very much resembles the old Romeo and Juliet to the modern Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DiCaprio.
DeleteI agree with you. The setting in these two different versions creates a great impact of how the characters act in these scenarios. The values of people in the modern era compared to the medieval times are drastically different which is portrayed in Hamlet's action against his mother. Also, the different path Hamlet could take to exact his revenge can differ under these settings.
DeleteI agree with Kuhu that the Mel Gibson version is more realistic than the David Tennant version because the Mel Gibson version is set in the late middle ages, which is same as the Shakespeare's version.
Delete1. David Tennant's interpretation of the scene was more modern than the Mel Gibson scene given the video recorder Hamlet uses to record Claudius and Gertrude's reactions to the scene. Hamlet also uses a gun in the David Tennant version instead of the sword in the Mel Gibson version. In addition, the confrontation scene between Hamlet and Gertrude in the Mel Gibson version was more "action-packed" and implied sexual content, while the other version was not as physical.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that David Tennant's version is more modern in terms of the setting, clothing, and props used. I also agree that the Mel Gibson version is more "action-packed", where the mood is more intense and tension grows rapidly between Gertrude and Hamlet.
DeleteI agree, David Tennant's version was a modern interpretation set in the modern era. He did not attempt to copy the aesthetics of the Shakespearean time period. Although the language stayed the same, it made the scenes more relatable to the modern audience.
Delete2. The Mel Gibson version captured an older setting that is likely to be the intended scene of Hamlet. Nonetheless, David Tennant still effectively portrays Hamlet in a unique but relatable fashion. In the David Tennant scene, Hamlet is scene interacting with cameras, breaking the fourth wall to display his inner emotions. Many times, Hamlet directly faces the audience.
ReplyDeleteReally nice interpretation of this. I really like that they broke through the fourth wall, as this shows very deep understanding of the play.
Delete1. The David Tennant version has a more modern interpretation. For example, when Hamlet kills Polonius, he uses a gun. In the Mel Gibson version, Hamlet uses a sword to kill Polonius. I think the director made this choice because he wanted to appeal to the modern audience. In the David Tennant version, all the actors/actresses also dress in modern clothes. In the Mel Gibson version, the actors/actresses wear clothes that people wore during Hamlet's time. I think the director of the Mel Gibson version chose that because he wanted to create a similar mood and tone to the original play.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement that the David Tennant version has a more modern interpretation through the use of the gun instead of the sword to appeal to the audience.
DeleteI agree with your statement regarding the modernization of the David Tennant version. I had also noticed the use of more modern props being used compared the order era depiction in the Mel Gibson version.
DeleteI like the depiction of Hamlet's madness better in Mel Gibson's version. It more closely matches Polonius' analysis, saying there is method to his madness. David Tennant's version features an all around mad Hamlet. He seemed crazy at every moment in the movie, and I am not convinced he is simply faking it. However, I like the interpretation of Hamlet's confrontation with his mother in the David Tennant version better. It is more believable that Hamlet treats his mother like his mother instead of violating her in Mel Gibson's version, which was not hinted at in the original play.
ReplyDeleteI kind of liked the David Tennant's rendition of Hamlet's madness because it was so extravagant and unpredictable. The idea of Hamlet going mad is to fool everyone else, so it would be easier to kill Claudius
Delete2. Hamlet acted outrageously against his mother in the Mel Gibson version. That scene further emphasizes the little value they had towards women when Hamlet violates his mother. I felt that Hamlet is a hypocrite in this case because he hates Claudius for two reasons being he killed his father and slept with his mother, yet Hamlet acted in a more incestuous act than Claudius because he is related to his mother through blood whereas Claudius was related through marriage. In the David Tennant version, although Hamlet and his mother were in close proximity, they did not commit any sexual act, which I felt demonstrated a respect for the other person. In addition, the David Tennant version seems more developed and modern while the Mel Gibson version's setting seems to be in the medieval times which explains Hamlet's action towards the opposite sex.
ReplyDeleteJacob Lee prompt 1
ReplyDeleteI think that one of the most prominent differences between the two versions is how Claudius reacts to the play. In the David Tennant version, he seems much more composed and makes it seem like Hamlet's outburst is more the reason he is leaving and not the play's actions. He also seems much more direct in his blame at Hamlet in this version. In the Mel Gibson version, Claudius seems much more affected by the play and is much more dramatic in his reaction. I think that they made the choices they did because how they interpreted how dramatic Claudius is.
In the David Tennant version, it was like he was scolding a child rather than feeling guilty. In the Mel Gibson, he was engulfed in guilt and shame. -Breann Divoll
Delete2) With the Mel Gibson version, the characters dress in in the era that Hamlet took place. When Hamlet gets mad, there is more anger and frustration portrayed. The scenes are also more realistic. For example, in the play in the story, the actors reenact the storyline of the murder very realistically, using real liquids and elaborate costumes which reflect how Claudius is in the play. In comparison, in the David Tennant version, all of the characters dress in modern clothing and there are some choices which portray the characters in a unique way. Some of the choices include leaving Hamlet barefoot and showing Hamlet to be crazy in the way that he is enthusiastic and hyperactive. In the same scene with the play, the actors seem to overact their parts.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that the Mel Gibson version is more parallel to the era that Hamlet took place. The real liquids and costumes also add to the parallel aspect of the movie. Since the clothes the characters wore in the Mel Gibson version is what most people wore in Hamlet's time, it can portray the play more realistically
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson version was extreme. He over dramatized the relationships and the scene. The outfits are accurate and well put together. He wanted his audience to feel lost, confused, and overwhelmed. The David Tennant version was modern and different. They used mirrors instead of those rugs on the walls. It was serious from how everyone acted except Hamlet. Hamlet was wild and energized. -Breann Divoll
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet because overall it was a better composition than the David Tennant interpretation. The David Tennant felt like it was half done and low budget. This movie had very static camera angles/effects and the overall modern motif (contemporary clothing, different races of people,etc) ruined the movie in my opinion. Also, the only one who could actually act was the actor of Hamlet.
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson version was much more enjoyable than the David Tennant version because it took place in an Elizabethan time period and the actors were able to emphasize many key details of the play. Overall I enjoyed the composition of the play.
PROMPT 1
DeleteI think the David Tennant version is better representation of the Play because hs madness can be clearly seen unlike the other versions. The Mel Gibson Version is more cruel and over exaggerated. The reason why David Tennant's version is a better is because it was produced by the Royal Shakespeare Co. His mother's room is filled with mirrors. When Hamlet of David Tennant shoots Polonius, he shoots him through a mirror. This is showing that by shooting Polonius, he is killing his own self. He is deteriorating from his goal. His image shatters as the mirror shatters. Overall, I did not like Mel Gibson’s version because every scene is exaggerated, for example, when the king gets up in front of everyone and makes a scene.
I feel like the modernization was pretty well done and allowed for some different compositions and symbolism that wouldn't have been possible if they stuck with the Elizabethan era setting. I still found it kinda jarring, but I felt that there was definitely purpose behind the decision and it wasn't just some awful attempt to be edgy and hip.
DeleteSunny Park
ReplyDeletevery good
DeleteI agree with that.
DeleteI really like how in the Gibson version, Hamlet is interacting with Gertrude when he's saying stuff about woman's love. This contrasts with the Tennant version, where Hamlet is instead talking to Ophelia. I like Gibson better, because all this shade should actually be directed towards Gertrude, as she was the one who was 'unfaithful'. Thus, I believe that the producers of the Tennant version did not understand what was really going on in this scene, and simply took the easiest option given that Hamlet was lying in Ophelia's lap.
ReplyDeleteDarren Chou btw
DeleteI agree that the Gibson version has a very unique interaction between Hamlet and Gertrude. It is very shocking and changes the tempo of the plot. However, I agree with the producer's choice to place Hamlet in Ophelia's lap, as that was what Shakespeare originally intended to happen.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe David Tennant version of Hamlet was a modern day adaptation on Shakespeare’s play. In the scene, Hamlet kills Polonius accidentally with a single gunshot. Hamlet was actually hunting for Claudius but Claudius was not there. I believe the director had Hamlet shoot Polonius because Hamlet’s accidental discharge looks more accidental than stabbing him with a sword.
The mirrors in the scene were also there to provide emphasis on the current emotional state of Hamlet. When Hamlet’s mirror cracks, the shattered fragments of glass represent that his mental state was delicate. In addition, that was the same mirror that the Ghost walked out of, signifying that the ghost could be a fragment of his imagination.
yes, discharge is almost always accidental
DeleteI think that the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet and the David Tennant version emphasize different aspects of Hamlet. In the Mel Gibson version, incest is strongly emphasized through the scene between Gertrude and Hamlet in order to highlight Gertrude’s sexual immorality with Claudius. Through this scene we can see how truly immoral Gertrude’s relationship is with Claudius by comparing it to that of her and Hamlet. In the David Tennant version, mirrors are emphasized to show how the characters are realizing their true faults.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I like the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet when it comes to the setting and of the character appearances, I don't like Mel Gibson's interpretation of the confrontation. Mel Gibson seems to believe that Hamlet had a sort of Oedipus complex when it comes to his mother, but that was not the case. Hamlet has never been driven to convince his mother of Claudius's sin so as to be with her, but because he sincerely wants to save her from the sins she has committed with being with his uncle. Gibson seems to think that something Freudian is in the mother son relationship when nothing of the sort is there.
ReplyDeleteI didn't like both Mel Gibson and David Tennant version. Mel Gibson version could've been complete without the scene where Hamlet makes love with his mother. I feel like Mel Gibson put that scene in for marketing purposes which made the film worse, because in the text it is completely different from what was portrayed in the scene. For David Tennant, I feel like the actor wasn't fit to play the role of Hamlet, his acting was nice but his overall appearance and natural attitude did not fit Hamlet, and the fact that he had to modernize Hamlet(camera, gun, etc) made me lose interest and felt like it was disregarding the influence the era and the environment it had.
ReplyDeleteI like how the overall setting in the Mel Gibson was more accurate to Shakespeare times than the David Tennant version. It makes the language of Shakespeare times more immersive, while having people talk Elizabethan English in a modern setting is pretty off-putting. Also, Hamlet's shirt in the Tennant version is hilarious, but it kind of ruins the scene for me with how off-putting it is.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Hamlet's shirt in the David Tennant version is off-putting. It seems out of place and completely unnecessary in defining his character and the plot of the play. While modern interpretations of Shakespeare can sometimes be interesting, Hamlet, being one which takes place mostly indoors in a grand mansion, does not benefit from an alternate interpretation. They only changed a few things: their clothing, the gun instead of the sword, the glass instead of the arras, the random cameras that show up. If that's all that is going to be changed, they might as well try to make the movie more accurate to how Shakespeare intended.
DeleteVery nice interpretation. Good understanding and position on this play.
Deletethanks
DeleteThe Mel Gibson scene is more traditional and has Elizabethan-era scenery. The David Tennant version takes place during modern times and has a few changes: Polonius hides behind a mirror instead of an arras, Hamlet shoots him with a gun instead of stabbing him with a sword, and they're wearing modern clothes. The director of the Mel Gibson version interpreted the scene between Hamlet and his mother as more intense and with incestuous sexual undertones. This portrayed the incestuous theme from throughout the play, such as the representation of Gertrude as Claudius's sister, even though they are not related by blood. The director of the David Tennant version kept the intensity and emotion in conversation between the two, but left out the rest.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the incestuous relationship between Claudius and Gertrude is taken up another level by comparing the two as siblings as well. The tones are extremely heavy in the Mel Gibson version trying to highlight the original play's sexual undertones and hypocrisy that Hamlet displays throughout the play. Shaunak's take on this idea of not being related by blood is very resourceful and enriching. I appreciate this perspective as it is very fresh and acceptable.
DeleteThe Mel Gibson version of Hamlet portrays a more accurate settings and time where Hamlet takes place. The clothings that the actors and actress wore were more old fashion and vintage while the David Tennant version was more modern. The clothing in the David Tennant were not great since the choice for Hamlet clothes were very poor looking. Since the David Tennant was more modern, they has security cameras and his own video recording in scenes which makes the movie more interesting since some of the scenes are portrayed from a different perspective. For the Mel Gibson one, he includes a lot of anger and frustration in the movie while the David Tennant version portrays Hamlet with a mix of anger and mischievous personality.
ReplyDeleteI agree! The Mel Gibson scene does a better job at portraying Hamlet's actual personality instead of his madness and anger. I also agree that the Mel Gibson scene takes place in a more accurate setting based on where and when Hamlet takes place. The David Tennant version has modern settings and clothing that is unrealistic to have been seen during medieval times.
Delete- Eileen Yang
Samveda Pagay
DeleteI agree that although Mel Gibson's version is a better representation for the setting and the time, but I would disagree that it is an overall better representation. I think everything in Mel Gibson is overly dramatic. The tennat version does a good job of showing how Hamlet changes by using mirrors
I agree that Mel Gibson portrayed Hamlet more accurate according to the text. The different setting and clothing choice between the two movies really changed the whole mood of the two movies.
DeleteThe David Tennant version of Act 3 was a lot more modern and intense than the Mel Gibson scene.
ReplyDeleteThe David Tennant version had characters dressed up in suits and more modern outfits instead of the traditional clothes from Shakespeare’s era. This version is also more intense and crazy because the actors are more dramatic and this gave the audience more understanding of the personality and emotions of each character.
The Mel Gibson scene is more similar to a traditional Shakespeare play setting. I think that the interpretation of Hamlet’s madness is better in this version because it’s more realistic and similar to what is stated in the play script. Tennant’s version focuses too much on how mad and crazy Hamlet had become.
- Eileen Yang
I agree that the David Tennant version seemed more dramatic regarding how the characters acted, because I feel like they had more emotions when trying to portray their anger. I think I was able to better understand how the characters thought and felt about the situation. However, I think that it is a bit odd that Hamlet's madness in the Mel Gibson version was interpreted the way it was.
DeleteI didn't like both Mel Gibson and David Tennant version. Mel Gibson version could've been complete without the scene where Hamlet makes love with his mother. I feel like Mel Gibson put that scene in for marketing purposes which made the film worse, because in the text it is completely different from what was portrayed in the scene. For David Tennant, I feel like the actor wasn't fit to play the role of Hamlet, his acting was nice but his overall appearance and natural attitude did not fit Hamlet, and the fact that he had to modernize Hamlet(camera, gun, etc) made me lose interest and felt like it was disregarding the influence the era and the environment it had.
ReplyDeleteYeah I never really liked modern adaptations of Shakespeare stories as I feel like they were meant to take place during Shakespeare's era. It does not feel right when people in a modern setting talk Elizabethan English.
DeleteI don't think a man who rapes his mother is that appealing when it comes to the market Gibson was going towards.
DeleteI completely agree, the shock factor of the scene between Hamlet and his mom was unnecessary and made the reader view Hamlet in the wrong light. It was so out there and shocking that the whole movie/play could be negatively affected by it and it wasn't even in the original text. There wasn't a point in it and the only 2 reasons I could think why they would do something as shocking as that when interpreting the play and rewriting it was for marketing purposes or just to get a reaction out of people and the movie, but not for the right reasons. Again it was unnecessary to have in the movie so there are a lot of questions in my head as to why they would leave that scene in the movie in the first place.
DeleteI agree, the modern take on Hamlet in the David Tennant version just doesn't work for me. I feel that the lines are performed well, and also well integrated into the storyline, but the details like the camera and gun just feel out of place. The difference in also how they portray the play is also apparent, with the Mel Gibson version having a whole audience, while the David Tennant version is just the royalty. The Mel Gibson version, though weird at times, does a better job in portraying the play of Hamlet in my opinion.
DeleteI think both of the versions were able to showcase Hamlet's built up anger toward his mother, however, they were shown in relatively different ways. The Mel Gibson scene showed Hamlet going to extremes, as shown in the way that he treated his mother sexually. However, Gertrude also does the same to Hamlet. I think the directors portrayed it like this so they could show how bad her lust actually was (like how Old Hamlet told Hamlet about his mother's lust and why she ended up with Claudius). In the David Tennant version, it was more modern and showed Hamlet more as going mad as first glance, since his clothes were not put together. It also showed Hamlet being abusive toward his mother, but not to the extent of the Mel Gibson version.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you on how the Mel Gibson tried to portray the intensity of Gertrude's lust. However, I don't think Hamlet was abusive? He did not hit his mother, I think he was just angry and hotheaded. The modern version allowed me to realize or ponder about the fact that Hamlet could've actually been going mad. The modern version allowed me to see more of his anger rather than in the Mel Gibson one. The benefit of it being modern is that we could see his hallucination and reaction to the Ghost not being there which was easier for a younger audience to relate to.
DeleteI agree with you that the two versions are very different in how Hamlet interacts with Gertrude. I think that Mel Gibson's extreme showing of what happens better portrays the underlying details in the script that might've been missed in the David Tennant version.
DeleteI agree, I think that both films did a good job in showing the transitioning of Hamlet's emotions. I think that in the David Tennant version there was a slower build-up however, and in the Mel Gibson version, it happened a lot quicker.
Delete
ReplyDeleteAlthough I like the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet when it comes to the setting and of the character appearances, I don't like Mel Gibson's interpretation of the confrontation. Mel Gibson seems to believe that Hamlet had a sort of Oedipus complex when it comes to his mother, but that was not the case. Hamlet has never been driven to convince his mother of Claudius's sin so as to be with her, but because he sincerely wants to save her from the sins she has committed with being with his uncle. Gibson seems to think that something Freudian is in the mother son relationship when nothing of the sort is there.
This is Greg idk why it says bob. The Mel Gibson one was definitely strange, I just don't know why they chose a 40 year old to pay a teenager. Also I really like that they made Polonius hide behind a mirror in the David Tennant version. It seems more realistic than a tapestry given the time period that is obviously different in the movie. I also don't like that Gertrude and Hamlet kiss, like it's not even in the book and it's just kind of weird but I guess everyone has a different interpretation.
ReplyDelete-Greg Gontier
Nick Rust
DeleteI agree that David Tennant's version of Hamlet was preferable, and I liked the modern take on it that you mentioned. It is really weird that they chose a 40 year old to PLAY a teenager in the Mel Gibson one.
My first reaction when watching David Tenants act 3 was pretty shocked, appalled and dumbfounded. I was really confused at first since Hamlet didn't actually rape his mom in the text but did in this interpretation of the movie. It's pretty gross and unnecessary to me, a long kiss would have sufficed when it came to the shock factor and gross-ness that was needed in the scene. Mom raping usually just crosses the line and that seems to have happened here.
ReplyDeleteThe second version of act 3 we watched (Mel Gibsons interpretation) seemed to make a lot more sense and fit how I actually saw the story going down. Everything seemed historically accurate and set the scene for what the play would have actually looked like during the time it was written. I liked this version wayyy better. I didn't see a mom get raped, so overall it didn't make my skin crawl and that's a plus.
1. Different presentations of scenes like Hamlet's meeting with Gertrude having a more sexual tone or where the king and queen start to show sign of madness too in one version show clear differences in the two adaptations. While the Mel Gibson version focused on taking the more accurate approach and adopted a darker and more violent tone, the David Tennant version took some liberties in switching up some aspects of the play for a more modern approach and having more lighthearted moments to appeal to today's viewers.
ReplyDeleteNick Rust
ReplyDelete1) Both versions of Hamlet were presented quite differently. David Tennant's version was especially interesting with regards to Hamlet's apparel. He is shown wearing a red hulk shirt, something that definitely was not around during the Shakespearean era. The play is more of a modern take and Hamlets murder weapon is a gun as opposed to the knife used in the Mel gibson version. Mel Gibson seems to stick to the script a little more than Tennant. Pretty much all the events happen in the exact same order that they do in the original play.
I agree with this because David Tennant's version is supposed to be made for younger audiences to watch and be able to somewhat relate (due to the modern setting). Mel Gibson is more of the Shakespearean era that David Tennant's version lacked.
DeleteIt is clear that David Tennant's version is based on modern day society while Mel Gibson's is based on Shakespeare's time. Gibson's version is more accurate at depicting the true story.
DeleteThe Mel Gibson and David Tennant versions each offer a different perspective on Hamlet. Mel Gibson's version was a lot more disturbing due to the different turn of events in Act 3 Scene 1. It also shows that everyone is crazy including the protagonist of the story. David Tennant gave a more modern, yet pretty similar presentation of the original play. His awkwardness, insanity, and clothing all point to Hamlet wearing a mask of madness, which is what the director of this version probably intended to be displayed. Both versions however, have relatively the same dialogue and scene order.
ReplyDelete- Anuroop Thomas
This is amazing Anuroop! I agree with your idea that Hamlet is wearing a mask of madness! Thats kinda scary!! gang <3
DeleteI’m going to have to disagree with your last statement.
DeleteNicole Cheng/5
ReplyDeleteIn the Mel Gibson scene, the director chose a more violent and intense route. Every action and actor was super dramatic for their roles. From Hamlet stabbing Polonius to the intimacy between Hamlet and his mother, I think the director pushed for a stronger reaction. The reason why Shakespeare's plays were deeply cherished is because the audience could understand each and every single play. I think Shakespeare's audience could really relate to what he wrote about and empathize with the love, hatred, family and other aspects in the Elizabethan era. Also, it seems like it was common to marry within family in the Elizabethan era. Placing the intimacy between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude could have either represented her lustful side or represented the intermarriages during the time that Shakespeare lived in.
In the David Tennent scene, the director puts Hamlet in a more modern perspective. To me, it seems like the director wanted to put it in a modern perspective for the audience to understand better but everything that occurs in the movie does not make sense to me. Despite wearing modern clothing and changing the scenery, it does not match with the play itself. Shakespeare places history in all his plays but including a modern twist would make the audience a lot more confused. Since Shakespeare's plays were so popular because of their relatibility but the history and the perspective is mismatched. It was weird to imagine someone acting like Hamlet in a modern perspective. It also made sense that the Ghost appeared back then because they believed in supernatural beings but it did not make sense to put the Ghost in this era.
Overall, despite the fact that Mel Gibson's version was a little more disturbing, it definitely allows the audience to see what Shakespeare's plays were like back then. It was a lot more enjoyable for a more dramatic play to allow the audience to understand the joy of watching Shakespeare's plays.
I agree with what you're saying. The director from the David Tennant scene makes an effort to relate to his audience in the same way Shakespeare tried to appeal to the masses. He focused on modernizing it and making it more accessible to a newer audience.
DeleteI also definitely agree that he Mel Gibson version was much more disturbing. It did add darker themes and it was a lot more dramatic. I feel like it definitely helps us understand how the plays were like for people from Shakespearean times.
I also agree that the Mel Gibson version was very dramatic, and that the David Tennant version was simplified to modern perspective in order to attract audiences who are not as familiar with the Elizabethan time period. However, I feel that the dramatized emotions in the Mel Gibson interpretation helped the audience understand the scenes, therefore making the David Tennant one harder to understand because it is more "natural" with less emotions conveyed.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't anything inherently wrong with it being too modern, but I do agree that most modern adaptations of Shakespeare stories in general feel like something in it is missing. It's probably just because my mind only thinks of the Elizabethan era when Shakespeare is in my mind.
DeleteThe Mel Gibson version of Act 3 has a more traditional setting and is very dramatic. The David Tennant version has a less traditional setting but manages to be more natural with the lines. We can see that with the example of the play. The Mel Gibson version has a grand play with at least a hundred people, thus Hamlet and his family are having this dramatic confrontation in public. Hamlet is goading his mother in front of her subjects and insulting Claudius in front of the Kingdom. I think the director made that choice because he wanted to make it seem more like a play setting and that he wanted Hamlet's humiliation attempts to be more public. The King is more likely to have a strong reaction of shame if he's being exposed to hundreds of people. The David Tennant version, on the other hand, chooses a more intimate settings. It has only Hamlet's family and a few guests including Ophelia and her father. It wasn't open to the public, the humiliation wasn't open to her subject. I think the director chose this approach because he wanted to make this issue seem like more of a family affair. It wasn't an issue for the entire Kingdom of Denmark, but rather it was between Hamlet, Gertrude, and Claudius. He also modernizes it by having Hamlet record his Uncle's reaction. He's utilizing components of the modern world that would relate to the story and using them within the play to achieve a more dynamic and natural. Today, capturing reactions with cameras is almost second nature. The director may have used techniques like this to relate the ancient story to a more modern era.
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson version also placed a more creepy relationship between Hamlet and his mother. They showed him goading her on more at the play and then having a disturbing confrontation with her later on when her nearly assaults her. I think the director did this to add a new spin on Hamlet's relationship with his mother. Professors on Shakespearean literature say that Hamlet has an a morbid interest in his mother's love life because it's in turn, affecting his life. But Zeffirelli (the director), amplifies this interest into an unhealthy mother-son relationship. But the David Tennant version, chooses to not display an incestuous relationship. It instead decides to play the scene as argument between a mother and a son. By the end, the audience can tell that they have love for one another, not in a romantic way, but in a familiar manner. The director does this to show the mother-son dynamic between Hamlet and his mother. He's trying to show that Gertrude is not a monster, just a woman who has made some bad decisions. And he's able to show Hamlet as not some crazy and nearly abusive man, but as a frustrated teen who is struggling with the loss of his father. We can especially see that at the end of this scene. Gertrude is comforting Hamlet in the same way a mother might comfort a five-year-old who scraped his knee. It seems more natural and familiar to the audience.
I think the Mel Gibson scene and the David Tenant scene both were portrayed as two very different eras. Mel Gibson portrayed Hamlet as it would of been in the old days, while David Tenant put a modern spin on it. The Mel Gibson scene had dark imagery, such as the brutal sword scene and the incestuous jiggy that takes place. Violence and rape in the old days, probably was common and not shunned upon. David Tenant portrayed his scene in a modern light, as the weapon Hamlet had was a gun and there was no getting jiggy with it in this one. Today, violence is associated strongly with guns and we are more sensitive to topics like rape.
ReplyDeleteI agree, both of the plays were in completely different eras. David Tennant did put a modern spin in it, I think, so that people could understand, and perhaps, relate to it better.
DeleteI really like the fact that you compared the imagery in both the Mel Gibson and the David Tennant scenes, i think you pointed out something very interesting.
DeletePROMPT 1
ReplyDeleteSamveda Pagay
I think the David Tennant version is better representation of the Play because his madness can be clearly seen unlike the other versions. The Mel Gibson Version is more cruel and over exaggerated. The reason why David Tennant's version is a better is because it was produced by the Royal Shakespeare Co. His mother's room is filled with mirrors. When Hamlet of David Tennant shoots Polonius, he shoots him through a mirror. This is showing that by shooting Polonius, he is killing his own self. He is deteriorating from his goal. His image shatters as the mirror shatters. Overall, I did not like Mel Gibson’s version because every scene is exaggerated, for example, when the king gets up in front of everyone and makes a scene.
Mel Gibson was truer to how Shakespeare probably imagined his plays to turn out, but it felt a bit overly dramatized to me and seemed to focus a bit less on the character of Hamlet itself. In other words, it felt like we were just following Hamlet as he did stuff without as much time on his own, though that might just be me not seeing any other scene from the movie. Overall the production quality was definitely the highest out of the films we got to see, but there's nothing more noteworthy compared to modern blockbusters.
ReplyDeleteDavid Tennant just felt cheap and Hamlet himself was the only one who really seemed to be method acting, which is the movie's only saving grace. Thankfully he's the only character the play revolves around so I wouldn't say it was painful. I'm surprised that the Royal Shakespeare Company wasn't able to pull in higher quality actors for such a major play. I'm also normally against the modernization of Shakespeare plays as all it adds from my perspective is some suspension of disbelief without any positive contributions, ie relatableness, but in this case I feel as though it was fairly well handled, though not quite perfect.
I'd probably recommend the Mel Gibson to most people and the David Tennant to the Shakespeare enthusiasts.
In the Mel Gibson version, the setting matches more with the era Hamlet was written in. For the Mel Gibson version of Act 3 scenes 1-3, the way Hamlet acts feel more reasonable. Hamlet seemed to be saying things more intentionally and with more purpose than in the David Tennant version. When he talks before the play he seems to be trying to drive Claudius into a corner. In comparison, in the David Tennant version, he acts like he is crazy overall and seems to say things jokingly, so Claudius seems to dismiss his overall words and behaviors more. During Hamlet's interaction with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the Mel Gibson version also showed Hamlet's anger better because he talks normally with his friends initially, then snaps and yells at them. The dramatic difference in behavior makes the reason why he is angry seem more obvious. In comparison, in the David Tennant version, Hamlet is already acting weird and it feels like he just went from crazy to even crazier, so his words don't feel as reasonable.
ReplyDeleteEmmaline Mai Period 3
DeleteI agree that Hamlet in the the Tennant version acts much more insane than in the Mel Gibson version, which makes his interactions with other characters less serious. It also highlights his change in behavior when he is alone, because the audience sees him being crazy all of the time and then sobering up to consider his actions in his soliloquies.
I think that the David Tennant version of the play was too modern to accurately represent Hamlet. He used a gun, his mother was smoking a cigarette, and he was using a camera, all of which, I presume, is more closely associated with modern trend than many centuries ago. Even though I thought that the Mel Gibson version had an appropriate scene, although it was, at times, too dramatic and confusing.
ReplyDeleteI agree
DeleteYeah, I agree with you Nhavin. It was certainly too modern to represent Hamlet. Not only was Hamlet's mother smoking, but there were cameras, and everybody was wearing a formal dress. The suits, ties, shoes, etc. do indeed seem like a more modern trend. You would not expect to see people like that centuries ago.
DeleteThough the Mel Gibson and David Tennant version portray the same play, the differences in directing interpretation made the two films significantly different from one another. In general, the Mel Gibson version was a more "traditional" depiction of the play, with the characters' attire succumbing to Elizabethan-style fashion. The David Tennant version on the other hand, was a more modern version, and the director focused on bringing out the implicit humor in the characters' lines. In the Gibson version, Act III, Hamlet's confrontation with his mother was shown as more expressive, and for me at least, it was easier to comprehend the scene because of the modern context. On the other hand, the Mel Gibson version, being more traditional, was closer to what I was expecting after reading the play. Hamlet also appears to be more energetic and animated in the Tennant version, which I think made the film more engaging. I think that one factor behind the director's choice (for the Tennant version) was the stereotypical dullness that most people tend to associate with Shakespeare, and thus a more modern approach was taken to make it more relatable for today's audiences.
ReplyDeleteIn Gibson´s scene when Hamlet was about to leave Gertrude's room with Polonius's body, but kisses his mom before going was an interesting thing that the director included. I think the reason the director chose to interpret the story like this is because I think Hamlet wanted his mother to feel more guilt than ever because she was with her husbands brother, Claudius and now her son Hamlet. So I think that might have been th4 way the director thought of when adding the kiss at the end.
ReplyDeleteBrandon Qin 2nd Period
ReplyDeleteI think that it was interesting to see the comparison between the two directions. In the Mel Gibson version, I feel that the emotions were displayed very explicitly, and shown in a very extreme way. It goes as far to even show almost rape on his mother, and they share a kiss that is uncomfortable to watch. However, I believe this is used to show the viewers the important shift in Gertrude's character, and Hamlet as well. This is the climax of Hamlet's plan, and he has finally been able to prove his uncle guilty, and Gertrude finally sees the evil and wrong she has done. Along with that, this is the first time Hamlet tells anyone besides Horatio of his fake madness, which are all very important details that are in this scene. The David Tennant version takes a more modern and lighthearted approach, even though still having Hamlet sometimes grab his mother in questionable ways, has less of a range of emotions and intensity. I feel that the Mel Gibson version, though uncomfortable, does a better job of conveying the message in this passage. I believe that the modern twist on Hamlet ruins it for me, because it feels out of place, and the gun used to shoot Polonius also seems out of place. Many details just don't feel right to me, and I feel that using the actual time period is much more effective in the portrayal of the play.
I agree that although the Mel Gibson is uncomfortable to watch it conveys the message of the scene much better. The David Tennant interpretation seems to include many unnecessary and out of place details that seem to be incorporated simply to make the scene seem modern.
DeleteI agree that Mel Gibson's version has done better on delivering messages to the audiences. It is more traditional compare to the David Tennant version which include lots of unnecessary scenes and a little bit rush.
DeleteI agree. Although the Mel Gibson scene is much harder to watch and is disturbing throughout, it conveys the emotion in both of the characters, especially Gertrude's pain and guilt upon her realization of what she has done. Additionally, the different setting, costumes, and props used in the David Tennant version make it seems further from the source material and a little out of place.
Delete-Arul Gnanasivam Period 2
The David Tennant version doesn't fully act out the murder of the king. In the Mel Gibson version liquid is poured out of a container while the David Tennant one just uses and empty container. During the play acting, Hamlet records Claudius' reaction in the David Tennant version while in the Mel Gibson one, he and Horatio just watch Claudius' every move. The murder of Polonius is portrayed differently in the two versions. In the David Tennant version, Hamlet shoots him through a mirror, but in the Mel Gibson one, Hamlet stabs him through a curtain. The directors made these choices because they interpret Hamlet’s feelings differently. One had him use a gun the other a sword. The two weapons represent how furious Hamlet was. The murder displayed in the play was represented differently because one director may have wanted to hide the graphic death while the other displayed it by having liquid poured out.
ReplyDeletePersonally I preferred the Mel Gibson version, although the scene was difficult to watch I thought that the actors very clearly displayed the emotions and energy contained in the scene. I think it is important that the directors clearly show the significance of this scene to Hamlet's plans. The David Tennant version is less intense emotionally in comparison. It has a more modern interpretation and also does not contain much development, the characters seem to randomly change emotions. Many of the detailed choices by the director such as the camcorder and the gun seem to be implemented simply for the sake of being modern but I personally thought they were unnecessary and distracting.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the inclusion of the camcorder and other goofy bits of the David Tennant version are distracting. Though they provide comic relief, at the same time takes away from the drama of what is really going on in the film.
DeleteBoth versions are based on the same scene; however, they use different techniques to express Hamlet’s plan and Claudius guilt. In David Tennant version is more modern that instead of wearing traditional clothes, actors are wearing suits, and Hamlet uses a camera to record Claudius’s reaction to the play about him murdered the Old Hamlet. Meanwhile, Mel Gibson’s version stays more traditional. Although in both scenes Claudius has a dramatic exit when he realizes the play implies his sin of murdering Old Hamlet, Mel Gibson’s version exaggerates more on Hamlet’s madness that Hamlet rapes his mother.
ReplyDeleteMinus the scene where Hamlet rapes his mom, I prefer the Mel Gibson version to the David Tennant scene.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the Mel Gibson scene is a more accurate representation of Hamlet than the David Tennant scene. The David Tennant scene is too modern, and the characters do not behave like - or even dress like - the way you would expect characters from centuries ago to.
Lastly, the David Tennant scene incorporated too many unnecessary details, making it difficult for the viewer to follow along. The Mel Gibson version gets straight to the point, and makes it easy for the viewer to follow along and understand what is going on.
Angel Tseng- Period 3
ReplyDelete1. For Act 3 Scene 2, the two different versions both filmed the scene using different techniques. For the Mel Gibson version, it was at a traditional setting while the David Tennant version is more modern. The director for Mel Gibson decided to follow the book version of the play closely. For example, the characters wore very traditional clothes and the play scene in Act 3 Scene 2 looks like an actual play during the Elizabethan time. There was a crowd in that scene as well, where the director wanted to create a more intense mood with the crowd witnessing Claudius' leave. However, in the David Tennant version, the play was performed in front several people. Hamlet was pretending to film but was actually spying on Claudius. The director made this choice because he wanted to emphasize that the purpose of the play was for Hamlet and Horatio to see if Claudius really murdered King Hamlet. He also wanted to take use of the modern technology in the movie, so he implemented the usage of a video recorder.
I agree with Angel's comments that the Mel Gibson version was more aligned with the book than the David Tennant version. With the modern twist in the David Tennant version, it is hard for the audience to place themselves during Shakespearean era. In the Mel Gibson version, as an audience it was easy to interpret the scenes with the text. In the David Tennant version, I feel like it was clear in the beginning of the play that Hamlet was taking revenge on Claudius. The goofy aspect of the scene actually hinted for Claudius and Gertrude that the reenactment was about them. In the Mel Gibson version, the silent version did not hint for Claudius and Gertrude that the play was about them. It was more dramatized in the David Tennant version, and removed the essence of the Elizabethan feel in the movie.
DeleteThe Mel Gibson version was a lot more intense, whereas the David Tennant version had comical elements. For example, Hamlet in the David Tennant version is somewhat goofy and less proper (e.g. his red t-shirt and when he plays the recorder). In the Mel Gibson version, however, Hamlet goes so far as to pretend to sexually assault(?) his mother. I think the directors made these decisions because of the era they set the movie in. Mel Gibson's interpretation is more formal and intense because it is set in the actual shakespearean era, while the David Tennant interprentation is goofier/more relatable to fit the modern setting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this!! had the Tennant version been set in a later era, I feel that his actions and decisions would have been sophisticated and less goofy. Because of the modern take on the film, the director had more freedom in terms of how Tennant portrayed Hamlet, allowing him to break out of the typical shakespearean archetype.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaithreyee Vatsan Period 2
ReplyDeletePrompt #2:
In the David Tennant version of Act 3 Scene 2, King Claudius and Gertrude are front of a smaller audience versus the Mel Gibson version of the scene. Claudius's reaction during the ear poisoning scene was more dramatic and it was clear that he had a guilty conscious of killing the king. While the David Tennant version, it was hard for me to important as the audience whether he feels guilty conscious of killing his brother. In the David Tennant version, he really exaggerates his feelings and it is clear that he is upset with Claudius and his mother, Gertrude. Comparing the book with these two movies, the Mel Gibson version does a great job with reenacting the scenes from Hamlet. David Tennant version does include a modern twist to Hamlet which is meant to grab audiences who don't have knowledge of how it was like to live in the Shakespearean era.
I agree that the David Tennant version is very modern and that the Mel Gibson version is very accurate. It is interesting that there is less of an audience in the David Tennant version.
DeletePeriod 2
ReplyDeleteThe David Tennant version is better because the play is modernized. I think the director decided to modernize the film because it connects better with his audience. Although the Mel Gibson version is interesting and more accurate, it is harder to relate to the characters in that version. Shakespeare's plays had a significant amount of social commentary related to it, and using a modern setting helps provide the social commentary.
I agree, the David Tennant version is better for a broader audience. The modernization gives a lot of context as to what is going on in the play, so even if you don't understand the Shakespearian language you have a general idea of what is happening. I also prefer this version because the confrontation between Hamlet and his mother is less disturbing in comparison to the Mel Gibson version.
DeleteI think Edward has an interesting point regarding the David Tennant version. Shakespeare's plays provide a lot of social commentary for the audience and to better understand that Edward points out that the David Tenant version makes it more modern.
DeletePeriod 2
ReplyDeleteThere were a couple of major differences between the David Tennant and Mel Gibson version. First of all, the King seemed a lot more distraught in the Mel Gibson version. He almost seemed sick, as if he was going to die. In comparison, the King in the David Tennant version was disturbed, but otherwise fine. Additionally, the rage and madness in Hamlet in both scenes were slightly different. In the Mel Gibson version, Hamlet was obviously much crazier, especially based on the way he acts with his mother, almost raping and beating her. Comparatively, in the David Tennant version, Hamlet is nowhere near as crazy; although he is very physical with his mother, it is not to the same extent as the Mel Gibson version. I think that the directors made different choices in order to match the vibe of the movie in different ways. In the David Tennant version, it's more of a re-imagination of Hamlet, in that it doesn't follow the source material exactly, unlike the Mel Gibson version. As a result, the directors changed the scenes so that they fit the purpose of the rest of the movie. These changes are seen in the weapons used, and the technology and setting of both movies.
There were a couple of major differences between the David Tennant and Mel Gibson version. First of all, the King seemed a lot more distraught in the Mel Gibson version. He almost seemed sick, as if he was going to die. In comparison, the King in the David Tennant version was disturbed, but otherwise fine. Additionally, the rage and madness in Hamlet in both scenes were slightly different. In the Mel Gibson version, Hamlet was obviously much crazier, especially based on the way he acts with his mother, almost raping and beating her. Comparatively, in the David Tennant version, Hamlet is nowhere near as crazy; although he is very physical with his mother, it is not to the same extent as the Mel Gibson version. I think that the directors made different choices in order to match the vibe of the movie in different ways. In the David Tennant version, it's more of a re-imagination of Hamlet, in that it doesn't follow the source material exactly, unlike the Mel Gibson version. As a result, the directors changed the scenes so that they fit the purpose of the rest of the movie. These changes are seen in the weapons used, and the technology and setting of both movies.
ReplyDelete- Arul Gnanasivam Period 2
DeleteI think you bring up a great point about how the directions matched their vision with the inherent intended difference between how they wanted to execute this play. I definitely noticed parts of the David Tennant version which were more loosely based off the play, but made sense because the director intended for this to be a modern rendition of Hamlet.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePrompt 1: David Tennant’s version had a modern take on the whole storyline by using modern objects and outfits, which simplified the action to current perspective, but still maintained the true meaning behind every behavior. The Mel Gibson interpretation is more “literal” or true to the play script in that it keeps the same time period and setting in the movie. The Mel Gibson version tends to make everything overdramatic, whereas the interactions and reactions of the characters in the David Tennant scenes were more natural. Additionally, the David Tennant scenes have a more casual interpretation, as Hamelt wore T-shirts and jeans in the scene with Ophelia, whereas in the Mel Gibson version, everything is elaborate and capturing the formalities of the time era. I feel that the Mel Gibson scenes were portrayed as dramatic, action-packed, and therefore unrealistic but true to the original version for audiences who want to enjoy the play as how it was portrayed in the Elizabethan era, whereas the David Tennant version would be more suitable for those who are not as familiar with Hamlet or Shakespeare’s other works.
ReplyDelete(Yuriko Akeyama, P2)
I agree with the how the interpretation of Hamlet in the Mel Gibson version is a lot more faithful to the era in which Hamlet was written for than compared to the David Tennant version.
DeleteI think that the David Tennant version is a lot lighter than the Mel Gibson version. During the time when Hamlet and Claudius and the others are watching the play, Claudius is a lot more expressive in the Mel Gibson version when he demands for light and leaves the theater. He looks flustered and actually guilty, while in the David Tennant version, he looks like he is chiding Hamlet for being too feisty and loud during a play. Furthermore, in the Mel Gibson version, Hamlet's interaction with his mother is a lot more intimate and uncomfortable, and those who do not know the context behind it would assume something is happening along the lines of the Oedipus complex. In the David Tennant version, it is a lot more mild, but it doesn't show the shift in Gertrude as much as the Mel Gibson version did. I like the Mel Gibson version more because I believe that it's closer to what Shakespeare envisioned it as, whereas the David Tennant version portrays what would happen if Hamlet happened in the modern world.
ReplyDelete(Cynthia Chang P2)
Some may think that the Mel Gibson version was unnecessarily inappropriate and is a worse representation of Hamlet’s relationship with his mother. Albeit the incestuous relationship between between Hamlet and his mother was uncomfortable to watch on screen, the scene was surprisingly interesting in my eyes. I felt that the level the relationship the mother son relationship taken to in this movie represents how Hamlet is very hypocritical of incest. From the beginning of the play, he objects to the partially- incestuous relationship between his mother and his uncle, but soon we see him violating his mother leading to incest. This gives Hamlet another characteristic that is not shown in the original play. I think this perspective was fresh and different from the David Tennant version. The Tennant version was very modern, which I though was cool but unnecessary, but the scene with he argument between Hamlet and his mother was very similar to the original play.
ReplyDeleteEmmaline Mai- Period 2
ReplyDeletePrompt 2
The David Tennant version is interesting because it pairs Shakespeare’s language and scenes with modern settings and acting. This makes it less shocking, because many of the scenes are less physical and dramatic as modern culture and technology makes it normal for things to be more efficient. For example, instead of using a sword, Hamlet uses a gun to quickly kill Polonius. However, I like that the slight lack of dramatism is made up by Hamlet’s wildly insane actions. Hamlet dances a quick jig for Ophelia before the play, plays the recorder to ignore Polonius, and runs around barefoot all the time, which all make Hamlet seem much more mad than Shakespeare may have originally intended. I also noticed that this version adds a significance to mirrors as a way for characters to see true reflections of themselves. For example, at the end of Act 3 Scene 4, Hamlet stares at his cracked reflection in a broken mirror, demonstrating that his sanity has been damaged and he is reaching true madness.
That is an interesting point! I also think that because the David Tennant version was set in the modern times, it is easier for the audience to deem Hamlet as insane and to understand the premise of the movie.
DeleteBoth the directors, though using different interpretations and plot devices, got the same point across - Hamlet’s intensity and ferocity finally made his mother realize the true motives and character of Claudius.
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson version was much more of a period piece. The clothing, props, and background were much more era appropriate than the David Tennant version. The director’s interpretation was also a lot more intense and incestual than the other - Hamlet rapes his mother and handles her with violence in his effort to change her opinion on her husband. The Ghost also plays a smaller part, just looming in the hallway and
The David Tennant version was much more modern and tame than the other version. Everyone wore suits and Hamlet wore a red t-shirt. He also camera recorded his uncle’s reaction to his play, and used a gun instead of a sword to kill Polonius. In terms of interaction with his mother, he, although was still violent, did not make any sexual advances and would be considered to have acted more mildly.
I think that the directors took these different approaches because they had different interpretations of the piece and wanted to convey a different relationship between Hamlet and his mother.
*the ghost also actually comes into the room and strokes his mother's hair
DeletePrompt 1:
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson version was very realistic to the era through the costumes, backgrounds and props in comparison to the David Tennant version. The play scene consisted of more people rather than only family as it was in the David Tennant version. The Mel Gibson version handles the confrontation of Hamlet and his mother in an incestual way which takes a new direction of an unhealthy mother-son relationship. This reminds me of the Oedipus complex where a young man is infatuated with his mother, and hates his father to the point of being homicidal. The director took this approach to covey his interpretation.
The David Tenant version took a modern spin than the Mel Gibson version. Hamlet uses a gun instead of a sword to kill Polonius and everyone in the play wears suits/dresses. The confrontation of Hamlet and his mother didn't have any innuendos and was a much healthier mother and son relationship. The director for this version interpreted that Hamlet saw his mother as a maternal figure and nothing more.
I completely agree with you on how the Mel Gibson version gave a more realistic feeling through setting and costume choice, whereas Tennant’s version was modern. The scene with Gertrude was interpreted to a more appropriate level for a family relationship with the modern version for good reason. In order to give a younger audience a relatively accurate interpretation the modern version commits to a certain style.
DeleteThe David Tennant version is more modern than the Mel Gibson version. The actors in the Mel Gibson version wear traditional clothes while the actors in the David Tennant version wear formal attire. They also used different props. For example, David Tennant uses a camcorder to record the actors in the scene. I think the directors had different perspectives when they interpreted Hamlet. The Mel Gibson version wanted to follow the original Hamlet while the David Tennant scene wanted to change the setting to the modern time to relate to today's society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you; the difference in setting was also something I observed. Though the two plays' styles are complete opposites, the plot remains true to what Shakespeare wrote. The scene of Hamlet killing Polonius also shows the contrasting eras. One had Hamlet using a gun, and in the other oe, he used a sword.
DeleteI agree! The David Tennant movie is the modern day version of Hamlet. The actors act differently and the settings are more modern because it allows the current audience to understand and replicate the feelings that past audiences were supposed to feel; It's like a translation.
DeleteI agree with you. I also think David Tennant chose the setting to be modern since he wanted to appeal to the young people and make it easier to understand the play.
Delete1. My initial observation of the two versions were their difference in style: the Mel Gibson version is set more traditionally while the David Tennant is more modern. During the play, the Mel Gibson version focused solely on the reenactment of King Hamlet's death, but the David Tennant version also had Hamlet zooming in on Cladius's face and closely observing his facial expressions. I think the producer did this to allow the audience to see things from Hamlet's perspective. Another main difference between the two versions was the scene between Hamlet and his mother. The Mel Gibson version was shocking, even when looked at relative to the play's plot in general. The producer's interesting choices continued to emphasize and convey the idea of incest that continues coming up in the play. I believe the weirdness of the entire scene also reminded viewers how strange and borderline disturbing the whole plot of Hamlet is.
ReplyDelete1. Between both the response between the David Tenant version and the Mel Gibson, the main difference was that the David Tennant version was more modern while the Mel Gibson had a more word by word representation of the scene. To better cater to a much more younger audience, the David Tennant version tries to cater to a much more younger audience while the Mel Gibson tries to fit to the theme of incest as well as represent the actual setting that took place in the play. Other than these differences, both scenes show an accurate representation of the character's emotions and interactions while the re-enactment of the King Hamlet's death was playing out.
ReplyDeleteMihir Madhira Period 2
DeleteI agree! I think the advantage with David Tennant's film being more modernized is that they can appeal to a younger audience in some parts of the film.
DeleteBoth of the scenes are based on the same acts but employ different techniques, methods of acting, and emotion in certain moments to differentiate themselves. The scene directed by Mel Gibson seems to be a more accurate portrayal of what the people during this time period would have worn, the castle they would’ve lived in, and all the backgrounds and surroundings are very similar to what we would expect of a film depicting this time period. David Tennant’s film is a more modern day adaptation of the play, as items like guns, suits and bow ties, as well as a recording camera are all used throughout various parts of the film. Another big difference is the kind of reaction the play evokes from Claudius. In Gibson’s version, he has a more dramatic and loud exit in front of a surprised audience which is very different from Tennant’s version of this scene which has Claudius getting up and leaving in a more calmly manner. The plays themselves are also very different. Mel Gibson’s version seems like it would be very closely related to what had actually happened, as all the actors in the play are more civilized and are wearing the same kinds of clothes and use the same kinds of tools and weapons. David Tennant’s version uses strange costumes and has a weirder sequence of events that take place.
ReplyDelete(Manoj Soundararajan Period 2)
I agree with your analysis! Mel Gibson's version likely resembles what people at the time of conception of the play thought of the setting. The castles and rustic imagery resemble a stereotypical castle setting, invoking the feeling of royalty that existed in Shakespeare's era. On the other hand, the modernization of Tennant's version appeals to more of a modern audience like ourselves, creating a different tone surrounding each character.
DeleteIn regards to the Mel Gibson version versus the Tennant version, they are set in very different times. I was only able to see part of Act 3 in the Gibson version, but from this it can be concluded that the versions are different. The Tennant version is modern and emphasizes over excessive crazy tendencies such as jumping around and squealing. The Gibson version portrays Hamlet as less insane, and emphasizes on words rather than antics. Ophelia is an example of how the characterization is drastically different because in the Tennant version she is meek and kind to Hamlet. In the Gibson version, she plays more hard to get and in my opinion is more similar to the actual writing of the scenes. The modern twist on the Tennant version makes the story more relatable in a way, but I feel that the Mel Gibson version was more realistic in the sense that it included more people. This addition of more people adds to the hysterical feeling of the situation, and how the new king (Claudius) and Hamlet are really putting on a front to not only the main characters.
ReplyDelete-Gabi Ramratan (Period: 2)
I agree with your opinion of the characters in both of the films. Ophelia's role in the Gibson version of Act 3 of Hamlet was reduced to a non-speaking role, which doesn't allow the audience to see how Hamlet interacts with her during the play in the play. I also agree with you about how the number of people on screen affects the mood of the play and how Gibson's version is successful in that.
DeleteI believe both the Mel Gibson and David Tennant versions successfully portray the anger brewing within Hamlet. It appears however that the Mel Gibson version depicts a more emotionally brutal Hamlet where as he is more physically abusive in the David Tennant version. I believe the kiss between them was an act of desperation from his mother, as Hamlet's words were too much for her to handle and the only thing she could think of to escape was to use her sexuailty.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. The Mel Gibson portrays Hamlet as going mentally insane while the David Tennant is more of a physical change.
DeleteWatching the Mel Gibson version and the David Tennant version I noticed that both the film were executed very differently to the original play. From what I have seen in both versions I liked the Mel Gibson version aside from the incest. One of the reasons I liked the Mel Gibson is due to the fact that the timeline really matches the Shakespearean play. Also watching the David Tennant version brought to question on why Hamlet (david tennant) killed Polonius with a gun instead of a sword. I feel like the reason why Shakespeare had hamlet kill Polonius with a sword is due to the fact that, a sword killing brings the killer up close and really feel the sword course through the victim. So for that reason I don’t think the David Tennant version was well thought through when it came to the killing of Polonius. Another reason why I feel David Tennant version wasn’t as good is because I felt like the modern setting really confused me, since the people talked in a language that is not used now. One thing I liked about the David Tennant version is the clothing that represented hamlet, which was distorted and messy for a prince the reason I liked is because it really showed his craziness.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
DeleteI agree with your point that maybe a sword is a more personal way of murder than a gun, but in the context of this scene where his death is glossed over and done through a curtain, I felt maybe that both versions had a similar emotional impact, at least for me. I actually preferred the Tennant version, both because of its avoiding the incestuous interpretation that I felt the source text has none of (I wonder how that even came up?) and because its acting is more close-up and focuses on an organic response to events in a more toned-down and natural way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Mel Gibson scene followed the play closely and it was authentic to the times; the clothing and the setting. Hamlet was more serious, fueled with anger, and violent--especially towards his mother. Whereas Hamlet in the David Tennant version was set in modern times; it included security cameras and modern clothing such as a muscle t-shirt. In this version, Hamlet played a comedic and loopy character. Although he still had the anger within him, he played a character that would easily be considered insane--as opposed to the Mel Gibson scene, where he was more angry and angsty than insane. The Hamlet in the David Tennant version acted abnormal with a mix of seriousness and shouting in people's faces. He pointed at people with his feet, play bit Ophelia's arms, and would act normal at some points but quickly escalate to face shouting. The Mel Gibson version was more predictable because it mostly consisted of shouting and it was easier to understand Hamlet's actions.
ReplyDelete1) Both of the David Tennant version and the Mel Gibson version show how Hamlet treats his mother in act 3. However, how David Tennant and Mel Gibson interpreted the scene is different. In the David Tennant version, Hamlet is less aggressive than the he is in the Mel Gibson version. I think Mel Gibson could interpreted the scene, where Hamlet is very aggressive and outrageous, in this way because the original play written by William Shakespeare only provides lines that Hamlet says rather than giving detailed narration that describes Hamlet’s action towards his mother.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your stance. I think the Mel Gibson variation had intentions of staying as close to the actual play as they possibly can.
DeleteI felt that the Mel Gibson version was way more realistic than the David Tennant version. The Mel Gibson scene relates more to the shakespeare play, it gives the audience more similarity to the play rather than the other movie. They go more in detail with the mother-son relationship ( more specifically, the incest of Hamlet and his mother). As I was watching the other, more modern version, i felt that the king didn't really have much emotion, making it harder to understand what he is saying. It was clear that the director of the more modern version of the play wanted to go for something way more different than the Mel Gibson version, which means some scenes had to be deleted and altered. I think the modern version is much easier to comprehend just by the mere fact that it is more modern. The social atmosphere was more relatable to viewers today which made it more compatible to understand. However, the David Tennant scene does throw me off a bit because of the attire Hamlet wears and the overall difference from the novel to the movie. I feel that some aspects in the movie version kind of took away from some of the crucial parts in the play because many viewers were amused by the attire.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point; it could be the modern atmosphere of Tennant's version which makes the film more relatable to the viewers today. What threw me off was that the characters in Tennant's version weren't speaking their language in our assumed modern format, but rather exactly like the Shakespearean players, which seemed too unnatural when juxtaposed with their attire, looks, and environment.
Delete1. 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.
ReplyDelete1. While both the David Tennant and Mel Gibson versions of the play portrayed the same play, David Tennant and Mel Gibson offered a different interpretation for the characters. In the David Tennant version, it seemed as if Hamlet was more knowledgeable and knew what they were trying to do. In comparison, the Mel Gibson version portrayed Hamlet as if he were actually going insane and.
Prompt 2: I was so surprised when Gertrude kissed Hamlet in Gibson's version of the play. I'm assuming Gibson did this to show Gertrude's horrible tendencies evident, especially concerning of men. The storyline for Tennant's version contained less wacky content, and the actors in the film were better at their craft, in my opinion; Hamlet seemed more naturally crazy, while Gibson's Hamlet seemed a sober person acting to be a craze. I liked the ideas of adding modern features-- guns, suits, glasses-- to a play that's more than 3 centuries old, and that would be the reason why I favor Tennant's version of Hamlet over Gibson's.
ReplyDeleteI personally felt that the way the Mel Gibson version executed the play scene was superior to the David Tennant version. The setting of the Mel Gibson scene is far closer to what the audience would picture when we read the play; we envision the play was performed for a large audience, as opposed to just the small gathering of Claudius, Gertrude, Hamlet, Polonius, Ophelia, and Horatio in the David Tennant version. Additionally, I liked the Mel Gibson interpretation of Hamlet's lines throughout the play. Instead of disrupting the play and cutting the actors' lines, as it was portrayed in the David Tennant version, I felt that Hamlet's more private, but still direct jabs at King Claudius and Queen Gertrude while they were watching the play flowed a lot more smoothly with the King and Queen's reaction of discomfort and uneasiness. I especially enjoyed the almost exaggerated reaction King Claudius has to the scene he commits the murder. He really plays the part -- he looks haunted, walking forward with eyes fixated at the performance with an utter look of horror, then passionately begging for the lights to be turned on. This can be contrasted with the David Tennant version, where King Claudius appeared more irritated and annoyed at what I could infer as a response to Hamlet's constant interruption during the performance. It seemed almost underwhelming to the strong emotional response I was expecting from seeing a reenactment of how you murder your brother, something you believed no one knew about.
ReplyDelete2. I personally feel that both David Tennant’s and Mel Gibson’s films show the basic plot of Act 3 but the directors’ individual interpretations change the play into two very different films. In Gibson's film, the film is set in a more accurate portrayal of the time when Hamlet is supposed to be set in. However, I think that his version over-sexualizes the play to emphasize the theme of inscest. Although both films show Hamlet’s violence towards his mother, Gibson’s version was definitely more disturbing than David Tennant’s since Tennant’s version is more focused on the comedy and modernization of the play. For example, the costumes and actions are more modern as Hamlet uses a gun instead of a rapier to kill Polonius, plays a recorder with Horatio exaggeratedly, and wears an orange t-shirt for most of the film which I think would appeal to the modern audience that the film was made for.
ReplyDeleteBetween Mel Gibson's and David Tennant's soliloquy in Act 3, I believe that the directors' choice of cinematography and the expressions that both the actors use give Tennant a more melancholy tone while Gibson acquires an increasingly mad or deranged feeling behind his words.
ReplyDeleteA notable part of Tennant's soliloquy is that he spends the entire time as he's speaking half hidden behind a pillar or column in the main room. The camera is focused very close up on his face as he delivers the soliloquy, allowing the audience to focus on his facial expressions. However, this doesn't give much of a view of the outside area and action that may have been associated with the emotion. The director conveys a sense of melancholy through just his expression, rather than madness or lunacy. In this sense, I like this version better as it is closer to my perception of Hamlet's state of being,. In reality, he's not actually crazy, he just pretends to be so around other people. His true emotion is of sadness and sorrow at his father's death, his mother's betrayal, and his lost love.
On the other hand, Gibson's portrayal is lathered in motion shots that display not only his sadness through ecpressions, but his anger and hopelessness in his motions around his father's tomb. The setting especially appealed to me, as it made sense for him to go back to the main source of his grief. However, this scene didn't resonate as much within me as it didn't seem like a moment of internal contemplation as the soliloquy was; rather it seemed like an explosive outburst that served to discharge Hamlet of his grief.
1. 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.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I prefer Gibson's perception of the act over Tennant's. While David Tennant's perception was more modern, Mel Gibson's scene was more true to Shakespearean time, I felt. I think that when we read Shakespeare, we picture the characters to be more "traditional" in relation to how they interact, and what they look like. Mel Gibson excelled in portraying the characters in a more convincing manner in ways such as how Hamlet and Gertrude were dressed, and how Gertrude's bedroom was structured. This is superior to David Tennant's, because in his version, Hamlet is wearing a suit while Gertrude is wearing a silk dress, and Gertrude's room is very modern looking, which is not convincing to the watcher. While I can see why Tennant would approach the scene like this, probably in hopes of helping the watcher understand the scene more, Gibson's version is far more convincing and accurate to what I, and I would think most people's perception of the play to be.
In comparing the Mel Gibson and the David Tennant interpretation of Act 3, the most obvious difference is that of setting and cinematographic style. While the lines of the David Tennant version are more faithful to the original script, the time period and setting are more contemporary to the modern era while the Mel Gibson version is closer to what would have been Shakespeare's version of events. Tennant's version serves to show the impression of the director of something of the universal and timeless nature of Shakespeare's works, and the fact that the play does not seem too unnatural or unbelievable in either version serves to validate this. The overall scale of the play also is different in either version, with the Tennant interpretation going for a more organic, Hamlet-focused view with not many external characters or extras, while the Gibson version goes with a more realistic but less personal choice of having a full cast of extras and a expanded camera angles.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the interpretations of the actual source material, there are multiple discrepancies between the two versions. For example, the Tennant version remains faithful with the source material, covering for example the full scene with Claudius talking to himself about his tortured soul, displaying a greater range of characterization and emotion, while the Gibson version is heavily edited for fluidity and a natural pacing, cutting out lines while preserving the original overall intent in the interest of preserving a more regular flow of action. Also, the overall performances and realization of the scripts vary, with the Gibson version going for a more hectic, fast-paced version of events where much of the acting is exaggerated, such as Claudius' response to the play or Hamlet's discussion with his mother, while the Tennant version is paced slower and more organically, with just as much emotion but with a less cinematic and sadder take on the action.