Erik Beck
ENG 507
Prof Greenstadt
“I See It as a Very Long Play”: Cinematic Hamlet in the Classroom
The history of Hamlet on film is almost as long as the history of film itself. The
first film version was in 1900 with Sarah Bernhardt, the famous actress who had played
Hamlet on stage, playing Hamlet in a short film called La Duel d’Hamlet, featuring the
duel between Hamlet and Laertes. A search of the title on the Internet Movie Database
returns 58 results, as well as 48 other films with the word Hamlet somewhere in the title
(often movies that are take-offs or referential to Shakespeare’s play). With so many
options to choose from, it becomes confusing for current teachers to decide what film
version might be helpful in augmenting a reading of the play in the classroom. There are
foreign versions (the most well known being Grigori Kozintsev’s 1964 version), silent
versions (the first feature length version was in 1921), porn version (1996’s Hamlet X:
For the Love of Ophelia, probably not useful in a classroom), modern dress versions that
keep the language (Michael Almereyda’s 2000 version), modern dress versions that keep
the plot but dispense with the language (Akira Kurosawa’s 1960 film, The Bad Sleep
Well), and even one full-length production (Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 film).
What can a teacher do? How can they know what will be most useful? Through
a performance history of the most widely available versions, with a pedagogical
approach, I will endeavor to answer these questions. These versions, in chronological
order are: the 1948 Laurence Olivier version, the 1969 Tony Richardson version, the
1990 Franco Zefferilli version, the 1995 Kenneth Branagh film In the Bleak Midwinter
and the 1996 Kenneth Branagh version. There are four widely available versions that I
will not discuss: the 1961 Franz Peter Wirth version with Maximillian Schell as Hamlet
(because it is so widely disdained and ridiculed that it was made the focus of a Mystery
Science Theater 3000 episode), the 1964 John Geilgud version with Richard Burton in
the starring role (because it is only a filmed version of a stage production rather than a
film), the 2000 Michael Almereyda version starring Ethan Hawke (because it excises so
much of the play as to make it usless in a discussion of the play), and the 1960 Akira
Kurosawa film, The Bad Sleep Well (because it only is a loose version of the plot with
none of Shakespeare’s language).
Though there was a 1935 Indian production, Laurence Olivier’s 1948 feature was
the first full length english language sound version of Hamlet on film. Made in black and
white, unlike his glorious Technicolor Henry V (1944)1, the film was a financial and
artistic success, winning the Academy Award for Best Picture.2 Olivier’s version has
become the standard against which other Hamlet films (and indeed, other Shakespeare
films)3 have been measured. Utilizing a Freudian reading of the play and emphasizing
Hamlet’s indecision4, Olivier’s version also cuts substantial amounts of the text,
1
While it was long surmised that Olivier chose to make Hamlet in black and white for artistic reasons, in
an interview with director Trevor Nunn in Approaches to Hamlet, Olivier reveals “I was having a row with
Technicolor at the time.”
2
A truly historic achievement, as it was the first British film to win, and indeed, the first non-Hollywood
made film to win.
3
Interestingly, one of Olivier’s decisions that has been widely copied is making Hamlet blonde. Mel
Gibson had blonde streaks in his hair and Kenneth Branagh died his hair blonde. Olivier, when asked
about it, commented that he only did it to make him easy to find for the cinematographer, “one blonde in
the middle of all that brown hair on the floor.”
4
The film begins with Olivier’s voiceover saying “This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his
mind.”
including entire characters (Fortinbras, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern). Olivier’s Hamlet is
brooding and thoughtful, one obviously in the depths of depression after the death of his
father.5
Olivier makes a number of interesting choices as both star and director. The first
shot of the film is one of Hamlet, dead, being borne up through the castle. The opening
scene with Claudius (I.ii.) shows a king at a banquest with his people who is jovial, drunk
and at ease. Everyone in the scene seems to be enjoying themselves with the exception
of Hamlet, sitting at the end of a long table. It is an establishing shot that makes his
alienation from the proceedings clear. Olivier also develops the now common style of
having the soliloqueys being done as voiceovers (with Branagh being the prominent
exception).
Being the first Hamlet, Olivier is free to make a lot of his own choices, not
influenced by any particular earlier version. Just after Polonius gives his advice to
Ophelia, she looks down the hallway at Hamlet sitting in his seat. When the Ghost first
appears, the camera goes in and out of focus. When Ophelia describes Hamlet’s madness
to her father, her description is only in voice-over while the scenes appear on screen
(another of Olivier’s stylistic choices that became common practice with the exception of
the Branagh version). When Hamlet interacts with Polonius, insulting and taunting him,
Gertrude and Claudius are watching the scene. In the “get thee to a nunnery” scene,
Ophelia acts as if she is being watched. This scene makes it difficult to discuss the movie
in the terms of the scenes of the play. Olivier places the nunnery scene before the “to be
or not to be” speech, rather than directly afterwards. While the 1st Quarto of Hamlet had
5
Olivier’s performance has also become the standard. Not counting Gwyneth Paltrow and her Shakespeare
scenes in Shakespeare in Love or the parts in A Double Life when Ronald Colman is on stage playing
the “to be or not to be” speech in the second Act, much earlier in the play, and while
some films have placed it there, Olivier keeps the Folio placement of the speech; he
simply moves the nunnery scene. The reason for this becomes apparent when the “to be”
speech comes on. Olivier films the “to be” speech on the top of a cliff, sitting on a rock,
looking down on the rocky waters below. It becomes easy to see that if Hamlet chooses
not to be, then he can simply leap off the cliff to his death in the rocks far below.
Another stylistic choice that has been copied numerous times since Olivier used it is the
lack of a dialogue during the production of the Mousetrap. Either by just showing the
dumbshow and having Claudius react to that (as Olivier does), or simply showing the
action on stage without the Player King’s dialogue (as other versions do), the dialogue of
the play within the play is often sacrificed to help quicken the pace of the play and lower
the running time.
The most important stylistic choice by Olivier was to utilize a Freudian reading of
the play by emphasizing the relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude. While there is
nothing in the text to suggest that their scene takes place in anything other than a dressing
closet, it is often staged in Gertrude’s bedroom. Olivier goes forward with this choice,
and most of the dialogue takes place on Gertrude’s bed. At one point, Gertrude is thrown
on her bed in anger and threatened with a dagger. After she screams, Hamlet leaps from
the bed to kill Polonius. Before he leaves the scene, dragging Polonius’ body behind
him, he kisses Gertrude on the lips. Olivier’s emphasizes the sexual longing and
confusion of the scene and the relationship. This is made even more explicit a few
minutes later when Hamlet explains to Claudius that “man and woman are one flesh.”
Othello, Laurence Olivier is still the only actor to win an Oscar for a Shakespearean performance.
Olivier brings great anxiety to the scene and his hands shake as he speaks the line, adding
dramatic emphasis to a line often overlooked.
There are a number of interesting choices that Olivier makes during the final act.
When he comes up Ophelia’s grave, there is only one gravedigger. When he gives the
“fall of a sparrow” speech he appears to be self-assured and confident. The look that
Gertrude gives before she drinks the poison makes it seem as if she knows the cup is
poisoned and that she is conciously ending her life. At the conclusion, rather than cut
Fortinbras’ lines that conclude the play, they are given to Horatio, which he says before
his final oration for Hamlet, ending the film with “flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.”
The Tony Richardson 1969 film version was drastically different from Olivier’s
in a variety of ways. Richardson took the stage version that he had been directing and
filmed it. Unlike the 1964 Geilgud version, it is not simply a filmed version of the stage
play, though it does use the same cast and sets. It does, however, use editing and film
techniques to make a coherent film. This is made apparent right from the opening scene,
as the film is filled with close-ups (certainly not something that is possible on stage). In
an interesting stylistic choice, Richardson presents the entire play in somber colors. The
clothes are almost all muted browns and the backgrounds are completely black,
emphasizing the presence of whoever the close-up is on.
The ways in which Richardson’s version is unique become apparent early on
(aside from the numerous close-ups). The most dramatic difference from other versions
is that the Ghost is never actually seen. There is simply a bright white light and a voice,
from somewhere off screen (the Ghost is voiced, with some distortion, by Nicol
Williamson who also plays Hamlet), but the audience never actually sees the Ghost.
Nicol Williamson delivers many of his sololiquys directly to the camera, staring at the
audience. Claudius and Gertrude welcome Rosencrantz and Guildenstern while lying,
casually in bed, enjoying a meal. In the final scene, after Claudius is given the poison, he
vomits it back up (again, in a close-up). It cuts a considerable amount of text without
cutting characters.6
Nicol Williamson’s performance as Hamlet and Marianne Faithful’s performance
as Ophelia are the key to this version. Williamson is a humorous and personable Hamlet,
a performance that is not easy given the dark tone of the movie and the somber art
direction. Yet, he manages to smile, to laugh, to, at times, bound playfully about. His
interactions with Ophelia suggest a pleasant love affair between the two previous to the
events in the play. When Ophelia is questioned about her relationship with Hamlet by
her father, it becomes immediately apparent that she is happily in love with him. She
even beams when she declares that “he hath importun’d me with love / In honorable
fashion.” After Hamlet gives the “to be or not to be” speech (in this version placed early
in Act II, in the Q1 placement), he thens goes to Ophelia, who is lying in her bed. She is
relaxed and casually enjoying herself when Hamlet comes to her. She is happy to see
him. It is much different than any other film version of the scene. They are having a
happy exchange until the moment when Hamlet sees Polonius spying on them, and asks
“Where’s your father?” It is only then, only after Hamlet knows he is being spied upon,
after he feels that Ophelia has betrayed him that his feelings for her seem to change. That
is the moment when their relationship goes wrong, and though some film versions play
this similarly in terms of Hamlet’s reaction (Branagh’s is fairly similar -- he is happy to
6
It is easily the shortest of the four versions discussed here. At only 117 minutes it is the very rare Hamlet
to clock in at less than 2 hours.
see her, though puzzled by her reaction until he hears a noise and asks about Polonius),
but no other film version seems to play Ophelia quite in the manner that she is played in
this version.
Things look quite different from the opening scene of Franco Zeffirelli’s 1990
version. The opening scene is not that of the ghost, nor that of the banquet, but rather of
the burial of King Hamlet. Using dialogue from the banquet scene, including letting him
know that he is the heir, Claudius, Gertrude and Hamlet stand inside the tomb, witnessing
the burial rites. The first scene of the play is absent entirely and the audience is not
allowed to see the Ghost until the same moment that Hamlet himself beholds him. These
are some of the many choices that Zeffirelli makes that are not to be found in the text of
the play itself. Gertrude and Claudius have their scene with Laertes in private rather than
in front of a crowd. Gertrude makes a motion to Claudius to go seek out Hamlet and talk
to him about his father’s death, as opposed to coming directly after the banquet scene.
When Polonius warns Ophelia to stay away from Hamlet, he is listening to them from the
catwalk. As Olivier did, when Ophelia describes Hamlet’s madness, it shows the scene
rather than just relying on her description. There is a scene between Hamlet and Ophelia
directly following this, ostensiblty the “nunnery” scene, though that line is absent (while
most of the rest of the dialogue from that scene is present in this scene), and this is all
before the “to be or not to be” scene. We do not see Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
welcomed by Gertrude and Claudius, but rather their interaction with Hamlet first, then,
after they come back to the castle, do we see Claudius make a motion to them so that he
can talk to them. We do not know ahead of time that he has asked them to spy on
Hamlet. The actual “get the to a nunnery” speech is given to Ophelia during the
dumbshow, before the Moustrap. There is, like Olivier’s version, no Fortinbras.
A considerable amount of the financial success7 of Zeffirelli’s version can be
attributed to his casting of Mel Gibson as Hamlet. Gibson is athletic and upbeat in his
portrayal and not particularly introspective. He does not play Hamlet as in the depths of
meloncholy, but rather attempting to deal with the events that are unfolding before him.
Roger Ebert writes, “we get the notion, indeed, that there was nothing
fundamentally awry with (Gibson’s) Hamlet until everything went wrong in his life,
until his father died and his mother married his uncle with unseemly haste. This
is a prince who was healthy and happy and could have lived a long and active
life, if things had turned out differently.” He laughs and smiles; even during the
final duel he jests and dances, making the moment light just before all of the
death. Among the film performances of Hamlet, it is a unique vision.
“When people ask, ‘Why do Hamlet?’, I say all the answers are contained
in Bleak Midwinter,” Kenneth Branagh says. He is referring to his 1995 film In
the Bleak Midwinter, a small black and white film about down and out actors
doing a Christmas performance of Hamlet in an unused church. Joe, who is both
directing it and playing the lead role decides that his life has a deadline and that
he has to do the play. When told by his sister Molly that it is a bad idea, trying to
convince kids to “stop watching Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and come see a
400 year old play about a depressed aristocrat,” Joe tells her “I saw this play
when I was fifteen and it changed my life … It spoke to my heart, and my head,
and my chief reproductive organ.” (37)
Midwinter is an interesting take on Hamlet. It shows the kind of power that
the play has, when people are forced to confront issues on stage that they have
also been forced to confront in real life (dealing with problems with a child, the
untimely death of a loved one), but also shows the kind of humor that is present
in even the darkest of Shakespeare’s plays. More to the point, it shows the kind
of humor and tension that both can spring up when attempting to adapt the play,
whether for the stage, as in this film, or for the screen. Joe tells his actors, “I see
it as a very dark play,” to which, one responds, “I see it as a very long play
darling. Sally Scissors is going to appear we hope?” (33) After a read through of
the entire play (prompting a comment: “We’ve only got ten days to rehearse but
let’s spend fifteen hours reading the whole bloody thing on day one,” [33]), Joe
gives them the cuts. The actor playing Laertes is livid, demanding that four key
lines be re-inserted.8 These are the kind of issues that must come up behind the
scenes during Hamlet films, but something that we do not ever see. All we get to
see is the finished product. Even though they are a theatrical troupe rather than
a film crew, we get the idea of the kind of preparation that goes into making these
Hamlet films, which becomes even more apparent when three of the principal
actors in Midwinter play important supporting roles in Branagh’s full length
Hamlet.
Kenneth Branagh presented his full length Hamlet in theaters in late 1996.
Clocking in at 242 minutes, and using a conflated version of the Q2 and F1 texts,
7
With a theatrical gross of $20 million, it is easily the highest grossing film version.
In a nice bit of irony, it is Michael Maloney, the actor playing Joe, who makes these cuts to Laertes’ lines,
yet in Branagh’s full-length Hamlet, the only film version with all of Laertes’ lines intact, it is Michael
Maloney who plays Laertes.
8
it is the only film version of Hamlet to include every scene. By refusing to cut the
text, Branagh limits his audience, but manages to show all the aspects of the
play. The political machinations of the play become especially apparent in this
version. While various versions will cut various aspects of the text, sometimes
cutting entire scenes, sometimes only cutting lines, most, if not all, of the
Fortinbras sub-plot is nearly always cut. Branagh not only presents all of the
lines concerning Fortinbras, but shows action not included in the texts, including
Old Norway’s reaction to learning of Fortinbras’ plans, and the conquering of
Denmark by Fortinbras before the actions of the final lines. While there are many
lines early in the play that stress the military action that Denmark is preparing for,
those lines are almost always cut; Branagh not only keeps the lines but shows
the military might of Denmark, showing war machines being produced, and
having Claudius outfitted in military dress.
Aside from showing scenes that are absent in other versions, Branagh
also does certain scenes differently from other versions. When Ophelia is told by
her father to avoid Hamlet, they are alone, in a church, with Hamlet not capable
of hearing the words. When Ophelia tells her father about Hamlet’s madness,
the scene is not shown, but rather described by Ophelia. The first time we see
Hamlet and Ophelia in the film together is a flashback scene during the reading
of Hamlet’s letter that shows him in bed with her, reading the letter to her. When
Hamlet first sees Ophelia after his “to be or not to be” speech (the second time in
the movie we see the two of them together, and the first time that they are
actually on stage together in the play), it is apparent that he does not know that
she has been asked to spy upon him. When she asks after him and he replies
“well, well, well,” he kisses her. He is happy to see her. It is not until after he
hears a noise and sees Ophelia react that he realizes that he has been betrayed.
Branagh’s performance is the key to the film. He is intelligent and creative
and can easily be believed as the type of Hamlet who would seek to insert lines
into a play, to fake letters, to think of creative ways to trap his uncle. He is
beloved of the people, as becomes obvious in many of the larger crowd scenes,
and he is full of energy and wit, taunting Polonius, running from the guards,
verbally jousting with Claudius. He is deeply in love with Ophelia and feels
betrayed when she spies on him. By giving the “to be or not to be” speech in
front of a mirror, we see him contemplating mortality with a dagger to his head,
literally looking death in the eye. He enjoys himself during his speeches, and as
director, gives special emphasis to speeches that are normally cut.9 In scenes
where Hamlet repeats a phrase, he places the sorrowful, serious emphasis on
the second time, with a humorous emphasis on the third. When he gives his
most poignant speech (“the fall of a sparrow”), there are tears in his eyes as he
contemplates where his life has lead him, followed by a hug with Horatio. This is
Hamlet the Dane in his full regalic splendor, full of wit and energy.
Having studied these films, the question remains: which of these films is
most useful in teaching Hamlet in the classroom and how are they useful? Even
9
This version is the only one in which Hamlet’s 4th sololiquy (“How all occasions do inform against me”)
and as he gives the speech, the camera slowly pulls back, until, at the conclusion, he is a small part on the
screen against a white background with a large army. He uses this chance to then break for the
intermission.
with a performance history, how can a teacher know what is useful and what is
not? There are still the versions not discussed here. Can they be useful?
Many sorts of films can be useful when discussing Hamlet for the very
same reason that so many films make reference to Hamlet: because it has
become such a wide-spread aspect of Western culture, and because certain
parts of it have become so well known even to those who have never read the
play or seen a performance or film version, that it is useful to look at it and see
why.
No specific version of Hamlet is entirely useful to watch in class in its
entirety. To truly understand the full scope of the play, including all the
subtleties, the only proper version to watch would be the Kenneth Branagh 1996
version. However, due to its length, watching it in class would take up a full week
of 50 minute classes, and that’s not including any discussion. By usings bits and
pieces of all the available films, it is possible to show, not only the scope of the
play, but also the explore many different variations one can use in either staging
or filming it, including acting choices, directing choices, set decoration choices,
costume choices and possibly even special effects (either on stage or on film).
A good introduction to the play could be provided by brief scenes from In
the Bleak Midwinter. The scene where Joe explains to Molly his reasons for
choosing Hamlet rather than any other play to stage can help to explain all the
reasons why current students might be interested in the play. Joe explains how
the play spoke to his brain, his heart and his “chief reproductive organ.” This can
be followed by choices scenes from any of the versions. For the head. it is easy
enough to make use of any of the “to be or not to be” solilquys, with the possible
exception of Gibson’s. Because Gibson’s performance is the least introspective
of the versions, it is the least likely to inspire deep thought about the words. Both
the Olivier version and the Branagh version emphasize the possibility of
immediate death should Hamlet choose to do so, making both of them extremely
useful for this scene. While often this is a place where critics argue for the
Almereyda version, I argue the opposite. Ethan Hawke performs the soliloquy in
a Blockbuster video, strolling among the Action aisle. While it is designed to
invoke the idea of thought versus action, it reminds us that this is a character (the
way he is played by Hawke) who would never seriously consider killing himself,
not if Blockbuster is where he is going to do this pondering. For the heart, a
useful scene is any of the versions in the graveyard, moving from the moment
where Hamlet contemplates Yorick’s skull, up until the moment where he leaps
into the grave to battle Laertes. This is a particularly useful place to use Gibson,
as he is more inclined to be upbeat, and thus is all the more heartbroken for the
death of Ophelia. Since many readers, especially at the high school level, might
be a bit uncomfortable by the overt presence of incest, the part speaking to the
“chief reproductive organ,” is probably best suited either for the flashbacks shown
in the Branagh version of Hamlet and Ophelia in bed together or the early scenes
between Hamlet and Ophelia in the Richardson version, where Ophelia seems
very happily in love.
The next scene in Midwinter that is useful for this is where Joe tries to
explain the power of the play:
Please give this scene the intensity it deserves.
You’re all shying away from the power of this play.
Now this scene is about loss. The loss of sense,
Ophelia’s madness, the loss of a sister, the loss of a
relationship between Claudius and Gertrude, and
crucially, the loss, the death of someone they have all
in their own ways experienced a profound love for,
that’s a human emotion can all share. (69-70)
This can be followed with the actual scene (Ophelia’s mad singing scene) in all
the films. This is a particularly effective scene in all four of the films, and helps to
show the kind of differences the directors choose. In the Zeffirelli version this
can be particularly useful because it helps to emphasize the sexual aspects of
the play. Ophelia comes in and starts undressing a soldier, while singing,
moving slowly down his body until she is starting to pull at his belt and take off
his pants. She is clearly sexually hungry, driven mad by the death of her father
and the death of her relationship with Hamlet. This is countered by other
versions in which the sexual aspect is not nearly played up as much. In
Branagh’s version, Ophelia is encased in a strait jacket and lies on the floor. In
Olivier’s version, while clearly Ophelia is going mad, it is more a sort of prolonged
meloncholy than the kind of fierce madness portrayed in other versions.
One final scene to watch is the actual performance of the play in
Midwinter. In Midwinter, the performers use a 20th century setting, complete with
trenchcoats and machine guns. It provides an interesting contrast to other
versions on film. It is difficult to attach any sort of time period to the Richardson
film. The sets are so sparse, the backgrounds so dark, that it is difficult to tell
when the film is set. The costumes, somewhat Elizabethan, but almost entirely
lacking in any bright colors, are also hard to identify. The Olivier version, on the
other hand, is strictly Elizabethan. The sets are elaborate, though the film often
seems to have a rather foggy feel to it. Olivier purposefully sets up this feeling,
for while he utilizes Elizabethan costumes, he is trying for a more fanciful setting,
with less realism attached. In interviews he explained how he was trying to
divorce the film from the sort of neo-realism that was sweeping films at the time,
and attach it to a timeless age when this sort of tragedy could be placed. The
Zeffirelli version is more true to the actual time period described in Belleforest,
the writer who Shakespeare used as his source for the play. By setting the film
in a mud ridden castle on the edge of a cliff, lacking Elizabethan comforts and in
a more simple style of dress, Zeffirelli attaches a medieval look to his film.
Branagh, in his film, moves the play closer to our time, attaching Victorian style
costumes, with nineteenth century military armaments. By shooting on location
in Blenheim castle, a well known Victorian era castle (where Winston Churchill
was born and raised), he helps to continue the Victorian mood of the film, making
the political machinations between Denmark and Norway seem less like
medieval posturing and more like nineteenth century real-politik.
After using Midwinter to introduce the film, the most useful application of
films would be to watch certain clips from the films. For a few scenes, it would be
useful to watch more than one film, while it would also be useful to look at scenes
that exist on film only in the Branagh version. The key scene to watch is the one
most widely known: the “to be or not to be” speech. Before watching each
version, it would also be useful to explain the context in each of the films. Most
current versions of Hamlet use a conflated text from Q2 and F1. These texts
place the “to be or not to be” speech in III.i., with Claudius and Polonius hiding,
watching and Ophelia ready to attract Hamlet’s attention and speak to him. Yet,
the only one of the four versions to actually use that placement is the Branagh
version. Olivier moves the speech to before the nunnery sequence so that
Hamlet can be alone on the top of the cliff for the scene. Zefferilli moves it closer
to the Q1 placement, while Richardson places it in the Q1 placement. By placing
the speech much earlier in the play, we have not had the effect of seeing Hamlet
plying his madness upon the characters and we must wonder if this is just the
start of his “antic disposition.” In Branagh’s version, he slowly walks towards a
mirror (not knowing that Claudius and Polonius are watching him from the other
side of the mirror), with a dagger placed against his forehead. At this time, we
have seen his interaction with the players, the warmth he shows the Player King
and Horatio, while also seeing the disdain he heaps upon Polonius and the
coldness he feels when he realizes that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have
come to spy on him. The speech is well placed and we wonder whether Hamlet
really will choose to kill himself or not.10
The final use of Hamlet on film would be to watch scenes that are only
present in the Branagh version. The ideal scene to use would be the 4 th
10
With Branagh, he is so full of life in the role that we think he would not. With Olivier, who is more
melancholy and brooding, it is easy to surmise that perhaps he goes into the final scene knowing that he
soliloquy, showing how Branagh gives the speech, and how he uses it as a
perfect point to break for the intermission. The first brief scene after the
intermission would also be useful. As they are lines of Claudius’ that are rarely
spoken in film performances (and, indeed, rarely even spoken on stage), but
ones that Branagh so skillfully uses to sum up the action for the return from the
intermission, while showing earlier scenes, they are important to note.
As one of the most commonly studied plays in literary history, there are a
variety of ways in which teachers can approach Hamlet. Film has often proved
useful for helping students relate to a text, and Hamlet certainly is ripe with these
possibilities. Through following this plan, of using In the Bleak Midwinter,
augmented with selected scenes from various other film versions, it is possible to
slice through over ninety versions of Hamlet on film to discover what can be most
useful in a classroom.
will die and that he dies not mind this much.
Bibliography
Branagh, Kenneth. In the Bleak Midwinter. New York: Newmarket Press, 1995.
Burnett, Mark Thornton. “The ‘Very Cunning of the Scene’: Kenneth Branagh’s
Hamlet.” Literature Film Quarterly 25.2 (1997): 78-82.
Crowl, Samuel. At the Shakespeare Complex. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2003.
Ebert, Roger. “Hamlet.” Rogerebert.com, 2005.
Halio, Jay. “Three Filmed Hamlets.” Literature Film Quarterly 1 (1973) 316-20.
Hapgood, Robert. “Kurosawa’s Shakespeare Films: Throne of Blood, The Bad Sleep
Well, and Ran.” Shakespeare and the Moving Image: The Plays on Film and
Television. Ed. Anthony Davies and Stanley Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994, 234-249.
Litton, Glenn. “Diseased Beauty in Tony Richardson’s Hamlet.” Literature Film
Quarterly 4 (1976): 108-22.
McCombe, John P. “Toward an Objective Correlative: The Problem of Desire in Franco
Zeffirelli’s Hamlet.” Literature Film Quarterly 25.2 (1997): 125-31.
Smith, Emma. “ ‘Either for tragedy, comedy’: Attitudes to Hamlet in Kenneth Branagh’s
In the Bleak Midwinter and Hamlet.” Shakespeare, Film, Fin de Siecle. Ed.
Mark Thornton Burnett and Ramona Wray. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 2000,
137-146.
Taylor, Neil. “The Films of Hamlet.” Shakespeare and the Moving Image: The Plays on
Film and Television. Ed. Anthony Davies and Stanley Wells. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994, 180-195.