Download Lynn Sinclair University of the West of Scotland Paper on “To be or

Lynn Sinclair
University of the West of Scotland
Paper on “To be or Not to be” and Adaptation.
16 June 2016
Olivier Clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ks-NbCHUns
Ethan Hawke Clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YHMYkUrV7A
David Tennant Clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYZHb2xo0OI
1
Paper on Hamlet
This paper is a textual analysis of three screen versions of Hamlet’s
soliloquy “To be or not to be, that is the question” to allow me to explore
elements of the process of adaptation. Specifically the paper will examine the
discrepancy between theatrical dialogue and cinematic dialogue - the ability of
film to manipulate space and time as a key difference between theatre and
cinema. Bazin sees adaptation as the organisation of space; he states “The
idea of a locus dramaticus is not only alien to, it is essentially a contradiction
of the concept of the screen.” (1974: 387). This paper will also demonstrate
how the cultural and political context of the filmed soliloquies affects the
language. It will demonstrate the impact of mise en scene and the
consequences of filmic characteristics on the Shakespearean language.
As a preface, it seems essential to consider that Shakespeare changed
the role of the soliloquy within Elizabethan theatre. He implies that these
internal monologues are related to the character’s state of mind or
consciousness. Therefore the choice of this soliloquy from Hamlet seems
appropriate as Harold Bloom, says of Hamlet; “consciousness is his salient
characteristic, he is the most aware and knowing figure ever conceived.”
(1999: 404).
My central rationale is to examine how different directors deal with
these “un-cinematic” speeches and also to focus on the effects of this
process of “transformation”. The main theorist in the context of this paper is
Robert Stam. His emphasis is on intertexuality and he believes that the
process of transformation from play to film has no clear point of origin. I
disagree with Stam’s point of view and I will argue against it within the context
of this paper.
This Shakespearean soliloquy has become iconic in global culture and
has come to represent the enduring significance of his work. Perhaps more
importantly is the significance of the soliloquy because of its universality and
the use of imagery and allegory. It has also been suggested that the soliloquy
2
represents Hamlet’s death speech in advance. Harold Bloom quotes D H
Lawrence – (slow down)
“For the soliloquies of Hamlet are as deep as the soul of man can go”
(2003: 9)
The three versions analysed in this paper are Laurence Olivier’s film
from 1948, Michael Almereyda’s 2000 version and Gregory Doran’s RSC and
BBC version from 2009. Robert Stam says “A filmic adaptation is
automatically different and original due to the change of medium.” (2005: 17)
I agree with Stam on this but I would argue that the use of Shakespeare’s
language, including the blank verse and the imagery retains a strong
connection between the ‘original’ written play and the adaptation and has a
significant impact upon the audience’s interpretation of the film.
Olivier’s version of Hamlet is regarded as a benchmark text. This links
to traditional ideas of Shakespearean orthodoxy in terms of a “purist”
adaptation but also relates to the social culture of 1948, in particular, the
concept of national culture at that time. Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of ‘cultural
capital’ (2001: 351) is relevant as Shakespeare’s texts are regarded as
highbrow yet some regard cinema and television as lowbrow mediums. It
could be argued that this tension is challenged by filmic versions of
Shakespeare’s plays as they attract many more audiences than the theatre
and the process of ‘transforming’ the play into a film perhaps facilitates the
film audience to engage with the key themes and characters.
Olivier plays Hamlet and directs the film. His influence is clear from the
start - “Laurence Olivier presents Hamlet by William Shakespeare”. He is
explicitly referencing the original author but as Olivier’s name appears first
suggests that his roles may be of greater importance. Indeed much has been
written about the film and much made of the Oedipal nature of the adaptation.
But perhaps the assumptions, contradictions and excesses shown are of
more significance.
3
The sets used dominate each frame. There seems to be a tension here
for Olivier. Deborah Cartmell asserts that “we are aware that this is a
theatrical space as well as a film space” (2000: 26). Olivier deems it
necessary to provide the audience with a level of theatricality in the sets and
his performance is related to an idea of authenticity or fidelity to the original
text that includes using theatrical costume and make-up.
At times, his performance is excessive. Indeed before Olivier’s soliloquy
begins there is a montage of images including a surreal superimposed image
of a human brain. This seems to imply his desire to portray the ‘interior’
landscape or inner consciousness of Hamlet but also suggests the inherent
tension of “representing” a character’s mental state of mind on film. There are
other elements of the mise en scene that support this idea including the use of
voice over in the soliloquy to emphasis the ‘internality’ of the dialogue. Olivier
also uses melodramatic gestures and facial expressions to allude to the range
and depth of Hamlet’s feelings. Let us have a look at the beginning of Oliver’s
performance. (Until perchance to sleep)
Perhaps more significant and revealing is Olivier’s delivery of the soliloquy.
Sarah Kozloff (Coslof) says that an actor’s ”natural vocal qualities, combined
with his or her vocal skills, greatly influence the viewer’s perception of the
character’s personality.” (2000: 44). Olivier’s accent and theatrical delivery
represents a distinctive notion of Englishness and of a particular stratum of
British middle class culture. His use of pauses and RP pronunciation supports
the representation of a specific discourse related to a particular type of
Englishness. His mastery of Shakespeare’s language and the consistent use
of iambic pentameter suggests Olivier’s desire to deliver a faithful and
scholarly version of this iconic soliloquy.
Bazin asserts that the problem for Shakespeare on film is “the handling
of the action and the style of the dialogue were conceived as echoing through
the architecture of the auditorium.” (1974: 388) This altered relationship
between the actor and the audience can be seen by Olivier’s speech direct to
camera that suggests a desire to communicate more directly with the
audience. He looks at the camera as if he is in conversation with the
spectators.
4
It is appropriate to consider the genre of Olivier’s film. Much has been made
of the “film noir” style, for example, its use of black and white, lighting,
shadows and certain camera movements. Christine Geraghty’s work on
adaptation includes the concept that “the gap between an adaptation and
other examples of its genre also draws attention to the processes of
transformation and performance.” (2008: 9) I intend to explore this further in
the following two versions of the soliloquy.
Michael Almereyda’s version of Hamlet made in 2000 superficially
seems to represent a post-modernist adaptation of the text. The context for
the plot of the narrative is explained by four titles sequences. It is New York in
2000, the King is dead (he is also referred to as the C.E.O of the Denmark
Corporation), his widow has married his younger brother and her son has
returned from school suspecting foul play. These titles are shown over nighttime, urban images of buildings; neon signs with electronic music including
aeroplane sound effects. Many of these conventions suggest a modern
thriller genre however the dialogue and the performance of the soliloquies
contradicts this. It seems Almereyda wants to make Shakespeare
contemporary by using certain cinematic aesthetics to portray the narrative.
Hawke performs the soliloquy in a video shop. The emphasis is on the
setting, modern costume (especially his bobble hat), his unshaven look, his
arrogant and youthful demeanour all suggest a modern interpretation of an
iconic soliloquy. He delivers the soliloquy as he walks through the aisles of
shelves of videotapes and the word “Action” is shown at the top of all the
shelves. Lets have a look at Hawke playing Hamlet. (until thus conscience
does make cowards of us all).
The use of jump cuts in places suggests distancing the audience from the
“action” to produce a more impartial reading of the text. This consumerist
context including signs saying blockbusters and entertainment suggests
Almereyda’s political stance on modern culture. It also represents
intertextuality and Stam’s notion of “transcoding” – the translation of one text
into a new format – not only has Almeredya transformed the play into a filmic
text but also within that film he uses other formats to comment on that
process.
5
Hawke uses an American accent and some lines are spoken very
quickly. He uses a more naturalistic and filmic style voice rather than a
projected and theatrical voice. He challenges audience expectations by
impersonating an English accent for the words “the proud man’s contumely,”
He also cuts some phrases out and changes the order of some lines. This
may be related to accessibility and appeal to a younger audience.
At the end of the clip when the camera cuts to a side tracking mid-shot
Hawke says “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,” and he stands
still. So as with Olivier this line is picked out as important. However maybe the
strongest aspect to the delivery is in the last three lines. “And enterprises of
great pitch and moment” is delivered in a very expressive way. Hawke uses
different movements of his head and facial expression to “act out” these
lines.
It is worth noting that Ethan Hawke at 29 years old is the youngest big screen
Hamlet. His place as a “movie” actor is also important in playing the role. As
Richard Dyer states “a star will have a particular performance style that
through its familiarity will inform the performance s/he gives in any particular
film.” (1998: 142). This is important as Hawke is known for playing young
characters, for example, his breakthrough role of student Todd Anderson in
Dead Poets Society (Weir, 1989). Unlike Olivier who was 40 when he played
Hamlet in his version and his performance background was firmly placed in
the theatre.
One of the central themes of this text is recording images and sound.
Almereyda’s Hamlet is closely linked to Stam’s theory around ‘transcoding’
‘reformatting’ and the idea of images being ‘infinitely reproducible’. Stam
asserts “there is no loss of quality since the images are stored as pixels, with
no “original” (2005 12). Indeed Almereyda’s uses items like the “pixel vision”
camera in the narrative of the film and also the mediated relationship between
the characters and the audience. Therefore Almereyda’s adaptation explicitly
draws attention to the process of transformation and Hawke’s performance
supports this. This is quite different from Olivier’s version that tries not to draw
attention to this process. However it does have some similarities with the
version directed by Gregory Doran.
6
The Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) staged Hamlet in 2008 at the
Courtyard Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon. A performance was recorded by
the BBC (2009) but not on the RSC stage. However the text does retain a
“filmed stage play” ambience and some scenes are very similar to the stage
version. The author is explicitly shown as the BBC and the RSC in the
opening titles and these companies represent possibly the two topmost British
cultural institutions. This context could result in a set of fixed audience
expectations about this adaptation and performance. The director, Gregory
Doran, is a theatre director with close links to the RSC, as does David
Tennant who plays Hamlet.
Tennant’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy could be described as
‘minimalist’ and televisual in nature. Most of the speech is shot in close up
and Tennant looks directly at camera during many of the lines. He uses facial
expression and different vocal traits during his performance, however this
description alone would be to devalue Tennant’s innovative and “modern”
performance of the speech.
The use of framing and the lack of movement within the frame are very
important. Before the soliloquy begins, Tennant moves into shot in silhouette
and leans against a pillar on the far right of the frame. The background is out
of focus and therefore all attention is on the actor from this rear view. His
neck, face and hair are lit from underneath and the camera moves round very
slowly as he begins. On the two words “to sleep” the camera cuts to an empty
black frame with a portion of the pillar just visible on the left of the frame as
Tennant moves into shot. He stops in a close up head and shoulders shot
which is lit to emphasis his facial expression with his eyes closed.
The opening to the soliloquy creates a viewing position for the audience that
suggests that the language and the interpretation of the imagery are the
important elements.
“To die, to sleep” is said very theatrically and he opens his eyes at “To
sleep, perchance to dream” both of these are very similar to Olivier’s
performance and perhaps are intended to meet audience expectations. Also
“Ay, there’s the rub,” is said directly to camera until “Must give us pause”
where he moves his eyebrows and head upwards. At this point Tennant
adheres to a notion of ‘modernised’ Englishness represented by previous
7
actors like Olivier in terms of accent, use of voice, articulation, pronunciation,
enunciation, emphasis and pausing but, unlike Olivier and Almereyda, Doran
does not use voice over in the soliloquy. This distracts from the traditional
“internal monologue” aspect of the soliloquy but perhaps is an indication of a
desire to ‘modernise’ the performance. However the differences that signal a
“modernised” version is that the “acting out” is carried out in close up and no
music or sound effects are used. At the same time, Tennant includes more
modern, and sometimes throwaway gestures, in his performance, for instance
nodding his head or expressive eye movement. Like Hawke he is prepared to
take more chances to allow for a more polysemic meaning to emerge. Lets
have a look at Tennant’s performance. (until and lose the name of action)
An important aspect to Tennant’s performance is his prominence as a
well-known television actor and in particular his role as the British iconic Dr
Who character as this may alter the audience’s “reading” of the film.
In conclusion, Olivier’s version of this soliloquy is linked to a traditional view of
performing Shakespeare. This includes Olivier’s brand of “Englishness” and
his authentic rendition of the original text. Almereyda is trying to do something
very different. His version is post-modern and challenges audience
expectations and in opposition to Olivier, Almereyda wants to draw attention
to the process of “transformation”. Doran’s version inhabits a position
somewhere between the other two. Tennant delivers a “modernised” version
but still within the traditional Shakespearean context. Olivier and Tennent
fulfill the expectations of the traditionalist spectators whereas Almereyda’s
version of the soliloquy allows him to comment on contemporary society and
in particular the role of modern recording technology. The images that Hamlet
views as part of the diegetic world and the images the audience are shown
create a new dimension to the words being heard. The juxtaposition of these
images and the language seems to add a feeling of contemporaneity to the
themes of the soliloquy.
James Naremore argues that the bond between actor and audience is broken
in the cinema compared to the theatre “even if the performer speaks to us
directly” (1988: 29) However spectators are so familiar with film conventions
8
that the direct address allows for an intimate bond to be established.
Although some believe that direct address “violates the suspension of
disbelief” I would argue that the audience’s prior experience of the soliloquies
will most probably have been of a “live” nature, in the theatre or in an
educational context, but that the blank verse suits this mode of delivery.
Indeed the use of voice-over in the soliloquy seems more problematic
because the non-diegetic sound may reduce the poetic nature and the
intensity of the language for some spectators.
The power and uniqueness of the language and the performances in
these cinematic soliloquies suggests that additional layers of meaning are
created by the fusion of Shakespeare’s language and the director’s use of
filmic aesthetics. The “updating” of Shakespeare’s texts requires that the
original language remains essential to the adaptation.
Robert Stam concludes “Filmic adaptations, then, are caught up in the
ongoing whirl of intertextual reference and transformation, of texts generating
other texts in an endless process of recycling, transformation, and
transmutation, with no clear point of origin.” (2005: 31) However the text of
Shakespeare’s play still exists and has been translated and interpretated by
many authors and directors over centuries. It is possible to read a copy of the
play including its language, the soliloquies and the stage instructions and
therefore it would appear that an “original “ text does exist. Maybe the
importance and the requirement for “ongoing transformations” of the text is
because of its universality, the contemporaneity of Shakespeare’s themes and
the beauty of the poetic verse he uses to describe these themes. Perhaps
most important is his ability to communicate very complex subjects, for
example, showing “evil” as both attractive and horrifying that continues to
appeal to a modern audience.
Thank you.
Word Count 2,845
9
Bibliography
Bazin, A (1974) From What is cinema? Theater and cinema. In
Mast, G & Cohen, M (eds) Film Theory and Criticism. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bazin, A (2000) Adaptation, or the cinema as digest. In Naremore, J (ed) Film
Adaptation. London: The Athlone Press, pp. 19 – 27.
Bloom, H. (2003) Hamlet Poem Unlimited. Edinburgh: Canongate.
Bloom, H (1999) Shakespeare The Invention of the Human. London: Fourth
Estate.
Cartmell, D (2000) Franco Zeffirelli and Shakespeare. In Jackson, R (ed) The
Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 212 – 221.
Cartmell, D (2000) Interpreting Shakespeare on Screen. London, Macmillan
Press.
Dyer, R (1998) Stars. London, British Film Insitute Publishing.
Geraghty, C ( 2008) Now a Mjaor Motion Picture Film Adaptations of
Literature and Drama. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kozloff, S (2000) Overhearing Film Dialogue. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Naremore, J (1988) Acting in the Cinema. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
10
Stam, R & Raengo, A (eds) (2005) Literature and Film A Guide to the Theory
and Practice of Film Adaptation. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
11