Monday, April 27, 2015

Spooky Ghosts in Hamlet 4/27/15

Mel Gibson Version
In this take of Hamlet, the director of the film took the ghost seen as a more serious and scary event.  You can see that Hamlet is crazed as he draws his sword on two of his friends to follow the ghosts, and his eyes are wide-open then too.  As he talks to the ghost, Hamlet sweats profusely even as the wind consistently blows.  The window blowing also sets the eerie scene along with the simple yet gently tense music.  The lighting was dark, as we could only see half of Hamlet's face for a majority of it.  The ghost was in darkness for most of the scene as well.  I believe that the director made pretty good choices, I thought the tenseness he/she portrayed fit the mold well.  I enjoyed the rage that Hamlet went into, slashing at rocks and yelling, as he watched his Uncle joyfully eat next to his mother, I think this was the best post-ghost talk portrayal out of the three.  

19th Century Version
This version of the film I enjoyed incredibly, yet disliked incredibly.  Everything about it was great, the ghost was portrayed as an expressionless, cold, lonesome monster as his eyes bleed off the screen.  He was gray, covered in armor and even had white hairs.  The ghost was perfect, just as Hamlet.  Hamlet was superbly vivid with every action he took, but the greatness in it quickly faded.  It got old fast, as it began to annoy me I started having second feelings about the film.  There were explosions and flashes in the forest as Hamlet ran to his father's ghost, which felt half right.  The sporadic feel was good and all, but it began to hurt my head after a while and the headache stayed until I took Advil after school (seriously, it hurt BBBBAAAADDDD).  The film also ended oddly, instead of feeling sad of grieving for his father's murder he instantly began feeling almost full of himself.  Righteousness-like music began to play and he swore that HE WOULD  AVENGE HIS FATHER'S MURDER...kinda like Kill la Kill (don't google that).  The use of flashbacks was great, though.  It hit harder as we watched the King die painfully and watch the Uncle slowly steal the heart of the Queen.

The Last one (New York I think?)
This version was really bright, and felt normal honestly.  The scene took place in a New York apartment, making it feel more real.  The ghost did not look odd at all, it was just a person.  I enjoyed the subtle things it put out the most.  The ghost kept wiping his ear because that's where the poison was placed, and on the T.V. there was an explosion and death being played.  The ghost was very "touchy", consistently grabbing or pushing Hamlet; but this once again made it feel more real, the ghost could touch Hamlet.  I think the best scene of all three of the movies was at the end of this one, where the ghost embraced Hamlet.  It hit harder because of the scene it took place in, it felt more real and a really bitter barely sweet good-bye.  It's hard to explain why exactly I loved it so much, but I really enjoyed it a lot.  Hamlet's fear played a big part in this, being pushed and seeing his fearful expression made this one my favorite.  

Rambling
Anyways, I would like to take a moment to talk about how this relates to JOJO'S BIZARRE ADVENTURE: PART 4: DIAMOND IS NOT CRASH!  There's someone who was murdered and cannot pass onto the next life UNTIL the murderer is found, so in short she gets contact to someone she saved from the murder and stuff happens and eventually her death is avenged by an accidental murder.  The murderer kills another person that is close to the main character and also the murderer must steal someone's identity AND FACE (it makes more sense reading it) in the process of being hunted.  This wasn't even too far off, it makes sense and relates very well.  Oh, and the main character of that part HAS A POMPADOUR!!!!  HAMLET WAS CONNECTED TO A POMPADOUR!!!!!

4 comments:

  1. I honestly could not agree with you more on the three different versions of hamlet. The first went off the eerie and mysterious background, the second one was more intense in speech especially from the ghost, and the third one did have a more father son connection with in the scene. All I can say otherwise is that the speech in the third version would have lacked much of its emotion if it had not been paired with the sad music that played throughout the duration of the scene.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm sorry but i disagree. I feel as though even though the second scene was scattered, i think it had the best ghost. Although the ghost was almost scary looking; i feel like that is what a stereotypical ghost is supposed to look like. I understand how it was loud and odd but it is (i think) better than the third. The third had absolutely driven away from Shakespeare's writing and went into its own direction. The third one annoyed me for the main reason that it did not include Marcellus and Horation and how it barely reflected the writing. I like your post though! (Sorry)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely do agree that the second ghost was the best, it was really spooky (hence the title)! But the third scene hit me in some odd way that I've still yet to figure out how/why. AND DON'T SAY SORRY! OBJECTION LEADS TO GREAT DISCUSSION! ...sorry for capslock

      Delete
  3. You are hereby forbidden to use the word pompadour. But honestly, great post. It inspired a thoughtful thread! :)

    ReplyDelete