If you're looking for the 3.1 "to be or not to be" assignment scroll down...
Write a response to
the three versions of the Mousetrap. (Due Wednesday, November 14.)
Choose an analytical argument question to respond to:
Which “Mousetrap” is most
powerful?
Or, which "Mousetrap" is the most effective?
Or, which is most faithful to Shakespeare’s Hamlet?
Or, which version do you
prefer?
Or, which version do you abhor?
Or, how do the different versions each suit the settings the directors have chosen?
Or, write your own question.
Explain your position. Support your position with specific detail from the scenes and from the text. Convince me you're right. This will take the form of an informal, persuasive essay.
Post your response in the comment box below. Make sure you include the question you are answering.
Additional thoughts:
Be specific and insightful. Be opinionated. To
develop your position you might need to show an awareness of
what lines are cut out of the abridged versions. (Is it okay to cut the
lines? Is meaning adequately conveyed without the lines? If something is
lost what?) You'll certainly need to show an awareness of the
different ways the three directors stage the “Mousetrap”. You might need
to think about the ways
that each version is faithful to the time period in which it is set.
Think
about the behavior and reactions of each character, especially the three
Claudiuses and the three Hamlets but differences in the Ophelias and the
Gertrudes are significant too.
Click here and scroll down to watch the three versions of the "The Murder of Gonzago" which Hamlet also calls "The Mousetrap".
Due Wednesday, November 14.
Zach S
ReplyDeleteWhich version do you prefer?
(Kenneth Branagh is not working on my computer so I am only comparing Gibson and Hawke)
I prefer the Ethan Hawke version of "The Mousetrap" over Mel Gibson's and Franco Zefirelli's version. The Ethan Hawke, though not as true to original Shakespeare in set as Zefirelli, was more abstract, less of a direct accusation, something I believed Shakespeare intended. I also believe that there was greater beauty in the composition of scenes and flashes of cartoons, how it flowed seemingly random and unconnected things into one cohesive story, if the viewer is willing to open their mind. Another great thing about Hawke was that the movie he had made played upon the madness aspect of Hamlet when the viewer watched the movie superficially, and not for what it was: an accusation of his Uncle. Gibson did this by how he delivered his lines but I feel it was more apparent in the conveyance of Hawke's video. The Gibson version lost some of the lines and parts of the play that were shown easily in the Ethan Hawke version. Hawke uses many aspects in his movie that allow the rendition of Act 3 Scene 2 to be superior to the work of Gibson and Zefirelli.
Katie M.
ReplyDelete-Which version do you prefer?
(The Branagh clip is not working for me, so I am just comparing Gibson and Hawke)
Out of the two versions of "The Mousetrap" I prefer the Ethan Hawke version. I first watched the Gibson version, and I honestly did like it because there was some humor in it, but the way I connected with the Hawke version decided the final vote. The humor I was referring too, was the way Gibson reacted to situations and how he treated people. He twisted the lines into a different scene compared to that I read from the book. With the Hawke version he completely turned away from dialogue and used vision instead; a total different scent. Instead of the traditional play there was a video. The video was formed by different clips, that all held their own meaning. I am more of a visual person, and seeing the references towards the situation in more of a modern way made what was going on clearer for me. The Gibson version was more directed towards Hamlets actual setting and time, but the Hawke version was totally opposite. The way the "Mouse Trap" came about turned my head in full attention. I understood Hamlet's feelings deeply, because of the visual aspects and comparisons being made. For example in the beginning he showed a scene dealing with a little boy and his father. To me it spoke out right away, almost shouting. Hamlet misses that connection with his father. He then added scenes of death and the particular murder with a toxin in the ear. These clips I believe spoke a lot louder than words themselves. In conclusion the Ethan Hawke version is my first choice.
Kelly F.
ReplyDelete“Which “Mousetrap” is most powerful?”
Each version of “The Mousetrap” had its strengths, but after comparing and contrasting all of them, Zeffirelli’s performance best depicts how I would have pictured Mousetrap, thus being the most powerful. The way it was set up by having the King, Queen, and Ophelia all on the same level as the performance and sitting next to each other I thought worked best. One particular line that was only included in Gibson’s version was “get thee to a nunnery” which I thought was a very important part of conveying what he was feeling for Ophelia. Another interesting communication he has with Ophelia is when he kisses her but then responds by saying “oh well” and running away. This was much more sudden and powerful than any of the other reactions of Hamlet to Ophelia in the other versions and truly shows his disregard for her. In Branagh’s version there were not many words even spoken to Ophelia and the certain ones chosen I did not think were the most important ones that could have been used.
Since Almereyda’s movie is so different than any of the versions we’ve been studying, it’s hard to compare it to the rest. It’s definitely an interesting way to set up the whole play. This version did cut out a lot however, and even though it got the message across, you still miss the important dialogue that helps develop the characters, which the Zeffirelli version did contain.
In Zeffirelli’s version, Hamlet was very sarcastic when talking to Ophelia but he didn’t yell it for everyone to hear. Although he directed a few comments towards Gertrude, the conversation was mainly between him and Ophelia. Hamlet was more discreet about his plan to reveal Claudius. It was also played by all men, which makes it more realistic, since that is how the book was.
Claudius’ reaction to the murder was pure fear in Zeffirelli’s version. He rose from his seat with his eyes wide and Hamlet took note of this, thinking he got the reaction he wanted. This is how the book makes you imagine it, so it contributes to this version being the most powerful. In Branagh’s version, Claudius’ eyes widened when he realized the play depicts the murder of his brother. He rises out of his seat and exits the theater. It seems as if Hamlet was very open about the whole plan to find Claudius guilty. He was screaming directly at Claudius the whole time and frantically screamed for Horatio once the king left. In the book, it appears more discreet. Yelling at Ophelia for everyone to hear was unrealistic. Thus, making Zeffirelli’s version the most powerful.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen people refer to Shakespeare, they think about the “old” times or the Elizabethan era, where people all dressed with absolute elegancy. In the Mel Gibson clip, the version appears to be more appropriate of the period and demonstrates this Elizabethan atmosphere. Everyone is dressed in elaborate clothing, therefore creating this type of ambiance. Although, in Ethan Hawke’s version it is fairly short and gets to the gist of the entire play, yet overlooks this Elizabethan setting. Not to mention, it has completely differing reactions from the Hawke Claudius to the Gibson Claudius. Claudius gets very angry and reacts shockingly at the “Mousetrap” in the Gibson clip and the audience can visibly indicate this sudden reaction when he rises from his seat, whereas Claudius in Ethan Hawke’s clip misses this significant response and only rises with faint emotion, which is Hamlet’s main objective. Hamlet in the Ethan Hawke clip does not have the same enthusiasm Gibson has in Zefirelli’s clip. Ophelia’s entire character is erased in Hawke’s version and does not say much. The Hawke clip lacks in delivering much of the important aspects I saw when picturing the “Mousetrap.”
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the Gibson scene, music is playing, establishing an enthusing atmosphere, where both the audience and the actors are stimulated, including Hamlet, who is very motivated to get the play started. Although once the play began, some lines were cut. Most importantly, the king and queen’s lines were shortened and merely delivered the point. Though, these lines are considered important, it still achieved in conveying the play’s overall purpose. When Gertrude asks Hamlet to sit by her, Hamlet turns away to Ophelia, and speaks with much joy and sarcasm. When Hamlet and Ophelia speak to each other, Hamlet still expresses, “Lady, shall I lie in your lap?” Although he skips, “Nay, then, let the devil wear black, for I’ll have a suit of sables.” Lines as such are omitted because they simply offer additional details to what is being said. Hamlet was replying mockingly, because he was shocked that four months have gone by since his father’s death. He then skips this line, where he believes his black clothing should go away, but there is no need for this line since he already expresses in the clip, “O heavens! Die two months ago and not forgotten yet?” and continues on with the same lines voicing his emotions. As was previously indicated in class, it is very important to get the overall sense of what is being said in the play, as long as you understand what is occurring between the characters and the important actions Hamlet is making.
The lines of Hamlet, however, did deliver the overall meaning of what he was saying when he speaks to Ophelia, Gertrude, and Claudius. Their reactions seemed to be more important than the lines being performed. Mel Gibson does say what he feels, which is very important because the Hamlet play is more important than the “Mousetrap” in this scene because we are looking at Claudius’s reaction to the “Mousetrap”, thus Claudius is the character that needs to be closely inspected. The purpose of the “Mousetrap” is to closely watch Claudius’s reactions to it, so as long as the gist gets across, Claudius will somehow react. Therefore, this is being fully achieved, since Claudius becomes greatly offended after the actors finish acting the part, where the mysterious murderer kills the king. For one thing, individuals in the audience were able to develop the general sequence of the events taking place; the king and the queen are deeply in love and their love was shattered apart once a mysterious individual or murderer kills the king in his sleep. Hence, the Mel Gibson clip effectively delivers the “Mousetrap” within the Hamlet play that took place in the Elizabethan era.
Alan D
ReplyDeleteWhile looking at the three plays it was easy to say that the first one, the scene that was done by Kenneth Branagh was the least effective simply because it is not playable on the blog and it is not on YouTube. Of the other two I thought that the most successful and most effective was the scene done by Mel Gibson. Both parts showed what was happening in the play/movie and that the king reacted to the show. The main difference was the setting and the way that Hamlet acted. In the Ethan Hawke Hamlet only turned around and stared creepily at the king. In this there was no real expression of emotion and he wasn't able to really show how much he wanted to figure this out and that the king killed his brother. The setting in the Hawke scene was ineffective because it took away from the fact that there are kings and queens in this area. It would be as if a man dressed in a tux was at a dinner and he talked like a politician and when the food came he ate it like he was a dog, it just doesn't fit. In the Gibson scene Hamlet is exited and looking back and forth from the play to the King and Queen. He got into the play and would talk to his two suspects and when the king got up and left he followed the king as if like a cat hunting its prey instead of just standing up and looking bored. He was nearly jumping up from excitement though not joy when he was talking to Horatio after the play. These things all add up to the fact that Mel Gibson was able to play Hamlet more effectively and that Hawke needed to put a little more energy into Hamlet.
HannahEllis
ReplyDeleteWhich “Mousetrap” is most effective? (I couldn’t find an alternate Branagh so my choices were just Gibson and Hawkes)
I think that Gibson’s version of the play was the most effective, because it got the point of Hamlet’s insanity across as well as showing the rest of the happenings in the scene. In Hawke’s version he turns around a bunch of times to see how his stepfather is reacting, but you can’t really tell that he has snapped and is truly insane in his version. In Gibson’s version you can tell he is crazy by the way he is acting, he is acting way too happy and excited. The only emotion the Hawke version of Hamlet has is anticipation, while Gibson makes him giddy and bouncing around, when the timing is not really appropriate. Gibson acts more like the way Hamlet seems as if he should be acting as that time then Hawke does. Ophelia is very different in both of the versions of this play, in Hawke’s she just asks what he is doing while he turns, but in Gibson’s she is sassier and actually shows emotion.Also at the end of Hawke’s the King does not interrupt the movie and make it end, they make it the end of the movie and he storms out. In Gibson’s version the King gets up slowly and gets more and more afraid until he cuts the play off short and leaves the playroom immediately. This shows his feelings of guilt more clearly than it does in Hawke’s version. Altogether I believe that Gibson did a more effective job of getting his point across then Hawke did.
Corinne D.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I, as I am sure you are aware, was not able to view Branagh's version of “The Mouse Trap,” I think that this version would have been my personal favorite, had the circumstances been different. I tried to find the scene on youtube after I realized that the link would not work, but the only part of the scene that I could find was that of the moments after the play, when Hamlet is talking to his friends. Bragh's attitude in this short clip, I believe, best portrayed the attitude that Shakespeare intended Hamlet to have. He was joyful and obnoxious and utterly mad, but at the same time there was a sort of genius about him. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were made to feel as though they were missing out on some grand joke, which, in a way, they were. There is very little else I can say about the performance, however, except that I simply though that Branagh's acting in this part was superb.
However, of the two films I could watch, I believe that Gibson's version was truer to Shakespeare, while Hawke's version was more effective. I believe strongly in the fact that Hamlet, being written in Elizabethan times, will always be most true to itself when performed as Elizabethan. Because of this, I am slightly biased against any modern portrayal. However, besides historical accuracy, I found Gibson's version rather unimpressive. One did not feel a growing sense of panic along with the king. It was hard to tell what the king's feelings really were: fear, disgust, guilt, remorse? And the play itself was rather short. The main focus of the clip seemed to be on Hamlet and Ophelia, which, although important, I don't find it to be as vital. Hawke's version, while not at all faithful to the original Shakespeare, did enact the scene quite powerfully. Whether I liked it or not, I can say that Hawke's version left me disturbed and upset, which is closer to what Hamlet was going for. Gibson's had no effect on me whatsoever. In my opinion, when it comes to art, it's better to have a negative effect than no effect at all. I think this is kind of the attitude that Hawke's version embodies. I think that the director wanted the audience to feel Claudius's discomfort, but since the audience, presumably, has no guilt of murder, he had to find another way to procure emotions from the viewer. He did so by focusing on the “incestuous” nature of the king's deeds and his relationship with Hamlet's mother. By disturbing the audience, the director was able to make them begin to understand the effect that the performance would have had on Claudius and Gertrude.
In both Hawke's and Gibson's versions, though, I found the character of Hamlet to be rather weak. Gibson's madness seemed a little too forced, while Hawke's character was practically nonexistent, barely even talking to Ophlelia. This is why I felt it necessary to bring up Bragh's acting. If Bragh's acting, Gibson's tim period, and Hawke's disturbing qualities could all be combined, you would have one spectacular performance of Hamlet.
Bethany G.
ReplyDeleteMel Gibson’s version of “The Mousetrap” was how I expected the scene to play out. Mostly because I always think it’s kind of awkward to use old English in modern situations. Hawke’s adaptation was straightforward and concise, which it made it easier to understand. But, Gibson’s entire scene was how I think the scene should have been directed. I liked how Gibson moved around, and talked to the different people, by actually getting up. It showed how uneasy Hamlet was during that moment. Hawke, on the other hand, sat and stared back at the king, which seems a bit more obvious, in my opinion. I also preferred Gibson’s adaptation because I feel like Gibson brings more personality to the screen and the atmosphere of the play, than Hawke does. Hawke seems almost bland, save for the occasional wary glance at the king, compared to Gibson’s scene, where Gibson is constantly moving around, and can hardly stay in one place for long. Furthermore, Gibson’s scene is longer, and is able to express all the emotions Hamlet must have been feeling at the time. I recognized though, that Hawke’s version did seem to get its point across, in the 3 minute time span, but, I still preferred the directing and atmosphere of Gibson’s scene, overall.
Kacie Q.
ReplyDeleteWhich Version Did You Prefer?
Out of the two videos, the Mel Gibson version was much more effective than the Hawke version. For once, I thought that the bland background was really a plus. It emphasized the characters and the actors much more, and I found myself not being distracted at all by the setting. My focus went straight away to the characters. The Gibson version also cleared up a lot about the questions I had about the reactions of the characters. Were they offended by Hamlet? Were they just humoring him and politely accepting what he was saying, considering they thought that he was crazy? The fact that this clip showed the different reactions of each of the characters really gave them a whole new depth. For the first time, I really felt like I understood and connected with characters other than Hamlet. Ophelia's reactions actually made me feel for her. She seemed slightly disgusted and annoyed by Hamlet, but still she humors him and is not outright rude to him. It made me wonder if she was doing this for his sake of for the sake of those around her. And the fact that Helena Bonham Carter played the part is always, always, always a plus. Gertrude's portrayal also made her very memorable. I see mother's like that all the time in real life. They see their kid acting up, and they kind of want to tell them to behave themselves, but they're also afraid of causing a scene, so they just leave it. That's the impression that I got during the Gibson clip. It made Gertrude more relateable, and for the first time, I didn't see her as just a cardboard cut-out of a character. I also thought that Claudius's overreaction to the performance really emphasized the fact that there is definitely something he's hiding. It left no doubt in the viewers mind about Claudius's deeds. Also, and it may have just been me, but I kind of thought that the actors who were on the stage (the Players), weren't very good. I felt that it really emphasized the fact that it was a play within a play. The fact that the actors on the stage were terrible and the actors in the movie were very good creates a sort of illusion that the movie actors are actual people and that the actors on stage are the actors. (I realize how confusing that sounds, but I hope I made some sort of sense.)
I think that the Hawke version really missed out on some key points. It did cut back to the characters and their reactions, but it missed out on some vital dialogue. It didn't give me any sort of impression of what the characters were truly feeling on a deeper level. I was just able to pinpoint a certain emotion on each character and not go any deeper. Gertrude looked guilty, Claudius horrified, Ophelia confused, and Hamlet dead calm. But, unlike in the Gibson version, I couldn't really find anything much deeper than that. I realized then how important Hamlet's speaking during the play actually was. It reveals the layers between each character, and I hadn't realized that until I saw the Gibson version. I did think the movie that Hamlet showed was a cool and inventive idea on the director's part, though.
Emily M
ReplyDelete(The fist video has been removed, and I could not find it on other online sources, so I will be doing a comparison between the Gibson and Hawke version)
Question: Which do you prefer?
There are many interruptions of Hamlet to be seen and judged, and to comment on. The two versions of "the mousetrap scene" I have seen were both compelling and definitely did not serve any injustices to Shakespeare and his amazing work. I do have to say I prefer the Hawke version better than the Gibson version. This is unexpected of me, I thought while watching the Gibson version I would definitely prefer this version more, but after the Hawke version my mind was changed.
This version was more preferred because it's modern twist still told exactly the story of the mouse trap. It was short, sweet, and to the point. while some people might question the lack of lines in this scene, as compared to the almost exact lines of the Gibson version, I find the lack of lines adds to it. We get to see more how the characters act, and see their emotions rather than hear them, and it helped me get a better understanding and a stronger sense of empathy for the emotions the characters are feeling. One example is when Claudius is in the back watching the movie, he seems to look more worried and guilty in the Hawke version, which is what hamlet did intend to see all along. seeing Claudius get the guilty expression on his face I felt bad for him, because of the fact that he must feel bad for murdering his own brother. Also the anger in Hamlet’s mothers face while watching the end of the movie made me feel embarrassed for her, it was easily noticed that she was embarrassed, because of this embarrassment she had a sense of anger in her face. This version was easily understandable when it came to the emotions the characters felt, and I felt it was the choices the actors and director that conveyed these strong emotions without speaking them.
Another aspect that drew me to my preference of the Hawke version was the play within a play, or the movie within a movie in this case. The flower blooming in the beginning, and dying in the end shows exactly how Hamlet feels. Or how I expect him to feel. When Hamlet’s father was alive, all was bright and happy for Hamlet, like a blossomed flower, and when the flower dies at the end of the mouse trap movie it shows that Hamlet is dead inside, and that because of what happened, Hamlet wants to be like the flower, and die himself. Also the edginess of the mouse trap movie was different but still exactly told the story of what Happened to Hamlet’s father, and what his mother did. It showed it in a different light, and way, but it still shows how much the choices Hamlet’s family made hurt him.
Both versions I had the chance to see and be the judge of conveyed the mouse trap as powerfully as it is in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. They told us the story, and in completely different ways. They got their point across, one from showing more emotions, and other by using the original dialogue.
Olivia P.
ReplyDeleteWhich "Mousetrap" is most effective?
I believe Mel Gibson’s version of the “Mousetrap” scene was by far the most effective, due to its numerous diverse characteristics. The video itself was 10 minutes long to cover the scene, versus the 2 minute Ethan Hawke scene. I also believe the Mel Gibson version was more effective due to its appearance. When thinking of Shakespeare and Hamlet I tend to refer to the 1700 era, versus the 1990 time frame. It’s also hard for me to accept Ethan Hawke as Hamlet, being in a much more modernized world. When watching the Mel Gibson version, an audience was able to see Shakespeare’s point of view, with the cast acting, versus watching a movie. Mel Gibson also delivers a handful of dialogue when speaking to Ophelia and Horatio, yet Hawke barely makes eye contact in his play. Mel Gibson also delivers the pain and passion, as if he were Hamlet, disgusted by his own mother, and out to get his new step-father. Mel Gibson truly knows how to take on Hamlet’s role, and the audience can hear the depression in his voice, or the triumph when watching his uncle quiver in the spotlight. Another reason I found Mel Gibson’s version to be more effective, was when he kissed Ophelia. Before leaving, he leans in and gives her such a deep, romantic, and passionate kiss, yet stops, says “fare well” and takes off. It adds to Hamlet’s “craziness” everyone talks about. Ophelia also players her well part, as well as Gertrude. When Ophelia speaks with Hamlet, you can see the cunning smile curling at the ends of her lips, and you can feel the connection between the two characters. In contrast, you can see the negative relationship Hamlet shares with his mother. Throughout the play Hamlet is constantly rashing on his mother, and when she offers him to sit next to her, he says “no good mother, here’s metal more attractive,” and sits down next to Ophelia. It effectively gets the audience to understand the relationships between the characters, and gives a clear point of what the scene it about.
Diana D.
ReplyDeleteWhich “Mousetrap” is most powerful?
While I would love to say the Kenneth Branagh version caught my interest the most and portrayed the varying emotions needed to fully execute this scene, I can’t. Why? Because the video was unavailable and I could not find it online.
Taking place in two vastly different time periods, the Franco Zeffirelli version and the Michael Almereyda version were able to use different techniques to portray the emotions of the scene. The contrasting emotions of the Zeffirelli version showed just differently Claudius was affected by “The Mousetrap” than the rest of the audience. The increasing anxiousness of Gertrude and Claudius was meant to stand out in contrast to the genuine intrigue possessed by the others present. This idea of Gertrude’s and Claudius’s reactions being set apart was further expressed using the rather lighthearted music. No matter how high the tension was, the music did not drastically change in tone until the very end. On the other hand the Almereyda version had a more consistent emotion to it. While the emotions were not the same throughout the entire scene, there were not the overlapping emotions present in the Zeffirelli version. Having such strong emotions of its own, it was not as incredible that the Almereyda version was able to elicit such powerful emotions from Claudius. What made the Zeffirelli version of “The Mousetrap” stand out the most was that even though it seemed comical at times, the emotions it created were overwhelmingly deep. Another thing I felt added to the different versions were the varying degrees of Hamlet’s subtly. In the Almereyda version, Hamlet was the creator of “The Mousetrap”, meaning it would have been much easier for Claudius and Gertrude to pick up on Hamlet’s disdain. This straight forwardness seems rather out of character for Hamlet, which is why I preferred the players’ performance. This subtle hinting was not only more authentic, but it also added to the rising tension of the scene more than the Almereyda version did. To put it simply, the powerfulness of the two scenes could be best scene in how strong Claudius’s and Gertrude’s reactions were and how strong Hamlet’s reaction to the reactions was. From Claudius’s dramatic departure to Hamlet’s rejoicing with the players, the Zeffirelli version was by far the more powerful of the two versions.
Christina S.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Which do you prefer?
Out of the two versions of “The Mousetrap,” I prefer Mel Gibson’s to that of Ethan Hawke. I was curious as to how this play within the play would work in a modern setting, and it was an interesting concept, but I don’t think that it was effective. Although the audience doesn’t know that “The Mousetrap” is about Claudius and Gertrude, they do understand that it’s about a king who was poisoned and the murderer becomes king and takes his wife. With Hawke’s random montage of clips, it’s difficult to comprehend the plot of “The Mousetrap.” Hamlet and Claudius seem to be the only ones who know what it’s about, when the audience is supposed to have a general knowledge of it. Hawke’s interpretation also cut out a lot of the dialogue, which really detracted from the story. Gibson’s version included Hamlet’s creepy conversation with Ophelia, and even elongated it to include more nunnery comments and unsettling stares. One of my favorite parts of "Hamlet" so far was his conversation with Gertrude and Claudius before and during “The Mousetrap.” It showed how far he was willing to push the envelope without actually saying “I know you killed my dad and I hate you.” The fact that Claudius didn’t quite realize it at first was comical – at least, it was to Hamlet and me. Hawke’s rendition cut all of this out, and I was disappointed. In both the actual play, Hamlet is essentially a theater geek who finds enjoyment in clever wordplay. This is depicted well in Gibson’s version. Hamlet is helping the actors get ready backstage before the performance and he mutters their lines as the play goes on. The viewer knows how much time and effort Hamlet put into this, whereas in Hawke’s portrayal, one isn’t aware of this passion. There was too much lost in a modern setting for me to enjoy Hawke’s interpretation of “The Mousetrap.”
Hope W.
ReplyDelete(The Branagh version was not available so I will be comparing Hawke and Gibson)
Question: which “Mousetrap” is most effective?
The Gibson version was much more effective than the Hawke version of Mousetrap, this is due to several reasons including all of the characters were appropriately represented and that all of the lines from the text were performed in the scene. In Gibson’s version he acts giddy as if he can’t wait for the play to begin and see the reaction of Claudius when he realizes that the play is actually about him. Both Gibson and Hawke act with a sense of excitement, but in Gibson’s version he not only acts this way but actually speaks and says lines where he is interrupting the play because of his anticipation of Claudius’ reaction “No, no, they do but jest, poison in jest. No offense I’ th’ world.” Hawke’s version is effective in showing this excitement or giddiness but nothing in comparison with Gibson’s, the lack of lines in Hawkes version definitely has an impact on the way that the scene is perceived by the audience. Without the majority of the lines Hawkes version is not as effective because the message that Hamlet is trying to show Claudius is blurred, the audience has to think a lot more about what is happening in the scene rather than just listening to it and understanding it, as Gibson’s does. Therefore Gibson’s version is much more effective than Hawke’s because of the use of his lines, and the giddy way that he acts while delivering them.
Josh D.
ReplyDeleteWhich “mouse trap” do you prefer?
(The Branahg clip wasn’t working)
I liked both the Gibson and Hawke versions of the “Mouse trap”, but found the Gibson version more engaging and preferable. The Gibson version kept more of the text and Gibson delivered the text in a light and excited tone. Whereas in the Hawke version hamlets few lines had a smug tone that detracted from the subtleness of the “mouse trap”, the way Hawke delivered the line “what, frightened by false fire?” Far too revealing he was practically screams to Claudius that he knew he murdered his father. In the Gibson version he delivers the lines in a playful, slightly crazy, but still questioning tone. I preferred this for two reasons, one it made hamlet seem touched which builds on his crazy “act” and makes the viewer question if hamlet has gone mad. Secondly the playful questioning tone plants the seeds of doubt in the mind of Claudius, he already suspects that hamlet is going mad, now he can’t be sure if hamlet knows he murdered king hamlet or if in some fit of madness made a play that resembles the murder. Another reason I preferred the Gibson version to the Hawke version was the reaction of Claudius, both how the actors played the part and how the directors presented it. Zeferelli chose to focus on Claudius while he is reacting to the play outing him in the center of the screen focusing on his upper body, this allows the viewer to see Claudius’s subtle movements and facial expressions. The director also chose to have Claudius burry his reaction to the play and create the façade of humor with an over exaggerated laugh. Claudius attempting to brush of the play as humorous makes a lot of sense as a king he can’t be seen being bothered so much by a play, it would make him look weak. I thought that reaction was more authentic to a medieval king and preferred it to the Hawke version. In the Hawke version Claudius is seldom shown at all and his reaction is just a short storm out of the theater. The extreme reaction seems out of character for Claudius, he is portrayed p to this point as a thinker and a planer (like hamlet), a more logical reaction for Claudius to have would be to formulate his own trap to determine if hamlet knew he killed king Hamlet. The Gibson version stays more true to the character of Claudius presented by Shakespeare and for that reason I prefer it to the Hawke version. Overall the Gibson version meshed better with my view of the “Mouse trap” scene and the Hawke version lacked subtlety and under/overexpressed at times so, I preferred the Gibson version much more than the Hawke.
Yazmeen S.
ReplyDeleteWhich version do you prefer?
Of the two versions of the “Mousetrap” scene that took place in Hamlet’s Act 3 Scene 2 that were available I found the Mel Gibson one more preferable in comparison to the Ethan Hawke version. There are many reasons why I enjoyed the Gibson version to the Hawke one. The first reason being the dialogue. In the Ethan Hawke version there was very minimal talking which, for me, made it hard to follow along in the text. I felt like it missed important parts that could have helped to better tell the story. The Gibson version on the other hand not only had much more talking but it was also much longer allowing for more of the story to be told. In the Gibson version it was easy to follow along with what was being said in the text. Even Hamlet’s described behavior and actions was similar to the text in the Gibson version. Another reason I preferred the scene when performed by Gibson was the setting. It seemed to go along with how it was pictured in my head as I read. There was seating and a stage as well as a more secluded section a little ways away from everyone for the king and queen. In my head I pictured it very similar. With the Hawke version nothing was as I pictured it. It was more modern and took place in a movie theater which I thought was a good idea and concept but that it did not live up to its full potential. I felt like the setting in the Hawke version lacked personality and I found it harder to pay attention to what was going on. I also preferred the Gibson version over the Hawke version because of the overall effectiveness and faithfulness to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. In the Gibson version everything was acted out the way Shakespeare seemed to have intended for it to be performed. The Hawke version did its own thing and modernized what was happening and shortened the scene which in my opinion made it lose some of the important details. Many concepts were not added in and it made it harder to follow than the Gibson version. Overall I found Mel Gibson’s version of the Hamlet “Mousetrap” preferable to the Ethan Hawke version for many reasons.
Jordan W.
ReplyDelete"Which did you prefer?"
The Gibson and Hawke versions of Act 3 Scene 2 were so different that it was difficult for me to say which I preferred. From a 3rd party standpoint, I would without a doubt have to say that I enjoyed watching Hawke's version the best. It was so straight-forward with none of the speech between that just made it that much easier to understand. Despite this, there were definite flaws that Gibson's version was better in capturing. The speech that Gibson included to stay true to the actual play added those layers of complex meaning to the script, and while I enjoyed seeing the actors actually act out the words, it just didn't seem authentic in Gibson's portrayal. The idea of keeping in the original Shakespeare is wonderful, but I just don't think that the actors quite understood what was happening. Gibson himself, however, wonderfully showed this madness behind Hamlet's words. The laughing reactions that occurred after he talked often made Shakespeare's confusing words make more sense.
In Gibson's version, though, there was such a terrible commotion throughout the entire room that I had trouble focusing on the main actors and what they were saying, just making the speech even more confusing than it already is. I like how Hawke's is set in a much smaller venue with much fewer people.
The main problem that I saw with Hawke's portrayal of the scene was Hawke himself. When reading this scene, I pictured Hamlet as this complete goon on the outside, while internally freaking out. Instead, Hawke just portrayed Hamlet's inner thoughts, the calmer, but more sweaty version of Hamlet. Gibson did a much better job getting across the point of what Hamlet was feeling. He would sometimes get a crazy look in his eye, whether when talking or during the performance that clued the audience into his inner turmoil.
Since the two pieces were different in nearly everything, I would have to say that I preferred Gibson's performance, but overall I enjoyed the simplicity of Hawke's scene.
Kirsten S.
ReplyDeleteWhich version do you prefer?
Between Gibson and Hawke's version, I preferred Hawke's. I think it was the lack of dialogue that I liked the best. The montage of movie clips that Hawke's version of Hamlet so carefully selected told the story best. It was easy to follow, it was modern, it was inventive. This version of Hamlet is so different from what is expected. The visual motifs in the movie montage was a rose, father and son, and poison. The montage began with the rose, full of life, and then the scene switched to multiple clips of a father and son together. The relationship between the two was almost inseparable; the father treasured his son as much as the son treasured his father. That relationship represents Hamlet and his own father. So happy together, but then the rose dies, due to the poison that the uncle inflicted upon his father. The imagery is spot on, for after the rose is wilted, the innocence of the little boy in the video is ruined by the grotesque visual of his mother and uncle making out. Though maybe that's what Hamlet is trying to show, his idea of life before his father was murdered is taken away, and now he has many obligations to attend to.
Throughout the clip of Hawke's version of the “Mousetrap,” Hamlet continually looked back between the screen and his uncle, always catching his eye. It was distracting in a way, though achieved the overall purpose which was to show the tension and uneasiness, leading up to the commotion at the end.
Although I enjoyed Gibson's version of this particular scene, I found the ruckus of the crowd the focus of my attention, and not really the play that was being performed. The story, though easy to follow because of reading the play, I wouldn't necessarily understand. I especially thought that Claudius' reaction was overdrawn. Was the intent of the play to make the murder known to everyone or just Hamlet? That's what confused me most.
Both versions are extremely well enacted, though they took very different approaches. My personal preference is for a performance that is innovative and unique. I like to watch things that are different than the expected, therefore Hawke's version was the one I preferred.
Sydney I.
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed Gibson's performance as Hamlet, and how the movie worked in his speech to Ophelia as well. Movies are tricky because they need to be a certain length, and to achieve this, pieces must be compromised. The trick is to do it well, and I thought this was indeed very well done.
Gibson's portrayal of Hamlet during this time is priceless. He's excited and jittery, often leaving his seat to poke between his mother and Claudius to narrate the play and drill it in further what exactly they had done. His acting is brilliant in that he can show what Hamlet's feeling; nervous, and then increasingly excited as he sees Claudius react. He tries to get in Claudius's way as he attempts to exit, screaming at him before going to sing and dance with Horatio. It seems like a "ding dong, the witch is dead" moment for him, because he's right and his future actions are just.
His talking to Ophelia made me laugh (again). He passionately kisses her before saying "Farewell" and skips off, leaving her confused and upset. He seems to intend to do this, to make everyone on their toes and confused, so that they won't be able to get through his mask. I couldn't really picture Hamlet as I read the book, but after seeing Gibson's performance and how he pulled off the character and worked in Hamlet's mischievous nature, I can definitely see that. It was pulled off and well executed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames King
ReplyDeleteWhat Mousetrap Do You Prefer?
Gibson's
(I am sure someone already said this but I can’t find the first mousetrap)
I preferred Mel Gibson’s mousetrap to that of Hawke’s version. Shakespeare used the words he used for a purpose; to send a message that can’t be truly interpreted if too much of it is cut out. I found that Gibson’s version had most of the points of key importance and major line. Hawke’s version however had no lines and while it did prove to be more powerful with its great use of imagery I could not appreciate it as much because of the time gap and its unfaithfulness to Shakespeare’s work. The reason that the pictures are unsuccessful in making the work as effective as Gibson’s is that while they capture Hamlets emotions they don’t capture the second layer being his thoughts and insight. One common part they share is Claudius’s reaction to the play (or movie), which is to say they took a rather sick form and moved away from the act. In Gibson’s play Claudius interestingly moved towards the actors engrossed and then trying to play off his advances made a horrible job of playing it off and made a hasty retreat. The Hamlets also had similar roles each look intently for signs of guilt on Claudius face but again Gibson takes it a step further by interrogating Gertrude and Claudius trying to get them to see their errors. Because of Gibson’s shear substance and energentic and eccentric attituce his work is slightly more enjoyable than Hawke’s version.
Nicole B. I, like everyone else, could not find Branagh’s version of “The Mousetrap”, and can only focus on the other two. (Very redundant to say at this point, I know)
ReplyDeleteBoth scenes of “The Mousetrap” are very strong in their performances, and both relied on the imagery and the facial expressions used in addition to the words. However, Hawke’s version cut out close to all of the dialogue, not staying true to Shakespeare’s style and in essence his themes, portrayed through best with his syntax. Shakespeare’s characterizations and themes are represented through his word choices and structure, and without observing these choices of Shakespeare, we will never understand what Shakespeare had originally meant or hinted at.
Gibson did a great job of portraying the madness and excitement in Hamlet that Shakespeare definitely wanted as part of Hamlet’s character in this scene. From the very first few seconds of the scene, where Hamlet is straightening a man’s costume you could tell he was in a nervous state of excitement and pride. Finally he is doing something to avenge his father’s murder, and his plan to do so is ingenious and undeniably admirable. Hawke appeared nervous at the beginning, possibly even unsure if this would work, which is never the thought of a madman. Hawke plays Hamlet too restrained to be mad. It makes it harder to connect to the character because Hawke is acting too much like normal person without motive. Throughout the short clip, Hawke remains fairly immobile, while Gibson is jumping around and playing with the ties on his shirt, tapping his fingers, watching Claudius and speaking to him casually at some points and abruptly; “…there’s hope a great man’s memory may outlive his life in half a year!”, and also mouthing lines from the play. Gibson has further developed the character we saw earlier in him; a mad but also young and vulnerable boy. Gibson seems so young when he watches Claudius half mad and half eager in a school-boy way.
We see the real effect of cutting out the words when we look at Gibson’s version, where he mouths “But what we do determine oft we break” (3.2.210), a line significant to him and his relationships with women. He believed his mother and his lover’s promises of love and care were forever, but they both left him in a close timeline. Mouthing this fact strengthens the feeling of loneliness Hamlet is experiencing. Though at this point in the play, he is also saying it in an excited and happy manner, for he is finally pointing fingers. Without the words in the Hawke version, this whole subtle fact is lost.
Hawke’s Hamlet has absolutely no relationship with Ophelia in their short scene, which was a real negative for their clip. While not terribly crucial for the plot, the Hamlet-Ophelia interactions are key for understanding Hamlet’s character and his motives. Ophelia has been a minor character so far, and in the original play this scene is a big opportunity to expand on her character. The way that Gibson treats Ophelia is different than what I originally interpreted Shakespeare meant, but I actually prefer Gibson’s version. Gibson loves Ophelia and still wants her, no matter what happened, and he begs her to go to a nunnery, and kisses her passionately after saying “Believe none of us. We are…knaves, all of us.” Hamlet still cares about Ophelia and wants her to be safe from the upcoming events. In the book, it appears like Hamlet is angry with Ophelia for leaving him. In Gibson’s version it is much easier to sympathize with Hamlet and understand his motive I we can still see that little bit of human left in him, and he is not just a mad monster overtaken by an obsession of murder.
DeleteOf course, it bothered me when Zeffirelli cut out flowery sections of speeches, or added parts from earlier in the book; “Get thee to a nunnery… I could accuse me of such things that were better my mother had not borne me.” This seems out of place here in the scene.
Almereyda did choose a very unique representation of Hamlet with the movie that I really love. The rose played a large part of Almereyda’s choices. It was an interesting choice, because it made me think of a very different theme that Shakespeare generally brings with the mentioning flowers. Shakespeare uses flowers to describe delicate, female traits. This movie, though, could be using the rose to tell Claudius that his plan, though seeming flawless at first, grew to have problems, like a rose surprise you with its thorns. And at first as Claudius’ plan seemed great to him, but thanks to Hamlet’s love and devotion to his true father, Claudius’ plot is being destroyed.
Which do you prefer…?
ReplyDeleteThe usual tendency for people is to support those that try hardest. On the effort scale 10mins of assiduity is worth more praise than a short clip of 3mins.
About the Hawke version I can only say it was sad. I get that the playwright wanted to be original, but this scene was made quixotic with his hands. I am utterly confused-why are they watching a remix of a ten-times-spliced romance from the ‘60s? they paid to watch this? Like I said, quixotic.
Gibson’s version was sandwiched with quotes from the famous discourse on honesty back in the last scene. About Ophelia though. In the book she is a quiet, obedient person; a characteristic trait of a naturally diffident person. Her eyes are too arrogant in the movie, I think. And the same goes for Ham with the moustache. In the book, he goes about testing Claudious sneakily, unbeknownst to anyone. In fact, in everything he does he must dissemble his feelings for his plan to be successful. But Gibson has him in not just Claudius’s but everyone’s face. A few examples to cite are when he shouts “For look you how cheerfully…” for all the stage to hear and the parts when he runs hither and tither to check on how the King’s fairing. That can all be excused as the variations in interpretation but the King cannot be excused for when he walks down the aisle in the middle of the climax only to call for lights. Let’s say he did do the murder. If he sees it reenacted on stage, would he walk down center aisle, capture spotlight for a few seconds (in which time the audience could figure something was wrong) and call for lights? It’s too bold, too drastic. If he did murder, he would have to be a little more inconspicuous to not be caught. So for that part only, Hawke gets the point.
O yes, almost forgot. About the sandwich technique- it’s good, has space for interpretation etc but…those lines were from the scene in which he was feigning to be mad and consequently inappropriate for this scene in which he professes affection for Ophelia.
Ivy G.
ReplyDeleteWhich “Mousetrap” is the most effective?
I definitely think that Gibson’s version of the “Mousetrap” was the most effective. Especially compared to Hawke’s version, where there was no dialogue in the actual “Mousetrap”; leaving a lot of inferring up to the audience. Gibson’s version allowed the audience to keep tabs on several different characters such as Ophelia, the Queen, and King Claudius as he continuously interrupted the “Mousetrap” to see their reactions or hint and elaborate on what was happening in the play to make a stronger attempt at bringing out the guilt in King Claudius (or even the guilt in the Queen). The performance of Hamlet’s “madness” was very well done in Gibson’s version. The way that he fluttered about almost twitching with anticipation added a layer of mischief and expectation to the scene. I felt that Gibson brought the words of Shakespeare “off the page” and that he was acting them out rather than just reciting lines like it seemed Hawke was doing in his version. By evidently showing in the beginning of the scene how Gibson/Hamlet is behind the whole play, checking sets and the actors to make sure they knew what they were to do, stress the fact that it is a mousetrap. This I thought was a very effective method of directing. The lines that were in Gibson’s version echo those in the book but the lines spoken in the Mousetrap did not follow as true to the book script; but the clipping of some of the lines was better than the complete lack of lines in Hawke’s version. This did not seem to matter so much because the reaction of what Kind Claudius and the Queen saw had the most impact on the audience. Also, I could not find the line in which Hamlet speaks to Ophelia saying “believe no one” in the book, but I thought that it was too important to skip over. When Hamlet/Gibson says this line twice to Ophelia, it leaves her in a state of confusion at first, but more importantly, it is not one of the many insults he throws at her therefore it shows to Ophelia that Hamlet may not be as mad as everyone thinks. “Believe no one” is like saying “make your own opinion” and maybe asks Ophelia to try not to let Polonius influence her own opinion so much. Gibson’s version of the Mousetrap was thoroughly more effective than Hawke’s version.
Kevin R.
ReplyDeleteWhich do you prefer?
Out of the many different versions of the “mousetrap scene” I still find myself captivated by Michael Almereyda modern transformation of it. He is able to turn the play within the play into a film within the film with great artistic skill, making it most interesting for audiences. A commonly heard phrase is “a picture is worth a thousand words” which is why in the case of the montage of clips presented by Hamlet (lacking any dialogue) there are endless interoperations to the choices made by the director and their meaning.
One choice that made me really love this version the most was including the clips of a father and son. They clearly represent Hamlet and his father and his idolism towards him. No other mousetrap version touches on this subject only hitting the main points like his father’s murder and Hamlet’s disgusted tone towards his mother. By including this part between Hamlet and his father the “mousetrap” turns into more than just a plan to catch Claudius’s guilt. Hamlet uses this short film as a mean to express himself in an artistic way (which is so Hamlet lets be real). Hamlet uses this film to express his “sea of troubles” by almost putting audiences in his perspective. Almereyda displays Hamlet in the film within the film as a small child, not a man, a child representing Hamlets struggle with “manhood.” An important tool the director uses is the choice of the sequence of clips. We a rotating shot of the Earth which seems almost random at first but is then followed by a shot of poison. I believe this to display Hamlet’s belief that the whole world is poison or “corrupt.” To connect the ideas of the sequence of clips and capturing Hamlets perspective, the clip of the little boy walking down the stares in his pajamas looking all so innocent staring into the next room which is followed by scenes of erotic and sexual behavior. I believe it to be implied that the young boy is staring at the other scene in the next room and that the boy is Hamlet and the two the others are Claudius and Gertrude indulging in “damned incense.” This sequence of clips create a very powerful image explaining where the root of Hamlet’s disapproval of Gertrude’s remarriage. My favorite clip in the entire “mousetrap” film was the last. It was of an audience clapping which to me was representing that even though we recognize the corruption in the world we still applaud it, sometimes blindly.
Anna G.
ReplyDeleteThe Most Effective “Mousetrap”:
In my opinion, the most effective version of “Mousetrap” was Gibson’s. The other choice was Hawke’s (I couldn’t find Branagh’s scene), which I did not have much interest in. Gibson’s version was just dramatic enough and got straight to the point. I don’t like videos or plays that stray too far from the core. Hawke’s was difficult to comprehend and scattered. The video that he played was odd and from multiple time periods, which took away from his purpose, I thought.
Being effective is difficult to achieve because it takes detail and precision to reach a certain goal. Gibson’s version was thorough. The multiple people in the background also seemed to affect the performance. They brought character to the scene and it made it more authentic. Authenticity is extremely important while creating something that can be critiqued so easily. Franco Zeffirelli, the director of Gibson’s performance, created a scene that can be interpreted into what many people may think Shakespeare had in mind for this particular part. The music that faded in and out in the background helped to emphasize certain points throughout. For me, music is an essential part of making any film successful. It gives it quality, personality and substance. A soundtrack is valuable when constructing a movie that is based on an older time period because it can communicate a piece of audible history. The facial expressions in both videos were useful to express Hamlet’s parent’s reactions. But the sardonic tone of voice that Gibson used stood out more than the silence that Hawke chose. The sarcasm projected an attitude that Hawke’s performance did not have. I found Gibson’s version to be deeper and more relatable to the actual play itself. Hawke’s videos seem dreary and flat and though that may be conveying Hamlet’s attitude, miserable and perplexed, it still is as if there is no climax, which Gibson’s version has in almost every scene. To be effective, it is important to capture the audience’s attention and keep them there to listen and comprehend.
Logan H
ReplyDeleteHonestly, between the Gibson version and the Hawke version of Mousetrap, I have to say that I cannot make a determination as to which one is better. It would be like comparing an apple to an orange. There were positives and negatives to both videos, and they both made extremely different and bold choices that contributed to the overall purpose. A thing that I liked better about the Gibson version is that you could tell just by watching him that he was a little bit off his rocker. You didn’t have to know of the play or anything to get that sense from him, because the craziness was practically oozing out of his pores. Another thing that I liked about the Gibson version was that it seemed very authentic. The tension wasn’t too high because the director acknowledged that the people were going to have fun and see a play. Though Hamlet’s whole purpose of the play was to come to a conclusion about his father’s death, it wasn’t everyone else’s purpose. The things that I liked about the Hawke version were the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet. You could tell that they were together, as opposed to the other version where nothing would give you an indication that they were together except the kiss at the end. The way the movie was put together was extremely inventive. You didn’t really want to look at it, and it was slightly disturbing, but that was the point. The other thing that I liked about the Hawke version as opposed to the Gibson version is that Hawke subtly insults his mother by putting the grotesque sex scenes in his movie, where as Gibson just blatantly insults her over and over again. I also liked the way that the uncle reacted in the Hawke version as opposed to the Gibson version, because it was more realistic. In my opinion, the Hamlet character was better developed in the Gibson version, but the Hawke version was more realistic and inventive.
which version do you prefer?
ReplyDeleteThe scene by Gibson stood out to me as it almost matched what I had in mind for this play during Shakespeare’s time. I tend to be lenient toward old school stuff. In addition to my general preference, Gibson’s act matched Hamlet from the text. He was very active in the beginning trying to get the actors ready for the performance; he also spoke with Horatio and agreed that Horatio would keep watch of Claudius for any signs. Throughout the play I though he did a great job of speaking, and the decision to make the king and Queen be the only listeners, worked. Had Gibson spoke out loudly to the crowd during the performance I would have found him annoying.
Ophelia seemed sad in this scene having teary eyes, which is understandable as she was being teased by Hamlet. Gertrude seemed unaware, at first, of what was going on, but as the play continued she has a realization, which I think works very well for her part because it shows she is realizing that this play is about her and Claudius (the part where the murderer makes advances toward the Queen and succeeds).
From the beginning of this scene Gibson is very happy; which I think works in agreement to the end of the previous scene. And as the plays progresses his excitement does not fade, and I think the mood worked to balance out the dark setting of the scene. Also the audience contributed to the tone of the setting.
When Claudius has the realization that this play is about him, his guilt is first seen by Hamlet and Horatio, but he later screams “give me lights” and then the rest of the audience notice the reaction of the king and then follow after the King. To this, Gibson is overjoyed that his tactic helped reveal Hamlet’s guilt.
Overall, Gibson's version i think correctly depicted "The murder of Gonzago".
Cara O.
ReplyDeleteWhich do you prefer?
I have a difficult time tolerating the acting in some of the older versions of Hamlet because it tends to be unrealistic and over the top. It's hard to get into the clips because I spend a lot of time thinking how ridiculous the actors seem, and how the movie isn't the best quality. The Ethan Hawk version has interested me the most since the first soliloquy. The idea of a modern Hamlet is appealing to me because I can interpret it easily. It's like having an advantage because the situation is on your "home turf". Gibson's version did contain elements that were appealing to me. The Queen and Claudius are more similar to how I imagined them to be, and the Queen's personality seems fitting. Hamlet's rude humor and mockery were entertaining and helped me characterize him more. Claudius' reaction in the Gibson version was slightly disturbing to me. No one would get up out of their chair and walk towards the stage, splutter, and then exit. It was too obvious that he felt a mix of guilt and fear of punishment. Hamlet needed a sort of sign to confirm his accusations, but not that gaudy of a sign. In Hawk's version, Claudius and the Queen appear to be rich, clean cut people. Claudius is much younger than I pictured, which was slightly confusing. He looks as if he could easily be Hamlet's brother. When he started to recognize the actions in the film, he acted realistically. When he exited the theater, it wasn't a huge deal. There is a lack of female interaction in Hawk's version of Hamlet. Ophelia and the Queen have less lines, and don't play a large part in the clip. I can understand why the director would omit Ophelia's lines, since she doesn't really do anything important here, but not the Queen's. I enjoyed how the Queen, in Gibson's version, bit back at Hamlet when he took a stab at her. The director of Hawk's version also chose a sad soundtrack unlike the director of Gibson's. The depressing music was more appropriate for a tense moment like this. There are less people in the movie theater, and they are all quiet. It was easier to focus on Hamlet rather than the constant clapping of the audience in Gibson's version. I enjoyed the succinct qualities of Hawk's Hamlet because it effectively presented the situation without dragging it out or being over dramatic.