1948 HAMLET with laurence olivier or 1996 version with kenneth branagh?
which is the better adaption?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Hamlet (1948) Discussion > 1948 HAMLET with laurence olivier or 199...
another one for olivier.
even if you don't buy the freudian reading in general (which I don't personally), he at least tries to approach the tragedy from a certain angle, while branagh's is just looong and not too innovative.
[deleted]
1948 is by far the better adaptation. I don't understand why it is so heavily scrutinized; in my opinion it deserved its four Oscars.
shareAll right, so I'll say that I ultimately preferred Branagh's version. He gets points just for actually trying to do the whole play, which is a feat unto itself. I also disliked the Freudian interpretation of Olivier's, and the fact that half of the soliloquies are spoken in voice over. Seriously, this is also not a play about a man who can't make up his mind, and I think Olivier knows that, so why put it in? Branagh's was overblown, yes, and seriously over-scored in terms of music, but it has an amazing central performance and the supporting cast is just...remarkable. That said, Olivier is rivetting--no sense in denying that. Truth be told, I've never seen a film version of Hamlet that I think is the best possible production, but Olivier's version is just a bit too self-satisfied for my taste. He really isn't a good film director-I don't think he completely understood the medium from a non-acting standpoint. He needed to let someone else helm it.
Yours is a capricious nature. Do you always blow hot and cold like this?
[deleted]
I'm on your side. The 1948 version is great Olivier but only "okay" Shakespeare. Besides the huge chunks torn from the text, the "Oedipal thing" is incredibly dated. It's Olivier's Hamlet who can't "make up his mind," not Shakespeare's. Branagh had the nutty koo-koo notion that Hamlet is the heir to the throne of Denmark and that HE should be on the throne, not Claudius. By tossing out the whole Freudian angle, Branagh winds up with a political drama of revenge and court intrigue that's more like Shakespeare and less fin-de-siecle Viennese. Well, that works for me. Visually, the 1948 version is great but the dramatic black and white was forced on Olivier. He's wanted to film in colour but couldn't make arrangements with the Technicolour group. I know: Olivier was The Greatest Actor of All Time. I agree but that doesn't mean his filmed versions of ANYTHING are automatically definitive. Eh - it's a minority opinion.
share- he left out Rosencrantz and Guildenstern entirely, and no other production has done that, not even the much shorter versions.
shareI can't go with the notion that any version is "better" than any other, since just about every adaptation has things I like. The 2000 film with Ethan Hawke is clever and edgy, the Branagh version has the most moving love scene, the Jacobi BBC thing has the most effective ghost, the Russian 1964 film has a very fine ghost as well, plus a poignant Ophelia, Kevin Kline's Hamlet is athletic and humorous... the only adaptations I find hard to enjoy are Nicole Williamson's and the Burton/Gielgud play, because Burton seems ticked off when Polonius gets all the laughs, and he starts clowning around.
shareBetween the two Branagh's. It is much better directed, has a much better supporting cast and while I find fault in both's portrayals of Hamlet, I think Branagh's was more interesting and entertaining to watch. I would also take Gibson's over Oliver's film as well!
shareOlivier's Hamlet is the definitive, superlative version for me, and the Zefferilli-Gibson version comes in a very close second.
"That's not crazy; that's Irish."
--Richard Harris (The Molly Maguires)
KENNETH BRANAGH!
I might just be saying this only because I saw that version first, but I loved the art direction and cast and acting and directing much better in that one. . .
Addisexer #16
I am a Walsh-A-Holic.
http://i5.tinypic.com/432ta1d.jpg
For film versions, no one has topped Olivier's second effort at adapting Shakespeare for the screen. Along with his Henry V, this film is a landmark in making the Bard comprehensible for film audiences.
I was fairly disappointed with Branagh's version; it may be the full text, but everyone, Branagh included, races through the lines like they've gotta be somewhere else. I found nothing in the film that really moved me.
I agree with some others that nearly every version has something to like, that's why Shakespeare can be continually remade for new audiences. For instance, I didn't care for Gibson's Prince, but I thought Alan Bates was a great Claudius, and Helena Bonham Carter a very good Ophelia. I hated the 2000 "update," but Bill Murray was surprisingly good as Polonius. The thing I love most about Olivier's film, besides Olivier, is the smashing finale. For excitement and suspense, it's still the champ.
Frankly, I expected more from Branagh in the role, and I think he was juggling too many balls in his version to give a brilliant performance. He was under a great deal of pressure to finish the film on time and under budget, and I think it shows.
The one performance of Hamlet himself that I like as well as Olivier's is Kevin Kline's back-to-basics Hamlet, which he did for the New York Shakespeare Festival. But for me, there's no one like Lord Olivier.
You may, if you can form such a committee, put me down for a contribution of $1,000.
I'm not one to bash one film because I adore the other. The truth is Branagh is likely the most respected Shakespearian actor of the last 20 years, and he did a wonderful job with the film, as did his tremendous supporting cast. But Olivier is simply the best there ever has been and likely ever will be.
shareOlivier was the first Hamlet I ever saw, and his HAMLET remains my favorite, despite the fact that he apparently adapted the play for film by running over it with a lawn mower.
shareThe Olivier has certain elements that I absolutely LOVE - the setting of the castle at Elsinore in the fog is extaordinary, the ghost is far, far better than Branagh's and, oh yes, LAURENCE OLIVIER in the title role.
HOWEVER, personally I find the Branagh overall more gripping and effective. The use of colour is fantastic (yes, I know Olivier couldn't use this as it was in black and white but still...), the supporting cast is phenomenal (especially Jacobi as Claudius) and Branagh's performance is outstanding.
I also find Olivier's edit of the original script both infuriating and confusing. Why cut the bits he cut? It really annoyed me when first watching the Olivier.
LASTLY,
I wonder if you'd get the same response asking this on the Branagh Hamlet board... :)
Olivier for me also
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's pretty obvious that Branagh is speaking so fast that he can't understand what he is saying and neither can the viewer. I like Oliver's version much better, and he makes sure that we can understand Shakespeare's often complex verse.
shareIt's pretty obvious that Branagh is speaking so fast that he can't understand what he is saying and neither can the viewer. I like Oliver's version much better, and he makes sure that we can understand Shakespeare's often complex verse.
That's funny, I've always found Olivier to speak way too fast while I can understand Branagh much easier.