The Ghost

[msdirector]

The ghost is mysterious and unfathomable.

I'm going to put my two cents in here and try to address this Ghost issue from a few different points of view. Too long an answer, and no doubt I'll get arguments, but it's an interesting topic.

I think when we are trying to interpret a play - especially Shakespeare's plays where we don't have any authorial comments to help us understand what he had in mind when writing it - we have to look at the play from three different points of view. Two have been discussed here, but one has not.

First there is what serves the story - seeing the play from the point of view of the characters themselves as though they were real people (or spirits?) and examining the logic of the way they act based on their actions, thoughts, feelings and interrelationships. Some of the discussion of the Ghost and his presence in Hamlet has been focused on that - what he wants, why Gertrude doesn't see him, why he doesn't help Hamlet, and why he doesn't come back after the confrontation in the "closet" scene.

Second is what serves the dramatist's purpose - what he was trying to communicate and how he used the different aspects of the play to make that happen, what moves the story forward and contributes to the development of plot as well as the characters and their interrelationships, why he made the choices he did. Some of the discussion focused on those things - what was Shakespeare's intention in not returning to the Ghost later in the play, what was the purpose the Ghost's presence in the "closet" scene, what was the purpose of the Ghost in the structure of the play.

And third, on a much more practical level, is what serves the production - technically, financially and for the company for which it was written. Remember, Shakespeare was an actor and a share-holder in The Lord Chamberlain's Men (later called The King's Men when King James took over patronage of the acting company). He was, in effect, contracted to write for his company, and his plays were specifically designed to meet the needs of the company they were written for. Shakespeare wrote his characters to fit the specific actors they were written for, and rewrote and revised when other actors took their place. He wrote his plays, too, to account for the limitations of the company - including the size of the company and financial issue. While Shakespeare's plays generally have large casts of characters, the company was not particularly large. They could, of course, hire additional actors for certain plays, but that was an added expense. Most plays were written specifically to be doubled - that is, one actor played more than one role. And that meant that, for technical reasons, some characters were only seen in part of the play so that the actor could double as another character later in the play. It was often thought that in King Lear the same actor played The Fool and Cordelia (although that has been disputed). It is possible the same was true of the the Ghost.

There were several ways the Ghost could have been doubled. Although we don't know exactly what doubling Shakespeare used in his productions, modern productions have chosen several different alternatives (remembering that there needs to be time enough between entrances to change costume and for other technical aspects of production). Some double the Ghost and The First Player (my choice, since then when the Player plays the King in "The Murder of Gonzago" we are actually "seeing" King Hamlet as well. Others have doubled the Ghost and Claudius - more difficult and unlikely in Shakespeare's day, but and intriguing choice. Others double the Ghost and the First Gravedigger (although he was more likely doubled with Polonius). No matter what the choice, it required a judicious placement of the Ghost's appearances.

It is also possible - reported by Rowe in 1708 - that Shakespeare himself acted the part of Ghost. According to Rowe, "the top of his performance was the Ghost in his own Hamlet." If that was the case, then part of the reason why the Ghost's role was kept brief would have been that Shakespeare, as the playwright, would have also played the role of what we today call the director,although they had no such actual position in those days. Most often the playwright himself, if he was part of the company, oversaw the staging of the production. So Shakespeare would have kept the Ghost to a few brief, uncomplicated scenes - anyone who has ever tried to direct a show they were acting in can tell you how difficult that is.

As for the first two aspects.... Personally, I think that the Ghost's appearance is an integral part of the plot and makes sense in that context. While the earlier "Ur-Hamlet", perhaps written by Kyd, apparently did have a ghost, unlike the original Saxo Grammaticus History of Denmark story that it was adapted from, that ghost was reported to be far more along the lines of the older over-the-top horrific ghost than Shakespeare's more dramatically developed version. As for a reason for his presence in the closet scene, it seems clear to me - the Ghost had specifically told Hamlet to revenge his murder but to leave his mother out of his revenge. At that point in the play, Hamlet had just foregone an obvious chance to kill Claudius and then gone on quite literally attack his mother, both verbally and physically, and not so subtlely accuse her of complicity in his father's death. The Ghost's entrance was timed perfectly. Hamlet had just upbraided Gertrude for her nasty relationship with Claudius. She protests and begs him "No more, sweet Hamlet." But he continues, coming dangerously close of accusing him to Gertrude:
"A murderer and a villain,
A slave that is not twentieth part the tithe
Of your precedent lord, a vice of kings,
A cutpurse of the empire and the rule,
That from a shelf the precious diadem stole
And put it in his pocket --"

Gertrude again - "No more."

Then Hamlet again - "A king of shreds and patches --"

And enter the Ghost!

Perfect timing. Although the Ghost says little - simply a reminder to "whet thy almost blunted purpose" it follows that with a plea for Hamlet to help his mother rather than berate her. His entrance is timed to move Hamlet away from Gertrude and back toward revenge. Think what might have happened if the Ghost had not entered. Would Hamlet have accused Claudius directly? Would he have accused Gertrude? Would he have killed her against the Ghost's wishes?

Not mysterious and unfathomable at all. It's not the Ghost's job to help Hamlet. If it could do that it wouldn't need Hamlet. But it's the son's job to revenge his father, not the citizens of the country to revenge their king. It's a personal thing. He only returns to put Hamlet back on the track and to protect his wife. There really is no need for him to return again. Although I have to say that I intend, when directing my version, to have the Ghost return silently to watch the last scene in the play, leaving after Gertrude dies (the Ghost asked that Hamlet "leave her to heaven" and heaven has decided her fate when she drinks from the poisoned cup) and Hamlet kills Claudius.

I have a question - why do you think that the Ghost initially appears in full armor (that is explained in the text), but in the closet scene appears in his nightgown (there is no explanation given for that). Just curious what you think.

[Virgil]

Wow, I am glad msdirector that you have joined our discussion. Some fine observations there, and it's great to have someone who has directed. I see also that you are relatively close to me. If you put on any plays in the future within driving distance I would be interested in attending. Please drop me a note.

It is also possible - reported by Rowe in 1708 - that Shakespeare himself acted the part of Ghost...

I have heard this too, but while it's a practical consideration, it would not be an excuse for a structural flaw to the story line. However, as i've come to now believe as I've put forth in my last few posts, i think Shakespeare intentionally created this flaw for an aesthetic effect, and that is a valid excuse.

As for the first two aspects.... Personally, I think that the Ghost's appearance is an integral part of the plot and makes sense in that context. While the earlier "Ur-Hamlet", perhaps written by Kyd, apparently did have a ghost, unlike the original Saxo Grammaticus History of Denmark story that it was adapted from, that ghost was reported to be far more along the lines of the older over-the-top horrific ghost than Shakespeare's more dramatically developed version.

I do believe that a comparison with previous versions would be enlightening. Thanks for this.

As for a reason for his presence in the closet scene, it seems clear to me - the Ghost had specifically told Hamlet to revenge his murder but to leave his mother out of his revenge. At that point in the play, Hamlet had just foregone an obvious chance to kill Claudius and then gone on quite literally attack his mother, both verbally and physically, and not so subtlely accuse her of complicity in his father's death...

But why even include the closet scene? Why have this conflict with his mother? It's a sub-plot that complicates and I'm not sure what it adds.

Not mysterious and unfathomable at all. It's not the Ghost's job to help Hamlet. If it could do that it wouldn't need Hamlet. But it's the son's job to revenge his father, not the citizens of the country to revenge their king. It's a personal thing.

Yes, this has been brought up by Regit. It's a valid point.

I have a question - why do you think that the Ghost initially appears in full armor (that is explained in the text), but in the closet scene appears in his nightgown (there is no explanation given for that). Just curious what you think

Mysterious and unfathomable.

[Janine]

msdirector - I am glad you put in your "two cents". Makes a lot of sense to me! One has to always remember Sh was writing for an audience, not plays for a book, and it was a production for a wide variety of people. Peasants, middle classes and royalty looked on at The Globe and loved the entertainment. The players did much with a small group and doubles as you have pointed out. You bring up so many good points about how the production was staged. Great - fresh, new ideas here. Thanks!

[msdirector]

Wow, I am glad msdirector that you have joined our discussion. Some fine observations there, and it's great to have someone who has directed. I see also that you are relatively close to me. If you put on any plays in the future within driving distance I would be interested in attending. Please drop me a note.

Thanks, Virgil. :-) Then next show I'm directing is the World Premiere of a new musical, BELLES OF THE MILL, at the Harvest Theatre in Toledo, Ohio in May. But I will definitely let you know about any local shows I'll be directing. That should include my re-interpretation of Hamlet that will be the focus of my MA dissertation, which, hopefully, will be staged in the NYC area sometime in the spring or summer of 2008.

I have heard this too, but while it's a practical consideration, it would not be an excuse for a structural flaw to the story line. However, as i've come to now believe as I've put forth in my last few posts, i think Shakespeare intentionally created this flaw for an aesthetic effect, and that is a valid excuse..

This is, of course, assuming you consider it a "flaw," which I don't.

But why even include the closet scene? Why have this conflict with his mother? It's a sub-plot that complicates and I'm not sure what it adds.

Is this, then, the focus of your issues with the play? I personally think that the conflict with Hamlet's mother is not only integral to the plot (and not just a sub-plot), it's the heart and soul of what makes Hamlet not just another revenge play and what make Shakespeare's writing stand head and shoulders above that of the other playwrights of his times. Without that conflict it's just one of many revenge plays - father murdered, after trials, obstacles of several kind, son avenges his father's death. It's a standard plot, simple and bloody and unoriginal. But Shakespeare, taking the basic story from earlier stories and plays, made the story much more complex. The murderer was the boy's uncle. And he married his mother. Look at the text. What is more important to Hamlet - that his father was murdered or that his mother betrayed his father by marrying his murderer? It's pretty much a toss-up. He talks about avenging his father, but his main anger and disgust is against his mother. It is at the heart of the play. This is what turns the play from a run of the mill revenge play to a psychological study and journey into the mind of a man progressively abandoned, betrayed and isolated until he alone (all but for Horatio) must accept the truth and take his fate into his own hands.

Think about it. As a prince, Hamlet is by position a man very much alone. In his position it is impossible to have any really true friends and certainly none his equal in social and political position. Those he loves and trusts growing up are his family - his father, his mother, and his uncle (and I include Polonius in that group as his father's trusted advisor, and Ophelia as Polonius's daughter and Hamlet's dear friend, possibly lover, and perhaps, potential wife) and, perhaps most of all, his country, which he has every reason to believe he will rule someday. Then, through the action of the play, he gradually loses all of them - his father murdered; his throne lost to him; his uncle perhaps the murderer, certainly the thief of his throne and the seducer of his mother, who he sees as betraying both his father and him; Polonius deserting his father to fawn over Claudius; his childhood friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern acting the sycophants, spying on him for Claudius and ultimately conveying him to what would have been his death; and finally Ophelia who, through her innocence, he (perhaps - although not in my own interpretation) believes to have also betrayed him to her father and the King. This is a man alone. And that's what the story is about - not just a revenge play.

Hamlet leaves for school at Wittenberg, making one true trusted friend there in Horatio, who, while not of his station, has nothing to gain from him and has earned his trust and respect. As the play opens, Hamlet has been called back for the funeral of his father - surely the most important influence in his life. He is devastated and, no doubt, preparing himself to assume the throne. He returns only to find that, within the shortest period of time, almost immediately following the funeral, his mother has married his uncle who has, in effect, stolen his throne. While his father's loss is sad, it is, as Claudius says, not an unusual one in any man's life. But the shock of his mother's remarriage, and to his father's brother, has hit Hamlet all the harder because of its callousness and the implied betrayal of his newly lost father. It is his mother's actions that fill Hamlet's thoughts when we first see him, even more than his father's death.

Then he meets the Ghost, who immediately seems to recognize Hamlet's silent accusation of his mother. And even the Ghost warns him not to try to avenge himself on his mother. Far from being a structural flaw, from the very beginning of the play, Hamlet's relationship with his mother is at the center of the play. It is not, I believe, the Oedipal relationship that was once the favorite interpretation of many (including Olivier). But it is certainly central to Hamlet's mind-set and his actions all through the play. And certainly a confrontation between Hamlet and his mother is logically a climactic moment in the play. It doesn't surprise me one bit that it is far more dramatic than Hamlet's confrontations with Claudius - their relationship is far more personal, more intense, more essential. Just as it doesn't surprise me one bit that the final climactic action of the play, Hamlet's killing of Claudius, follows immediately on Gertrude's dying from drinking the poison. And that Hamlet's cry to Claudius upon stabbing him is not about his father, but about his mother:

"Here, thou incestuous, murd'rous damned Dane,
Drink off this potion. Is this thy union here?
Follow my mother."

Hamlet stabs him for his father - but his final, passionate, contemptuous, horrific action toward Claudius is about his mother. Hardly indicative of a sub-plot or a structural flaw. Hamlet's relationship with his mother is integral to the play, and the confrontation and conflict epitomized in the "closet" scene makes that perfectly clear.

I'm not saying that Shakespeare's works are flawless or perfect. They certainly are not. But Hamlet is one of his most complex plays and the characterizations and relationships throughout it are exceptionally strong, multi-layered and have extraordinary depth. They can not be dismissed as inconsequential without really studying how they interrelate.


As for the Ghost's costuming in the "closet" scene:

Mysterious and unfathomable.

I'll concede that one, Virgil. It's as good an answer as any!

Best,
Arlene

msdirector - I am glad you put in your "two cents". Makes a lot of sense to me! One has to always remember Sh was writing for an audience, not plays for a book, and it was a production for a wide variety of people. Peasants, middle classes and royalty looked on at The Globe and loved the entertainment. The players did much with a small group and doubles as you have pointed out. You bring up so many good points about how the production was staged. Great - fresh, new ideas here. Thanks!

Thanks Janine. That's what comes of actually studying Shakespeare in the place he was born and being able to walk the banks of the Avon as he did. Studying at The Shakespeare Institute in Stratford-upon-Avon is absolutely inspirational.

You're right. So many teachers approach Shakespeare's plays as literature only that people often forget that they were never originally meant to be read and studied. They were written to be performed and to be seen and heard by an unruly audience! In fact, it's pretty obvious from studying the Quartos that Shakespeare, unlike some playwrights of his day, had little interest in the publication of his plays. He wrote for the stage, specifically his own company. And the conditions of that stage (those stages actually - he wrote for the public outdoor theatres, primarily the Globe and, then later, for the indoor private Blackfriars theatre as well - along with occasionally writing for the court specifically) greatly affected the content and structure of the plays he wrote.

[Virgil]

That should include my re-interpretation of Hamlet that will be the focus of my MA dissertation, which, hopefully, will be staged in the NYC area sometime in the spring or summer of 2008.

Oh, please let me know.

Is this [mother's relationship], then, the focus of your issues with the play?

No, that's not what I've been saying. Hamlet's relationship with his mother is a sub-plot that adds complexity to the play, and is resolved. The structural flaw that I've been citing is the use of the ghost, mainily in that the ghost starts the action, makes an appearence mid way, and then disappears from the rest of the play. The tension invoked by the ghost is never resolved. That I consider a flaw, somewhat in the manner of a musical theme that never comes to a closed cadence, if you know what I mean. You can't just introduce something and just drop it, especially when the genesis of the action is that something. I think you said you had the ghost reappear at the end of your dramatization. I think intuitively you are recognizing the same issue I've brought up, this unresolved tennsion, this flaw, and by bringing the ghost back (brilliant, I might add, though not in the play) you have soften the impact of the flaw. I think I now realize why Shakespeare does incorporate this flaw, and he must have realized it; he was too good a story teller. Like Janine has pointed out, it aesthetically represents the mysteries that Hamlet is trying to figure out and cannot. I'm convinced the flaw is intentional and aesthetically justifiable.

[Janine]

If you have seen the film by Kenneth Branagh, and I know it has it's flaws, he must have sensed the need to represent the dead father (the King) someway at the end of the film, since the last scene is of Fortinbra's soldiers smashing the image (monument) of the King - it is a stark realization of the change in power. Perhaps Branagh felt the need to put the King to rest, just as he has shown the funeral procession of Hamlet, to the extent of showing Hamlet's dead body magestically laid out in the coffin. In a way the death of Hamlet and the death of the King are paramount to the ending and the imagery and putting the ghost and Hamlet to rest once and for all. The image of the King being smashed, once again presents the dead King (ghost unseen, but vividly remembered) into the play for the last and final time. Perhaps he did this to finalize the play, in other words coming "full circle" with the image of the ghost. It would be interesting to read the screenplay, which I own. I have not read it yet but intend to. I hope to see if this is one reason Branagh chose to show once again the image of the dead king....leaving that as our final impression.

[msdirector]

The structural flaw that I've been citing is the use of the ghost, mainily in that the ghost starts the action, makes an appearence mid way, and then disappears from the rest of the play. The tension invoked by the ghost is never resolved. That I consider a flaw, somewhat in the manner of a musical theme that never comes to a closed cadence, if you know what I mean. You can't just introduce something and just drop it, especially when the genesis of the action is that something.

I do tend to agree with you here, Virgil, although I'm not sure that I would call it a "flaw." Part of the problem is that we don't know exactly what Shakespeare had in mind. Another part of the problem is that in Shakespeare's plays (and others published in those days) stage directions refering to characters who did not have speaking lines in the scene were often not included in the text. There are a number of places in the Quartos of his plays where a character is obviously present in a scene, but there is given no entrance stage direction for him, or where it is obvious that a character has exited, but there is no stage direction to that effect. So it is entirely possible that in Shakespeare's original text or in the playscript (what we call the promptbook today) that the ghost had unspoken appearances that have been lost through the publication of the play.

Additionally, during the 18 year period in which the theatres were closed by the Puritans in 1642 until they were reopened by King Charles II in the Restoration in 1660, there could have been much nuance lost. By the time the theatres reopened it was 44 years after Shakespeare had died, and 37 years after the First Folio had been published. While there were a few actors left who had been trained by those who had worked with Shakespeare, it is likely that much of the original staging and Shakespeare's intentions had been lost. Additional changes, revisions, re-interpretations and such in the years between then and now have influenced how we think of Hamlet and Shakespeare's other plays. We can speculate on what we think Shakespeare might have intended, but there is really no way of knowing for sure.

I think you said you had the ghost reappear at the end of your dramatization. I think intuitively you are recognizing the same issue I've brought up, this unresolved tennsion, this flaw, and by bringing the ghost back (brilliant, I might add, though not in the play) you have soften the impact of the flaw.

Thanks, Virgil. I've always wanted to find a way to complete that "motif". I, too, missed a closure with Hamlet and his father's ghost. I think that Shakespeare must have had it there, or something similar, but it has been lost and this was the "solution" that works for me. Hopefully it will work for the audience too.

If you have seen the film by Kenneth Branagh, and I know it has it's flaws, he must have sensed the need to represent the dead father (the King) someway at the end of the film, since the last scene is of Fortinbra's soldiers smashing the image (monument) of the King - it is a stark realization of the change in power. Perhaps Branagh felt the need to put the King to rest, just as he has shown the funeral procession of Hamlet, to the extent of showing Hamlet's dead body magestically laid out in the coffin. In a way the death of Hamlet and the death of the King are paramount to the ending and the imagery and putting the ghost and Hamlet to rest once and for all. The image of the King being smashed, once again presents the dead King (ghost unseen, but vividly remembered) into the play for the last and final time. Perhaps he did this to finalize the play, in other words coming "full circle" with the image of the ghost. It would be interesting to read the screenplay, which I own. I have not read it yet but intend to. I hope to see if this is one reason Branagh chose to show once again the image of the dead king....leaving that as our final impression.

This is an interesting interpretation, Janine.

I have seen Ken Branagh's Hamlet, and I do really like it (particularly the fact that it is pretty much the full text and the wonderful portrayal of Claudius by Derek Jacobi). In fact, other than some major miscasting in some minor roles and an odd choice of place and period (Tzarist Russian?), the thing I liked least about film was the ending. There is absolutely nothing in the text that indicates that Fortinbras comes to Elsinor at the end with anything but peaceful intentions and that "invasion" in contradiction to the text seemed to me like a pointless introduction of violence that totally pulls focus from the essential climax of the story.

To be honest, the pulling down of the statue never really connected for me at all as an re-connection with the ghost. I saw it as Fortinbras reconquering the kingdom that he would have seen as being "stolen" from his father, and therefore himself. It seemed to me to be totally political and external to the heart of the play and it never occurred to me that it might be a way to find closure with the ghost because it was Fortinbras bringing it down, which had nothing to do with the Ghost's charge to Hamlet, the final avenging of his death, or setting the Ghost's mind to rest. It was an act of destruction, not an act of reconciliation or closure. It simply didn't work for me.

But I can see, now that you mention it, that it might have been one of Branagh's motivations for including it in the scene. I'm curious, Janine - you say you have the screenplay. Does it include director's notes or is it simply the screenplay itself which would only have the dialogue and stage directions, etc.? If it has director's notes, then I will definitely have to put it on my "to-buy" list. I would love to know why Branagh made some of the choices he did.

[Janine]

This is an interesting interpretation, Janine.

I have seen Ken Branagh's Hamlet, and I do really like it (particularly the fact that it is pretty much the full text and the wonderful portrayal of Claudius by Derek Jacobi). In fact, other than some major miscasting in some minor roles and an odd choice of place and period (Tzarist Russian?), the thing I liked least about film was the ending. There is absolutely nothing in the text that indicates that Fortinbras comes to Elsinor at the end with anything but peaceful intentions and that "invasion" in contradiction to the text seemed to me like a pointless introduction of violence that totally pulls focus from the essential climax of the story.

I will have to read the ending of Hamlet again to answer this. I would suppose that Branagh interpretted it his own way showing there was a change in power of the kingdom. How can an invasion be peaceful? I will check the original text.

To be honest, the pulling down of the statue never really connected for me at all as an re-connection with the ghost. I saw it as Fortinbras reconquering the kingdom that he would have seen as being "stolen" from his father, and therefore himself. It seemed to me to be totally political and external to the heart of the play and it never occurred to me that it might be a way to find closure with the ghost because it was Fortinbras bringing it down, which had nothing to do with the Ghost's charge to Hamlet, the final avenging of his death, or setting the Ghost's mind to rest. It was an act of destruction, not an act of reconciliation or closure. It simply didn't work for me. But I can see, now that you mention it, that it might have been one of Branagh's motivations for including it in the scene. I'm curious, Janine - you say you have the screenplay. Does it include director's notes or is it simply the screenplay itself which would only have the dialogue and stage directions, etc.? If it has director's notes, then I will definitely have to put it on my "to-buy" list. I would love to know why Branagh made some of the choices he did.

Yes, Index as follows:
The Introduction (by Branagh)
The Cast
The Screenplay
The Choice of Text
The Film Diary
The Film

You can check the book out on Amazon.... even view some preview of the inside text. It will describe what it includes, and be sure to read reviewers opinions. I bought it from a ventor on the site, but I have not jet read it. I am working up to it; I was sidetracked by other reading. It also has great photos in the center section. I bought it really reasonably priced.
Can you enlighten me? Virgil also thinks the play was set in 19th Century Russia. How did you come up with this impression when they continually speak of the Danes and being Danish and being in Denmark? It is set in the 19th Century. That part is correct.

Thanks for your other insightful comments. I will check back with you after I read the ending to Hamlet again....Janine

[msdirector]

I will have to read the ending of Hamlet again to answer this. I would suppose that Branagh interpretted it his own way showing there was a change in power of the kingdom. How can an invasion be peaceful? I will check the original text.

An invasion can't be peaceful. But Fortinbras didn't invade. He came, asked permission to enter the country on his way back from defeating the Poles, and was approaching, with permission, as visiting Royalty. His assumption of Denmark's throne was only because both Claudius and Gertrude were dead and Hamlet, with his dying breath, recommended Fortinbras to the Danes because of his prior claim to the throne. Without Fortinbras there would be no legitimate heir to the throne of Denmark and chaos, anarchy and civil war would have ensued. Hamlet, even to last words, was still a Prince and his last thoughts were of his country.

Yes, Index as follows:
The Introduction (by Branagh)
The Cast
The Screenplay
The Choice of Text
The Film Diary
The Film

You can check the book out on Amazon.... even view some preview of the inside text. It will describe what it includes, and be sure to read reviewers opinions. I bought it from a ventor on the site, but I have not jet read it. I am working up to it; I was sidetracked by other reading. It also has great photos in the center section. I bought it really reasonably priced.

That's fabulous. I'll head over to Amazon.com right now. Thanks for the tip. It will be great to actually see what was in Branagh's mind when he made his choices. As a director that's magical for me.

Can you enlighten me? Virgil also thinks the play was set in 19th Century Russia. How did you come up with this impression when they continually speak of the Danes and being Danish and being in Denmark? It is set in the 19th Century. That part is correct.

The play does take place in Denmark, by the text. But any director is free to choose a setting - that is, choice of set design and costuming - and time frame for his production. Remember Ian McKellan's Richard III, which obviously took place in a 1930's-40's WWII Germany setting? The text wasn't changed to actually place the play in Germany - the setting just created an imaginary political setting which had specific references for us as the audience. Branagh chose a set design and costuming that was clearly from 19th Century Russia (check your history books for pictures of the Tzarist family in those days and the Russian architecture and palaces and such). I'm sure that Branagh had no intention of implying that it took place in Russia. Likely he was simply implying the kind of opulent luxury and decadence of Claudius's court against which Hamlet could remonstrate and compare that of his father as he does with the comparison between the two brothers in the closet scene. I'd be curious to see if there is a comment on the art design in the screenplay. I found it to be overdone. And if it was used for the purpose I suggested, then it was not a great choice, since it had only been a few months since the elder Hamlet's death, and even less than that since Claudius' marriage to Gertrude and his assumption to the throne. Changes that radical would hardly have had time to be accomplished. It did, however, give a beautiful image for the film and maybe that was his intention - it's part of what film directors do.

[Janine]

msdirector. Glad you were interested in my information about the screenplay. I can see where a play director would find it very helpful, indeed.

Thanks for all your explanations. I don't know much about the costuming, since I have not looked it up. Interesting. I suppose Branagh took poetic license in this aspect of the film. I will further research that aspect.

Soon a DVD transfer will be presented to the public for sale. Since the film was shot in 60 mm, the transfer has taken longer than expected. I have a site earmarked in "my favorites" about the fan campaign to have it released. It is suppose to include some interesting commentary by Branagh and hopefully this will include comments on set design and the reason it was set in the 19th Century. Branagh is a stickler for details, so I doubt he would overlook the actual history at that time. But we will see exactly what he was intending. Mostly I believe he is very intuitive with his art choices. He loves Shakepeare and the language and poetry and I think he did want to portray a light admostphere that Hamlet lived it and not one of morbidity. It greatly contrasts with the Olivier darker, misty version. Also, in that version the set is so stark and bare. Yes, Branagh has even written that he wanted his set to show the opulance and excesses of the court. But I don't agree with you that it is overdone at all. I don't find it at all distracting to the plot or the words. Branagh's luminous set contrasts nicely with the darker aspects of the tragedy. The floor especially interests me - it seems to mimic the the "dark and light", (good and evil) and symbolise the contrasts in the play quite affectively. I love the hall of mirrors - after all, isn't Hamlet continually examining himself, and others? It works perfectly for the spying scene with Hamlet's profound speech "To be or not to be..." Also mirrors mimic deception and false images and non reality.
True enough - Hamlet gives his good regards to Fortinbras. That part is peaceful. Both Princes highly respect each other at this point, which solidifies the ending for me. I do agree that prior to this scene I do find the constant breaks in the sword fight scene interrupt the momentum and the drama uncomfortably, thus distracting us with the scenes of the invading soldiers (spliced in between). Perhaps Branagh intented it to be unsettling at that moment, who knows? or disturbing. Some director want to throw the audience off balance, so many film makers like and use this device...not that it is the right choice here. I think it distracts somewhat.
Interesting to note that the opening scene in Branagh's film reveals the late King's statue morphing into the ghost. The end scene is also that of the King's statue, but now the ghost is layed to rest - in symbolism and in our own viseral perception. Everything comes full circle and is solved, in essense. Peace now reigns. The film is satisfying in this way.

[msdirector]

I love the hall of mirrors - after all, isn't Hamlet continually examining himself, and others? It works perfectly for the spying scene with Hamlet's profound speech "To be or not to be..." Also mirrors mimic deception and false images and non reality.

Oh, I definitely agree with this. I thought his use of the mirrors for the nunnery scene was brilliant. Not so much for any underlying thematic reasons or imagery, which of course is a valid observation, but more particularly, as a director, because of the wonderful staging of Hamlet apparently talking to himself reflected in the mirror and actually talking directly to Polonius and, more particularly, Claudius hiding behind it. It was a remarkably effective use of the set to create essentially a double meaning to everything he was saying. It was delightful, lending a sly intention to his speeches, something like a prisoner intentionally talking to the police on the other side of the mirror in the interrogation room by pretending to talk to himself while looking in the mirror. I actually applauded the scene when I saw it - in my own living room!

Interesting to note that the opening scene in Branagh's film reveals the late King's statue morphing into the ghost. The end scene is also that of the King's statue, but now the ghost is layed to rest - in symbolism and in our own viseral perception. Everything comes full circle and is solved, in essense. Peace now reigns. The film is satisfying in this way.

Ah... I had forgotten that. I guess after a more than four hour film it's easy to forget details of the beginning at the end. Well, then that makes a little more sense. It still doesn't make the ending feel effective to me, or justify the unnecessary invasion, but I do understand the imagery better now. Thanks for that. I think I'm going to have to watch the film again soon. It's been a while.

[Janine]

msdirector,

I just about know the film upside down, backwards and forwards! I am due for another viewing myself. I watch it every couple months. I have seen it about 10 times now, well maybe 6 or 7. I was fortunate enough to pick it up (two tape set) at a video store that was discontinuing their VHS tapes. It was in good condition and cost me - get this - 3 dollars! Sells used on Amazon for about $50 to $100. I have become Hamlet obsessed, and so far I thought it the best version out there. I have seen four versions so far. I soon will view the Jacobi version, which Virgil highly recommends. Jacobi's stage performance of Hamlet actually affected Branagh so deeply he knew that very night that he wanted to become an actor and play Hamlet someday. Branagh and Jabobi are great friends and when Branagh played Hamlet on stage for the very first time Jacobi send him his small precious copy of the play, inscribed. Branagh says he cherishes it to this day. Jacobi is a lovely person and a great actor.

If you go to the site "Kenneth Branagh Compendium" you might be able to dig up past articles or interview of Branagh explaining his motives and intentions for Hamlet. I am pretty sure I have read some before. For a play director this site would be greatly interesting. I am a big fan of the actor and also think he has been beaten down by his English public in the past decade. He was actually better received in the USA. But in London his plays have been a big success, especially of late. I suppose that the English mostly did not like his films. They thought he sold out to commercialism. Hey, the guy had to eat. Also, he did bring Shakepeare to the masses. He started a revival, and other directors followed in his footsteps. Anyway, he is certainly passionate about Shakespeare always. The site is set up by fans, not by Branagh himself, but it is well researched. It is a nice site....worthy of your time.

Asside from this, thanks again for your comments on my observations and thoughts. I am an artist, so I am highly interested in set design and I am a very visual person. I seem to, intuitively, relate to the way sets are used. I liked your comments on the mirrors. That added something more to my own thoughts. I aplauded, too! I was mesmerized by the mirror scene and still am. I also love the graveyard scene. I like his speech about Alexander ending as we all must. I like best the thoughful scenes with Hamlet examining his inner thoughts. B knows well how to use closeups and get the full range of emotions.

[Virgil]

Interesting to note that the opening scene in Branagh's film reveals the late King's statue morphing into the ghost. The end scene is also that of the King's statue, but now the ghost is layed to rest - in symbolism and in our own viseral perception. Everything comes full circle and is solved, in essense. Peace now reigns. The film is satisfying in this way.

See, even Branagh intuitively or perhaps consciously feels that Shakespeare's use of ghost is problemmattic. Do you hear that Regit and Shoutgrace? Even Branagh feels that the ghost motif requires resolution. But I need to admit that I now concede that Shakespeare's use of the ghost is justifiable aesthetically.

[msdirector]

msdirector,

I just about know the film upside down, backwards and forwards! I am due for another viewing myself. I watch it every couple months. I have seen it about 10 times now, well maybe 6 or 7. I was fortunate enough to pick it up (two tape set) at a video store that was discontinuing their VHS tapes. It was in good condition and cost me - get this - 3 dollars! Sells used on Amazon for about $50 to $100.

I've had the Branagh film on VHS practically since it came out, and I've watched it several times.

I have become Hamlet obsessed, and so far I thought it the best version out there. I have seen four versions so far. I soon will view the Jacobi version, which Virgil highly recommends. Jacobi's stage performance of Hamlet actually affected Branagh so deeply he knew that very night that he wanted to become an actor and play Hamlet someday. Branagh and Jabobi are great friends and when Branagh played Hamlet on stage for the very first time Jacobi send him his small precious copy of the play, inscribed. Branagh says he cherishes it to this day. Jacobi is a lovely person and a great actor.

I've been Hamlet obsessed for years. In fact, I have VHS or DVD recordings of almost every filmed production of Shakespeare's plays including some from the Ontario Stratford festival, almost all the BBC productions, and, I think, all but one Hamlet films including the lovely atmospheric Russian version. Hamlet is the focus of my Shakespeare studies, as you might have guessed, and I could talk on the subject for hours and hours (as my husband knows, to his dismay!).

I adore Derek Jacobi! I have just about everything that he has ever done that is available on tape or DVD or CD (his audio book readings are simply magical). His BBC Hamlet is by far my favorite. In fact, the first time I saw it I did something I never do - I wrote him a "fan letter" to let him know just how inspired I was by his performance. Imagine my astonishment when I received in the mail a hand written, hand addressed note from him thanking me for my letter and actually addressing some questions I had about his interpretation. I was just floored. He is, indeed, a real gentleman and one of the best actors I've ever seen. I even have two pages on my website dedicated to him - one is a tribute to him, a retrospective of his roles through the years; and the other is still shots of his BBC Hamlet along with the dialogue clips that go with them! Fun to make, fun to look at. You're welcome to visit the site and check it out. There should be a link to the pages on my homepage plus links on my "favorites" page. If the website link isn't on my profile page, let me know and I'll give it to you if you want to see it.

I'm aware of Jacobi's relationship as a mentor to Branagh. Have you seen their documentary film Discovering Hamlet? It's a wonderful look a the rehearsal process of Branagh's first performance as Hamlet with Jacobi directing for the Rennaissance Theatre Company. Much fun and they both discuss their relationship. I love that Branagh has "repaid" him over and over by casting him in almost all of his films.

If you go to the site "Kenneth Branagh Compendium" you might be able to dig up past articles or interview of Branagh explaining his motives and intentions for Hamlet. I am pretty sure I have read some before. For a play director this site would be greatly interesting. I am a big fan of the actor and also think he has been beaten down by his English public in the past decade. He was actually better received in the USA. But in London his plays have been a big success, especially of late. I suppose that the English mostly did not like his films. They thought he sold out to commercialism. Hey, the guy had to eat. Also, he did bring Shakepeare to the masses. He started a revival, and other directors followed in his footsteps. Anyway, he is certainly passionate about Shakespeare always. The site is set up by fans, not by Branagh himself, but it is well researched. It is a nice site....worthy of your time.

I will definitely check out his site. I have a whole collection of reviews and interviews with Derek Jacobi. It will be nice to see some of Branagh as well. Actually I like Branagh's work very much, and I have nothing against his doing commercial work. I loved his Much Ado About Nothing, Henry V, Dead Again, and really liked many others. He's been a real pioneer in bringing Shakespeare to the popular eye again.

[Virgil]

Arlene, what do you think of the BBC film of Hamlet starring Jacobi in the titled role? To me that is the classic, the version I base all others. And none have been better to me.