meh. fell asleep while typing on the couch. here is what I had when I went to bed, I have a body paragraph and a half and a conclusion para to type. so its a day late, teacher likes me enough not to take points off:

Although Kenneth Branaugh’s movie Hamlet shares the same plot as the play, the difference in the genre greatly affects which messages and ideas are conveyed. Because the movie is able to show all the set details and can use “Hollywood tricks”, the viewer will pick up on different morals and lessons, or possibly none at all. In book format, however, the imagination often roams, and everything from movement to characters’ appearances are open to interpretation. Everyone will have a preference, and while neither is better than the other, they are extremely different.
The book and movie both share very similar plots, but they are not the same, since the movie took many liberties in terms of interpretation. As soon as the movie begins, a difference can be seen. In the movie, Bernardo attacks Francisco, because in the darkness he cannot tell if it was friend or foe. However in the book, there is only a hint towards hostility, by the line “Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself.” (I, i, 2). Obviously, the punctuation of the line does not invoke the image of tackling and shouting that the movie shows. Another major difference in the opening scene appears when the ghost enters the scene. In the movie, the ghost chases them and they run behind a wall, where most of the dialogue takes place. However, in the book, there are no stage directions for movement (I, i), so it can be interpreted as the characters retreating, or more likely, them holding their ground and having only a verbal interaction with the ghost upon its first visit with Horatio. But the most glaring difference is at the end of the story. In the movie, Fortinbras storms into the castle with his army, causing it to seem that it was a planned attack, while in the book, his entrance is much less military, as if it was a coup-de-tat, Fortinbras even makes the pacifist comment:

“This quarry cries on havoc. O proud Death,
What feast is toward in thine eternal cell
That thou so many princes at a shot
So bloodily hast struck? “(V, ii, 403-406)

Obviously this is an important scene, as it leaves the final impression. The movie version may convince someone that Fortinbras had possibly been involved in Claudius and Hamlet’s deaths, while the book’s vagueness works in its favor and leaves the reader thinking that Fortinbras was merely lucky. There are many more differences, multiple per scene in fact, but they are not so great as to call it a different story.


Because the script tells you what happens without showing you, the images are open to imagination and interpretation. A clear example emerges early in the story, when the ghost of King Hamlet appears. In the movie, you can clearly see what the ghost looks like, it is merely the king clad in dark armor, however, in the book, it is only described briefly and in little detail, by Bernardo by the lines “In the same figure like the King that’s dead.” (I, i, 48) and “Looks it not like the King?” (I, i, 50). The movies clear portrayal of the ghost closes many avenues of though, while the books open ended description allows the imagination to wander, as it does not set limits on the ghost’s deviation from a clear human form. This interpretation could have great effect, as it could affect ones thoughts on the reason for its intense intimidation of Hamlet, as well as the other characters who encounter it. This could change the attitude towards Hamlets later madness, as it may be thought of as having a different cause, and thus this minor detail can have a major effect. Another point when the story benefits from the book format appears when Polonius goes to the King and Queen with the letter that Hamlet wrote to Ophelia. In the book, Polonius reads the letter, but in the movie, he gives it to Ophelia, and when Julie Christie (Ophelia) reads the letter, she overacts terribly. Instead of making it seem that the letter has had great effect upon Ophelia, she only makes the scene seem cheap, and distances the audience from the character. However in book format, when Polonius reads it, it maintains the aura of formality that is present in the royal setting of the story.


that ends halfway through a paragraph, so whateva.

 

all body paragraphs done. now I gotta write a BS conclusion paragraph. meh, that should be 20 minutes. anyways, here is the paper, ignore whats above, that got prettymuch totally rewritten:

Although Kenneth Branaugh’s movie Hamlet shares the same plot as the play, the difference in the genre greatly affects which messages and ideas are conveyed. Because the movie is able to show all the set details and can use “Hollywood tricks”, the viewer will pick up on different morals and lessons, or possibly none at all. In book format, however, the imagination often roams, and everything from movement to characters’ appearances are open to interpretation. Everyone will have a preference, and while neither is better than the other, they are extremely different.
The book and movie both share very similar plots, but they are not the same, since the movie took many liberties in terms of interpretation. As soon as the movie begins, a difference can be seen. In the movie, Bernardo attacks Francisco, because in the darkness he cannot tell if it was friend or foe. However in the book, there is only a hint towards hostility, by the line “Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself.” (I, i, 2). Obviously, the punctuation of the line does not invoke the image of tackling and shouting that the movie shows. Another major difference in the opening scene appears when the ghost enters the scene. In the movie, the ghost chases them and they run behind a wall, where most of the dialogue takes place. However, in the book, there are no stage directions for movement (I, i), so it can be interpreted as the characters retreating, or more likely, them holding their ground and having only a verbal interaction with the ghost upon its first visit with Horatio. But the most glaring difference is at the end of the story. In the movie, Fortinbras storms into the castle with his army, causing it to seem that it was a planned attack, while in the book, his entrance is much less military, as if it was a coup-de-tat, Fortinbras even makes the pacifist comment:

“This quarry cries on havoc. O proud Death,
What feast is toward in thine eternal cell
That thou so many princes at a shot
So bloodily hast struck? “(V, ii, 403-406)

Obviously this is an important scene, as it leaves the final impression. The movie version may convince someone that Fortinbras had possibly been involved in Claudius and Hamlet’s deaths, while the book’s vagueness works in its favor and leaves the reader thinking that Fortinbras was merely lucky. There are many more differences, multiple per scene in fact, but they are not so great as to call it a different story.



Because the script tells you what happens without showing you, the images are open to imagination and interpretation. A clear example emerges early in the story, when the ghost of King Hamlet appears. In the movie, you can clearly see what the ghost looks like, it is merely the king clad in dark armor. However, in the book, it is only described briefly and in little detail, by Bernardo by the lines “In the same figure like the King that’s dead.” (I, i, 48) and “Looks it not like the King?” (I, i, 50). The movies clear portrayal of the ghost closes many avenues of though, while the books open ended description allows the imagination to wander, as it does not set limits on the ghost’s deviation from a clear human form. This interpretation could have great effect, as it could affect ones thoughts on the reason for its intense intimidation of Hamlet, as well as the other characters who encounter it. This could change the attitude towards Hamlets later madness, as it may be thought of as having a different cause, and thus this minor detail can have a major effect. Later, one of the most powerful deviations from the written form emerges when Hamlet chases his fathers spirit. In the book, Hamlet gives a speech (I, iv, 43-62) before giving chase to the ghost, while in the movie, he simply runs after the ghost, in a flashily edited, very “Hollywood” style scene, with fast cutaways and special effects. When Kenneth Branaugh decided to compose the scene as he did, he forced it to be thought of as dramatic and flamboyant, when it could be said that it would be much more tasteful as Hamlet simply walking down a path at an ordinary pace, after the spirit. This obviously sets a tone for the interaction between Hamlet and the ghost of his father, which has a prevailing effect as to why Hamlet is driven to madness by the specters visit.



In movie format, many issues arise, both good; not having to decode characters emotions, and bad; the flaws which are forced by portraying the story in any way besides pure words. An example of these flaws is when Polonius goes to the King and Queen with the letter that Hamlet wrote to Ophelia (II, ii, 116-). In the book, Polonius reads the letter, but in the movie, he gives it to Ophelia, and when Kate Winslet (Ophelia) reads the letter, she overacts terribly. Instead of making it seem that the letter has had great effect upon Ophelia, she only makes the scene seem cheap, and distances the audience from the character. However in book format, when Polonius reads it, it maintains the aura of formality that is present in the royal setting of the story. But it isn’t all bad, a good example of the benefits of the movie format is when Polonius and Hamlet talk in the fishmonger scene. When Polonius first approaches him and asks who he is and how he feels, Hamlet says “Excellent well. You are a fishmonger” (II, ii, 190), and after Polonius denies that he is a fishmonger, Hamlet replies “Then I would you were so honest a man.” (II, ii, 192). In these lines, it is very difficult to pick up any emotion from Hamlet, so being able to detect the inflection of voice and body language enhances the scene. Another important difference appears during and after Hamlets famous “To be or not to be” speech ( III, i, 64- ). Again, the focus in the movie is visual, instead of verbal as it was meant to be. Polonius and Claudius hide behind tapestry in the book, but in the movie it is behind a one way mirror, and Hamlet makes his speech directly to this mirror. The scene is edited and acted to seem as if he knows that they are behind the mirror. Also, when he is speaking to Ophelia, he runs around and opens all of the doors/mirrors and looks behind them, hinting again that he may know there was someone watching them. When he finally concludes his speech to Ophelia, he has her pressed against the mirror which Claudius and Polonius were hiding behind, and when they leave the secret room, he opens that door to see they are gone. All of this emphasis on the visual leads the observer in a different direction from what it was originally meant to, but weather it leads it in a good or bad direction is entirely dependant upon the viewer.

 

So while it is obvious that the medium which the story is told in effects how the story is understood, it is not obvious which version is best. I personally believe that like most things, Hamlet is best how it was originally created. Trying to make a book into a movie is like putting a Chevy engine into a Ford, it is possible to do, but it never really works. And it becomes clear that like in most things in life, it is better to leave something how it was meant to be than change it to please yourself and your personal tastes.

 

Well put!!

 

ok

 

dude, wtf, ur supposed to insult me. we are trying to make some entertainment for the people dude. tell me im too long winded, or I use too many "tion" words, or something. come on dude!