In recent years, adaptations have been taking the world by storm. Film adaptations of books are abundant with the releases of It (2017) based on Stephen King’s novel of the same name, The Twilight Saga based on Stephenie Meyer’s book series, and the countless Batman movies throughout the years. Similarly, television adaptations are also on rise, as seen with the syndication of numerous shows based on comic books such as The Flash, Arrow, and even Riverdale. Adaptations across different media dominate the entertainment industry. Even Shrek first started as a character in a children’s book before transforming into the star of a DreamWorks empire with four main film adaptations, numerous spin-off movies, two TV specials, and even a Broadway musical. Considering this, it is clear that adaptations are everywhere; but one must question whether or not an adaptation of a story can act as a replacement for the original. Although adaptations share the same basic story as the original, a director’s interpretation of the story and how he or she chooses to present it can alter how the story is digested by the audience. To exemplify this, one can look at the artistic liberties taken in the production of various Shakespeare adaptations, particularly those of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. When looking at how Shakespeare’s script for Hamlet has been translated on stage and in film, it is clear that directors’ choices, in conjunction with the capabilities of their respective media, heavily affect the meaning of the story. 

The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, colloquially referred to as simply Hamlet, is a tragedy by William Shakespeare depicting the trials and tribulations of a prince named Hamlet who seeks revenge on his uncle, Claudius. Claudius murdered his brother and Hamlet’s father, the King of Denmark, and married the consequentially widowed Queen in order to seize the throne. After meeting the ghost of his father, Hamlet discovers this and vows to avenge his father’s death, triggering himself to spiral into lunacy. Clouded by madness, Hamlet mistakenly kills Polonius, the father of his love interest Ophelia. As a result, Ophelia kills herself, and her brother Laertes vows to avenge her death. To do this, Laertes challenges Hamlet to a fencing match where he plans to murder him. Meanwhile, Claudius prepares a chalice of poisoned wine for Hamlet to drink at the match. These murder plots do not go as planned, however, for Hamlet’s mother unknowingly drinks the poison. Hamlet then kills Claudius, is struck by Laertes, and strikes Laertes in return, causing everyone to die in true Shakespearean fashion. Through the common theme of retribution and the eventual death of all of its main characters, Hamlet is a cautionary tale about how the desire for revenge can lead to insanity and overall doom. This main theme should be consistent within all Hamlet adaptations. However, conflicting interpretations of Shakespeare’s work and stylistic choices allow for different versions of the same story. A medium’s capability of illustrating information is especially important in how a story can be presented to an audience. A play, for example, is much more limited than a movie, and for this reason, the story of Hamlet becomes altered when being translated across these different media.  

Like most film and stage adaptations, the adaptations examined here were based on a text. However, in the case of Shakespeare, the text is the script which varies from a book in several ways- the most crucial one being it is not meant to be read on its own. In all fairness, one should not compare the script to the play or film, as it would be like comparing a sketch to a finished painting. Nevertheless, Shakespeare’s plays are read without watching them performed. Therefore, the script must be included in this analysis. Shakespeare has very few stage directions; thus, the story is told almost entirely through dialogue. A book generally includes descriptions of the setting that a script, especially Shakespeare’s scripts, lacks. Perhaps the space is mentioned at the beginning of the scene, but for the most part the reader’s imagination is allowed to design the space. Scripts do not often say the emotion in a line or character. In IV.v, the stage directions note that Ophelia enters distractedly. More direction than this is rarely given. Again, the reader must furnish this information themselves. Thoughts which would be shown on the face or in the movement of an actor can only be imagined. In short, the reader has the power to see the story play out how they want. The words give some guide; Gertrude (Hamlet’s mother) married Claudius (Hamlet’s uncle). Of that much one can be sure. However, whether they were in love, or it was a matter of business, or she did not want to get married at all is up to the reader’s discretion when left without tone, expression, and staging. 

There are productions put on that are meant to mimic the style common in Shakespeare’s time; however, most do not. The play referred to here was performed recently and directed by Peter Bloedel. Put on by Bethany Lutheran College, it understandably varied from how it would have been performed in the early seventeenth century. The cast was mixed gender with women playing female roles, and in one case, a male role. Shakespeare’s casts would have been all male. In Shakespeare’s time, plays would not have had as much control over the lighting even if they were performed indoors. This production employed lighting and sound to enhance the performance. Despite these differences, it had a similarly bare stage to how original Shakespeare plays would have been produced. The play is closer to how Shakespeare would have envisioned his work being performed than a film; however, it is not the same. 

Despite being a tragedy, Bloedel’s Hamlet is in some ways quite comedic. Several of the actors play up the humor in their role. The actor playing Polonius has a great deal of fun with the verbose self-important councillor. Hamlet also plays up the comic side of his madness. At times his madness is shown to be intentionally exaggerated to make sure Claudius does not suspect him. The play Hamlet uses to see if Claudius is guilty is also funny. An elaborately drawn on mustache and brightly colored clothes, in addition to the very exaggerated actions and expression, created a humorous prologue. This adaptation included the gravediggers dialogue before Hamlet joins them where one is posing riddles to the other. The two gravediggers work well together as a duo and their musing on life bring welcome levity at the top of the final act. Not all humor, there are intense moments in the play. Hamlet’s famous monologue “to be or not to be” is beautifully staged using levels and lights to give a melancholy atmosphere.  

There are many factors that differentiate a play from a film. The first, and in many ways most important, is the exchange of energy between the audience and the actors. Experiencing a story with a large group of people who are all reacting at the same time also occurs when watching films at the movie theater. However, the actors in a movie do not respond to the audience. No matter how much they appear to be looking straight out of the screen, they cannot see the audience. They gave their performance some time ago and what has been captured on the screen will remain that way forever. When watching live theater, the actors are reacting to the audience. Hamlet delivered part of a soliloquy sitting on the edge of the stage, almost in the audience’s lap. Every performance will be different as it is being created for the audience while they watch. Another key difference is the suspension of disbelief that occurs while watching a play. Films are expected to comply with reality in a way plays do not have to. Lighting need not be realistic and can be red during the duel and blue during Ophelia’s funeral to match the tone of the scene. An altar can be made using a spotlight. The setting need not be a castle; a bare stage with a few necessary props is all that is required. The audience allows this to occur without disrupting belief in the story. Scenes in plays tend to be longer as one can not jump around in space as easily as one can with a camera. They generally use characters and the relationships between people to drive the story because the plot is usually dialogue based and can rarely include big action sequences. There are no close ups on stage so the actors must act accordingly. A subtle performance could be lost on the back row so stage actors do not have to, and indeed should not, give entirely realistic performances. As a result, larger than life does not appear unrealistic.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM5zWItpSMc

Compared to plays, films are able to depict a wider scope of a story due to the various cinematic elements that directors have at their disposal. A film is able to shoot on location, change camera angles, and use nonverbal storytelling in order to get a message across to the audience. For example, in Franco Zeffirelli’s Hamlet (1990), panning shots of green fields and stone castles clearly establish the setting of the story, and close ups on actors’ faces allow for the audience to read the characters’ emotions and tone of the scene. Zeffirelli’s direction of his Hamlet adaptation differs from that of Michael Almereyda, who directed Hamlet (2000) set in modern-day. Almereyda chooses to establish the modern setting of his film with a written prologue, stating “New York City, 2000. The King and CEO of Denmark Corporation is dead.” Although these are two very different ways of establishing setting, both directors take advantage of the capabilities of their medium, as opposed to that of theatre, to depict the story they want to tell. In addition, they are able to present a nonlinear storyline whereas a play production of Hamlet is not. Shakespeare’s play opens with the castle’s watchmen seeing the ghost of Hamlet’s father. However, Almereyda’s version of Hamlet shows this encounter in a flashback later in the film and Zeffirelli decided not to include this scene at all. Furthermore, directors of film adaptations are able to cherry-pick the scenes they wish to include. Through the omission of some scenes and the addition of others, the directors tell the audience what aspect of the story is the most important. Whereas the original work never included a funeral for Hamlet’s father, both Hamlet films do, telling the audience that the death of Hamlet’s father is a key part of the story. In the same way, Almereyda’s underdevelopment of Ophelia’s storyline shows that her part of the story is not as important. A director also has the use of editing on his side. Visual effects, voiceovers, and scene changes add drama and interest to films and can help move the story along. This is seen in Almereyda’s film where CGI is used to make the spirit of Hamlet’s father more ghost-like and Hamlet speaks in a voiceover at times when he would be reciting a monologue on stage. Editing even allowed Almereyda to depict what was running through Ophelia’s head leading up to her suicide, exemplifying the utilization of nonverbal storytelling in film. All in all, each choice that a director makes affects the way a story is processed by a viewer. Considering this, it is the director’s job to utilize the abilities of cinematic storytelling to put forth the interpretation of the original work they wish to present.  

It would be amiss to say that the adaptations are not all Hamlet; they are. They follow the same story arc and use much of the same dialogue. Each character has the roughly the same path to walk, but how they do so is up to them. Each director and each actor interprets the story differently and highlights certain elements of the plot and character. There are countless choices made by the directors and actors which alter the interpretation of the story. The play that Hamlet uses to expose Claudius is one example. Almereyda turns the play into a silent film made by Hamlet. The images tell the story. Zeffirelli has a serious play that all the characters sit to watch. Bloedel has a very comedic prologue to the play, seeming closer to clowning. The three interpretations of that play serve the same purpose and get the same message across but do so in very different ways. The political side plot involving an attempt to reclaim lost lands is removed from Bloedel’s play, touched on in Zeffirelli’s adaptation, and is only important in Almereyda’s adaptation. The other directors did not consider this subplot important enough to include in detail. In Almereyda’s adaptation Claudius offers the poisoned wine to Hamlet and Gertrude takes it from his wine. Claudius’s line, “Gertrude, do not drink” (Hamlet V.ii.317) and the beginning of Gertrude’s line were cut out making her line “I pray you pardon me” (V.ii.318) imply that she knew the wine was poisoned. One must question why she waited so long to intervene and why she drank the wine instead of accusing Claudius if she knew about the poison. In both other adaptations, Gertrude takes the wine to celebrate Hamlet, oblivious to the danger. Each Hamlet gave very different performances and, had they not the same name and words, one might not think of them all as the same Hamlet. Similarly each Ophilia, each Gertrude, each Claudius, and each Laertes found different elements of the character to focus on resulting in very different people. Thus while all are versions of Hamlet they are very different interpretations and should be viewed as such.